In “part of an ongoing AP effort to fact-check claims in suspected false news stories” ABC News posted The Associated Press’ AP FACT CHECK: Child Prostitution Not Legal in California,” ABC News, January 11, 2017 AD.
By the way ABC, this may be part of the #fakenews problem: you do not do your own journalism, reporting or fact-checkin on this issue but merely copy and paste what, like, ever they say and stuff.
The AP story notes, “A widely shared story that claims California has legalized child prostitution is false…a false column written by a Republican state lawmaker…Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, wrote that ‘beginning on Jan. 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right.’”
We heard that right—or did we?
The claim was “prostitution by minors will be legal in California” but the AP smashes that #fakenews and corrects it by pointing out that “The bill…decriminalizes prostitution for minors. Minors cannot be arrested for the act, but can be taken into temporary custody.”
Claim: “prostitution by minors will be legal in California.”
Counterclaim: “decriminalizes prostitution for minors.”
Thus, apparently the distinction is between the term “legal” and “decriminalizes.” Well, legal means well, not illegal and to decriminalize means to cease by legislation to treat (something) as illegal. So the difference is very slight to the effect that prostitution by minors will be cease by legislation to be illegal in California which is not quite legal but just shy of it.
This seems more like a semantic issue than a litigious one at least as far as ABC/AP vs. Travis Allen (and common sense) is concerned.
I will say that an Assemblyman should be more accurate in his statements—or, should we call Allen a non-gender-specific-Assembly-personage?
The bill in question is Senate Bill No. 1322, chapter 654 specifically which act to amend Sections 647 and 653.22 of the Penal Code, relating to minors.
Within the context of “Commercial sex acts: minors” it states:
Existing law makes it a crime to solicit or engage in any act of prostitution…This bill would make the above provisions inapplicable to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct that would, if committed by an adult, violate the above provisions. The bill would authorize the minor to be taken into temporary custody under limited circumstances…
SECTION 1. Section 647 of the Penal Code is amended to read: 647. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) and subdivision (l), every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (a) Who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in any public place or in any place open to the public or exposed to public view. (b) (1) Who solicits or who agrees to engage in or who engages in any act of prostitution…regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the specific intent to engage in prostitution…
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), this subdivision does not apply to a child under 18 years of age who is alleged to have engaged in conduct to receive money or other consideration that would, if committed by an adult, violate this subdivision. A commercially exploited child…may be taken into temporary custody…if the conditions allowing temporary custody without warrant are met.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.