Talk:Mann Act/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stated Intent

Was the stated intent so broad and vague as to state "immorality" without any additional information or adjectives or modifiers? Prostitution is fairly well defined; "human trafficing" is fairly well defined; "immorality" is general; would it not be more accurate to state "or any sexual acts considered(at the time) to be immoral"? It wasn't to stop immoral acts like, say, perjury or stealing a loaf of bread, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harel (talk • contribs) 01:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Mann Act

With regard to the second ¶: Jack Johnson's own page on Wikipedia contains no mention of his having married Belle Schreiber, the woman who was the object of his prosecution under the Mann Act. In fact, according to that same entry, Johnson was married to (white) Lucille Cameron from about 1911 until she divorced him for infidelity in 1924. Then he married Irene Pineau in 1925 and she outlived him. Oh, and Johnson sent Schreiber a train ticket from Pittsburg to Chicago, which was the act that was prosecuted; he didn't just "encourage" her. Dick Kimball (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the fourth ¶: This seems to contradict the sections entitled "Politics" and "McCarthy era" on Charlie Chaplin's own entry in Wikipedia. He didn't move to Switzerland bercause he was unpopular with the public. He was a British citizen and the government (read J. Edgar Hoover) revoked his reentry permit. Dick Kimball (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Still on the books?

If not, when was it repealed? --kingboyk 15:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Still on the books

The Mann Act has never been repealed, but it has been substantially amended in recent years. In 1978, Congress updated the definition of "transportation" in the act, and added protection for minors of either sex against commercial sexual exploitation. A 1986 amendment further protected minors and added protection for adult males, and replaced "debauchery" and "any other immoral purpose" with "any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense."

From http://www.pbs.org/unforgivableblackness/knockout/mann.html

The practical upshot of this is that since 1986 it is now legal for unmarried potential lovers to go from a state where they cannot consent to one where they can. (e.g. an adult and a 16 year old to hop the California/Nevada border so they can have sex) Before that amendment, the guy would usually be charged under the old "any other immoral purpose" provision. Now either the person has to be under the destination states age, or be given money for it for it to be illegal. (You still can't hop into nevada to be able to legally pay the woman for sex.) Going the reverse direction (from a place where the sex is legal to one where it is not) still allows them to tack this one on, in addition to the stauatory rape law in the destination state. 71.193.11.72 (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If even 10% of American men doing the things described in this act, going to be sentenced, United States would have to more than double its numbers of prisions today.Agre22 (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Eliot Spitzer

Eliot Spitzer has not yet been prosecuted for violating the Mann act. Therefore I'm removing the link to his article. If and when the Justice Department decides to prosecute him then his name can be put back. Dr. Morbius (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

According to Scott Horton (http://harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-95002589), "(2) The prosecution is opened under the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910." Finding good sources is difficult right now but I have a feeling this page will be very relevant soon. --24.150.127.2 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed again. He hasn't yet been charged with this. (Although the evidence suggests that he could be) The ref added stated that 4 others had been charged under the Mann act, but he hasn't, as of yet. --140.180.129.20 (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to sign in. That was me. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that this article does not explain what the focus of the act was at the time. Making White Slavery illegal in 1910 seems somewhat moot because of Amendments 13 and 14, passed after the Civil War. So was this law created to prevent whites from being sharecroppers or indentured servants, prostitution, or what? This article needs to be further clarified in this respect. [User:Deuce1980|Deuce1980] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deuce1980 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution only restricts the power of government not individuals. The Mann Act was passed to punish individuals for engaging in "white slavery" and prostitution. This law is rarely used. Usually it's used to punish especially violent criminals like Charles Manson to make sure they spend a lot of time in prison. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Article does not support lead

The article is confusing, as the history does not tell anything about what the intent of passing the act was. Also, the history and cases noted do not seem to support the remarks by the historian quoted in the lead, who related the law to Jim Crow. What are examples of enforcement that support her statement? It needs more than citations. --Parkwells (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This act remains in law books?

If this act remains in law books?If yes, then many people must be arrested in United States.Agre22 (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

This act was created by eugenics movement

The article forgets, this act was created by eugenicists.There's no coincidence in the fact, that this act was used against colored people ( Jack Johnson , Chuck Berry , etc.) and powerless people.Agre22 (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

Wouldn't a source need to be cited to place such into the article? It may very well be there were racist reasons for the Mann act initially (Although I have no idea of the history of the law in question before it was made law) but again even though I am "n00bish" when it comes to Wikipedia edits, I do know a source for such would need to be cited. 69.76.14.139 (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Does no one else see a tone problem with the beginning of the "Prosecutions" section ("For all its high-minded claims, the most common use of the Mann Act was to prosecute men for having sex with underage women.[7] It was also used to harass others who had drawn the authorities' wrath for "immoral" behavior.")?

The section appears biased, the second part is not cited, and is strictly opinion; An alternative opinion would read: "The most common use of the Act was to prosecute pedophiles and to prosecute those who engaged in criminal acts involving sexual activity." The neutrailty is beyond dispute; the offesive (weasel words) sentences should be removed. (BTW, they should NOT be replaced with teh example I gave; it's no less biased just becasue I said it, I just flipped it on it's head as an example.) 174.25.104.203 (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)A REDDSON

Biography of Living Persons

Whoops, I didn't mean to put a semicolon in my edit summary, I mean to put a colon in like this... WP:BLP Please respect that policy in this article. Banaticus (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Notable Individuals"

I removed this section, because there were no citations (other than Johnson, previously mentioned) and there were several living persons on it, most of which I am pretty sure have not been prosecuted under the Mann Act. (I'm fairly sure I'd've heard about it if George W. Bush had been, for example...) If it's returned, nobody should be on it who's not cited. Should be easy enough, as it's hardly a minor biographical detail. 68.50.240.134 (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

This is getting silly. Michael Jackson WAS NOT PROSECUTED UNDER THE MANN ACT. An anon editor keeps trying to claim this with a bogus citation. I don't know how to be more clear that the citation does not support the claim (I wouldn't call it a reliable source either, but that's a different issue). --CAVincent (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a long term vandal, just revert and report. - MrOllie (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I protected it again, this is just stupid, using communist propaganda as a source? And as you say it doesn't even back up this ludicrous claim. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added this page to my watchlist by the way, so I'll be keeping an eye out after the protection expires, but if I'm not around just report at RPP again. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop removing the citation that supports Michael Jackson's conviction under the Mann Act. I've provided sufficient evidence and a good source that, I feel, supports the addition to this page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.169.109 (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not having this idiotic debate with you. You cannot use political propaganda as a source, and it doesn't even say what you claim it does anyway. I have protected the article again to prevent this disruptive editing. Don't like it? Feel free to pursue any form of dispute resolution you like. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The SBDA contacted the FBI for a request to use the Mann Act against Jackson. The result was that the US Attorney denied the request, but would help the SBDA and LAPD in other ways.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/12/22/michael.jackson.fbi/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethiopiashimsham (talk • contribs) 04:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing that source, it makes it perfectly clear that the FBI considered and rejected any Mann Act prosecution of Mr. Jackson and did not seriously consider basing their investigations of him on the Mann act. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And it's been added back with the commie propaganda as a source today. At this point this is basically a case of long term abuse. I have created an edit notice that will be visible to anyone trying to edit this page in the future. This has gone on way to long. Anyone re-adding this info will be considered a vandal and will be reverted and blocked on sight. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

- Look, I've read over the source article that everyone has had such great difficulty with, calling it "commie." That isn't fair to other opinions of the subject matter, I believe that the source material supports a conviction of Michael Jackson on the basis of the source provided via the Mann Act. I'd kindly ask you to stop reverting the change and allow a source to have its chance. Thank you.

This is just flat out bullshit. The source doesn't even make the claim that Jackson was convicted under the Mann Act. --CAVincent (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that is an accurate description. There is no point in arguing with a thick-headed long term vandal like the person who keeps making this ridiculous claim, just WP:RBI. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Fictional References to the Mann Act

A film that is a guilty pleasure of mine, "Smokey and the Bandit" has the character of Beauford T. Justice mention that he is chasing "The Bandit" in part due to violations of The Mann act. (As an aside he's really just chasing him because the girl in Bandit's car left Justice's son at the altar and ditched her own wedding but I digress) I'm wondering if it would be proper to mention this and other mentions of the act in fiction and pop culture? I didn't add anything in the article, I do think this should be discussed first.

As an aside the reason I did post this is I was unfamiliar with the specifics of it, I only knew of alleged pedophiles being cited under the Mann Act for transporting a minor across state lines for an immoral purpose. Thus I came to the Wikipedia entry to see how the character of the Bandit could possibly be accused of the Mann Act by the character of Sheriff Justice when both The Bandit and "Frog", the girl whom is travelling with him are obviously adults in the film. 69.76.14.139 (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say that any information on this belongs in the Smokey and the Bandit article, since it is a completely fictitious and probably inaccurate portrayal. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)