Did the Supreme Court Accidentally End Up Legalizing Prostitution? (Video)

jamie-raskinI bet those 5 conservative justices on the Supreme Court who continue to sell out our election process to big corporations and the richest among us didn’t see this coming.  Then again, when they ruled that money equaled speech they really should have known that this might open up a can of worms.

Take for instance law professor Jamie Raskin who argued in front of senators that if money equates to speech, then prostitution should be legal.  You know, considering that “speech” (aka money and how we spend it) is now protected by our First Amendment.

“Your other point though about money not equaling speech is a critical point for people to understand,” Raskin said. “There are lots of forms of purchase and exchange that we criminalize, for example, buying sex. We don’t say if someone wants to purchase the services of a prostitute, well that is just an expression of their speech.”

He also argued that revoking these laws that seek to prohibit bribery are vital for our government.

Raskin said, “And it’s not clear in their position why, after all, if I just feel very strongly about an issue and I want to give you a thousand dollars or a million dollars to go my way, why shouldn’t you be able to accept it?”

“I think it is because we believe that within the governmental process and electoral process there are right reasons for those who hold public office to make decisions and there are wrong reasons.  And a wrong reason is the money you are either going to put into your pocket or huge amounts of money that you’re going to put into your campaign” he continued.

And while he’s absolutely right about these rulings making it easier than ever for big corporations and the rich to buy off and bribe our elected officials, I loved the point he made about prostitution.

Not so much prostitution itself, but the fact that if money is now speech, essentially anything someone wants to buy should now be protected by our First Amendment, right?

After all, isn’t it “an American’s right” to buy sex with their “speech” if they so please?  Again, money is no longer money – it’s speech.  So you’re technically not “buying sex,” you’re using your First Amendment rights to acquire services.

But that’s the argument this Supreme Court has now allowed to be used in court.  If someone is using money to break the law, it could be unconstitutional to charge them with a crime.

Because this Supreme Court, more specifically its 5 conservative judges, have told this entire country that money (and what you do with it) is now protected by the First Amendment.

Watch Raskin’s comments below:

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • Steve Temke

    Great concept. It’s hard to ignore this argument. I wonder if we’ll hear any comment from one of the five conservative justices?

  • SmallBizOwner2

    Someone needs to argue that all the way to the Supreme Court!

  • MLR

    I’m glad he’s making that argument since I’m still hoping that these 5 supreme court justices will realize what a mistake they made. And by the way, I know not many people agree but I believe prostitution should be legal. I don’t believe we should be legislating certain behaviors between two consenting adults. We were not founded as a Christian nation. Prostitution has been around since biblical times and it’s not going to go away no matter how many laws we pass making it illegal or how harsh the laws are. All these laws do is hurt women (or men) and allow the spread of disease. Look at Colombia, if a John tries to rip off a prostitute she can call the cops on him and make him pay. I say we legalize it, tax it and regulate it. And let’s all stop being hypocrites, especially you men. If the demand wasn’t there, prostitution would not exist.

  • Jim Bean

    Why is it that those who always argue its unfair for the wealthy to make large contributions never argue that all contributions, regardless of source, should be divided equitably among all candidates? Makes me suspect the Left is really up to no good.

    • Charles Vincent

      Because you are only choosing between two factions of the same party.

    • FD Brian

      so you think George Soros should be able to give as much as he wants?

      • Jim Bean

        Yes, as long as its divided equally among all candidates. Bear in mind that the Dems have the entire national treasury at their disposal for their campaigns because they are always promising to give people money from it if they vote for them. If there is unfair advantage being taken in elections, this is it.

      • FD Brian

        and the republicans were different in that regard when they came up with the unfunded Medicare Part D? Republicans are handing out money left and right as well.

  • FD Brian

    Like Charlie Sheen says “I don’t pay them for sex. I pay them to leave.”