Massage Parlor Reports

[QUOTE=ReviewDork;5964881]1st Amendment would only cover "press" taking video or photos.[/QUOTE]That's not true. The freedom granted by the press clause would be more clearly stated "freedom of press" rather than "freedom of the press". That is, the freedom of all people to disseminate information without prosecution rather special privileges of some ill defined body that today would be all but impossible to discern. There's countless court cases showing both ends, that is protecting an individual's right to perform press activities and courts ruling against granting dedicated press organizations special privileges. The ONLY somewhat special privilege they have is that the government can use them as a proxy for the general public to meet public access obligations. For some examples, see Richmond newspapers v. Virginia and New York Times v. Sullivan.

LEO told him to get on somewhere to stop harassing and loitering at this one spa. He was doing it to many spas in Charlotte and caused a few to shutdown.

[QUOTE=ReviewDork;5964881]1st Amendment would only cover "press" taking video or photos. I think you thinking of the 1st Amendment as it applies to 1st Amendment Auditors (Youtube Press), cramming cameras in Uncle's face so they can get a quick lawsuit settlement. There is no law against taking pictures or videos of anyone in public, you have no expectation of privacy in public.[/QUOTE].

[QUOTE=Asdine246;5980914]That's not true. The freedom granted by the press clause would be more clearly stated "freedom of press" rather than "freedom of the press". That is, the freedom of all people to disseminate information without prosecution rather special privileges of some ill defined body that today would be all but impossible to discern. There's countless court cases showing both ends, that is protecting an individual's right to perform press activities and courts ruling against granting dedicated press organizations special privileges. The ONLY somewhat special privilege they have is that the government can use them as a proxy for the general public to meet public access obligations. For some examples, see Richmond newspapers v. Virginia and New York Times v. Sullivan.[/QUOTE]Interesting cites from 1964 and 1980. One involves the right of public officials to sue for defamation and the other involves a closed trial. As my 1st year Law professor would say, "Try harder. ".

[QUOTE=Asdine246;5980914]That's not true. The freedom granted by the press clause would be more clearly stated "freedom of press" rather than "freedom of the press". That is, the freedom of all people to disseminate information without prosecution rather special privileges of some ill defined body that today would be all but impossible to discern. There's countless court cases showing both ends, that is protecting an individual's right to perform press activities and courts ruling against granting dedicated press organizations special privileges. The ONLY somewhat special privilege they have is that the government can use them as a proxy for the general public to meet public access obligations. For some examples, see Richmond newspapers v. Virginia and New York Times v. Sullivan.[/QUOTE]A great example of this would be "video voyeurism" or "upskirts". Does the 1st Amendment protect this activity? What if the stated goal was information dissemination? "Legal" in some states and strictly prohibited in others.

[QUOTE=ReviewDork;5992868]A great example of this would be "video voyeurism" or "upskirts". Does the 1st Amendment protect this activity? What if the stated goal was information dissemination? "Legal" in some states and strictly prohibited in others.[/QUOTE]A great example of what exactly? It has nothing to do with what I said. My entire post was about the differentiation you made between "press" and the general public, when legally there is pretty much none. This is completely irrelevant. But to answer the question anyways: Yes. No. Maybe. Different municipalities have different laws because of their interpretation of how rights apply. Any one of them could be wrong in their interpretation, which is what a federal court would decide. Until then, though, separate courts will make separate rulings. If you went to law school, I really shouldn't have to explain the appellate court system to you.

[QUOTE=ReviewDork;5992834]Interesting cites from 1964 and 1980. One involves the right of public officials to sue for defamation and the other involves a closed trial. As my 1st year Law professor would say, "Try harder. ".[/QUOTE]Try harder indeed. If you actually took the time to understand the cases (which again you really should already know these if you went to law school) instead of skimming a Wikipedia article, I wouldn't have to hand feed you the relevance of the cases. But alas here we are. In the New York case, it wasn't just "press" being sued, it was also four other individuals. The ruling was a dismissal for all claims under the same reasoning. That is, the press clause explicitly protected the formal press organization as well as the individuals. In the Virginia case, while it was the Newspapers suing, the judge ultimately ruled in their favor under the reasoning that the PUBLIC has a constitutional right to observe trials under the press clause. QED press rights are public rights. I mean, in Pell v. Procunier it is outright stated by the Supreme Court that the media has no greater right of access than the general public.

This is a basic, long standing principle with countless examples. And all you have is a baseless assertion other, not ever bothering to try and provide any proof yourself. I really hope you didn't make it through law school.

Can we stop posting all this law shit. I come here for information on were to look to get laid not to read you guys interpretation of laws. If you get a hard on for laws look into getting this hobby legal.

[QUOTE=AllHandsOnDick;5995662]Can we stop posting all this law shit. I come here for information on were to look to get laid not to read you guys interpretation of laws. If you get a hard on for laws look into getting this hobby legal.[/QUOTE]I was beginning to think I had to go to law school to play. Thanks for getting us back on topic.

Stopped in there this week for the second time in a month. Nice clean spot and Mai is the lady to see. Removes her shirt to start our session and proceeds to rub her ample breast in my face for a good 10 minutes. So so massage but a does a nice finish. Will definitely recommend and repeat.

Stopped by Ha Ha Spa for the second time this week. They have a nice clean location. Rachel is the lady to see. Speaks good English, lots of OTC top and bottom UTC teasing for the top. The massage is OK but she has a nice set of D's and rubs my face in them for 5 minutes to start. Talks dirty and takes her time. She expects an $60 tip on top of price of the massage. Would recommend and will continue to repeat.

Went to Ha Ha again yesterday. Second time this week saw Rachel. Starts out by pulling her shirt up and rubbing her ample D cup breast in my face for 5 minutes. Lots of teasing, OTC top and bottom UTC. The Massage is ok I like that she talks dirty and takes her time for the happy ending. Clean place and cost was $80 for the house and $60 tip. Will continue to repeat and recommend.

Visiting this area this weekend. Pulled into where this place is according to Google. Parked near hemp shop to watch for a few minutes as I always do. Noticed a decked out charger with darker windows with a shaved head gentlemen sitting in it. He was close enough to see but far enough away to not be noticed if you didn't turn in by the hemp shop. May be nothing. But I did not partake.

[QUOTE=AverageJon;6008090]Went to Ha Ha again yesterday. Second time this week saw Rachel. Starts out by pulling her shirt up and rubbing her ample D cup breast in my face for 5 minutes. Lots of teasing, OTC top and bottom UTC. The Massage is ok I like that she talks dirty and takes her time for the happy ending. Clean place and cost was $80 for the house and $60 tip. Will continue to repeat and recommend.[/QUOTE]Interesting series of reports there.

[QUOTE=ReviewDork;6010511]Interesting series of reports there.[/QUOTE]The poster has only 3 posts to his name and they are repeats of this same post.

[QUOTE=NCHobbyist69;6010845]The poster has only 3 posts to his name and they are repeats of this same post.[/QUOTE]Yeah, I used to frequent haha. NEVER got that treatment. LOL.

[QUOTE=Caster1;6010922]Yeah, I used to frequent haha. NEVER got that treatment. LOL.[/QUOTE]I saw that the other day. I did not buy it LOL. I know a guy that is very honest great guy. That told me about the first time they open the lady working the from had very big tits. She fucked him. He said it was very odd because he didn't see it going that way. He said he felt like she just had a urge to do it. I tried and didn't get anything from her. He went back and didn't get anything either so maybe he was just lucky. But as of them post I would not believe it.