California MRAs

chavelah · 2012-10-07T18:58:24+00:00

This law is bullshit. I believe that sex trafficking is a real problem, but violating the civil rights of American citizens who have paid their debt to society is not an ethically acceptable course of action. Not to mention all the public-urinators and high-school-girlfriend-fuckers who are in no way involved with human trafficking and certainly don't deserve to be Internet-stalked by the government.

zyk0s · 2012-10-07T21:24:46+00:00

When you're presented with a law that aims to curb X, the first thing you have to ask yourself is, is X presently legal? If not, then why do we need a specialized law to make it "more illegal"?

Sometimes, the "more illegal" is legitimate. Say we have a place where drunk driving is illegal, but gets you a fine and a couple demerit points, and you're clear to go. In that hypothetical place, drunk driving kills at a much higher rate than the national average. A bill that pushes for more restrictions on convicted drunk drivers would probably make a lot of sense.

But then you have laws like VAWA, or the new French anti-catcalling law, whose stated aim is to "reduce sexual harassment". Is beating women or sexually harassing them legal? Of course not! But these laws use an appeal to emotion to silence any opposition and pass their agenda undetected. The patriot act worked the same way.

So ask yourself, is human trafficking legal? Is there an epidemic of it? Why are these restrictions necessary, and will they help? At this point, you can probably see that Prop 35 is frivolous. If you now start asking yourself who will profit from this law, then you're in for some fun!

LittleRedHeadedLady · 2012-10-07T18:25:17+00:00

"Sex trafficking" doesn't even really exist in the USA. It is hard to explain briefly how severely the "Sex trafficking" problem is exaggerated in the west. This law will just mean prostitutes and their husbands and friends will be blacklisted and harassed for life.

A start: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/v101/n4/1014_1337.Weitzer.pdf

rightsbot · 2012-10-07T16:08:17+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

mythin · 2012-10-08T20:19:35+00:00

Of all the complaints I've had to argue against for prop 35, this is the first one that is actually valid based on the reading of the proposition text.

A list of any and all Internet identifiers established or used by the person.

Specifically, it does not

Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities.

It specifically requires those who are registered based on that specific Act to disclose those things. If you are a registered sex offender due to anything other than human trafficking, this does not apply to you.

I still don't like it. I don't like the sex offender registry at all. But let's not go into hyperbole when talking about stuff.

edit: Actually, reading through it, I'm not positive. I'd have to check the penal code itself, which I don't have time, to see if it's referring to all registered sex offenders or only those registered due to human trafficking.

Here's the full text. _Underlined text_ is being added to the California Penal Code. ~Strikethrough text~ is being removed. Plain text is unchanged (already in the California Penal Code).

irishsnowday · 2012-10-07T17:36:51+00:00

"Increased costs, not likely to exceed a couple million dollars annually, to state and local governments for criminal justice activities related to the prosecution and incarceration of human trafficking offenders."

This right here tells you how big human trafficking really is in CA. It tells you how much it actually roughly occurs. If the cost is only going to rise a little bit, then I don't believe it really occurs a whole lot at all.

OR that the ability for this bill to actually stop human trafficking would be ineffective. In this case, its yet another waste of money.

So i'll be voting no myself.

fondueguy · 2012-10-07T17:39:23+00:00

My question is this, doesn't this seem like even more strict punishment on those who falsely were put on the SR.

For one, SR is wayyy to much of a catch all (crimes), but all of them are treated as disgusting villains. The other issue is cruel or excessive punishment. How long should rightfully guilty people be black listed, and essentially ostracized, in society?

2012-10-07T16:34:12+00:00

Vote no. It's just another Big Brother law like SOPA.

Laws never stop human trafficking, and your country needs some more sane immigration laws so that Mexicans can become citizens easily.

Chris Kell is the main financier of the bill, and he is a Democrat, so he's part of the Misandry Party of America.

Title	California MRAs
Author	CptSeaCow
Upvotes	27
Comments	35
Date	October 7, 2012 4:07 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/113akd/california_mras/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/california-mras.1011878 https://theredarchive.com/post/1011878

Comments