That's good. I'm glad to hear it, because it's been my position to charge the johns for a long time. I know that they've tried it in some countries, not as part of the law, but as a voluntary thing.
I was in Italy a few years back—because I go back and forth quite a bit—and they had a system. But as my colleague was saying, the men who make the rules were being identified, and they happened to be the guys with money, so they have the influence. They said, well, we can't. But they weren't being criminalized; they were simply being identified publicly. Of course they killed that program pretty fast, because the influence was, why are we being identified? We have the power, right?
It doesn't work if it's voluntary, and that's the other thing I wanted to say.
When I flip channels and watch a late program, I'm really bothered by the girls suggestively...the infomercials. I don't see that as having any place whatsoever on my screen; I don't care what time of day it is. It's not even a soft porn movie with some sort of connecting story. It's just call–I want your input on that.
That's two questions. Is that the thin edge of the wedge, or maybe we can't go after it?
The other question concerns that as some of our witnesses said, the problem of charging is the claim that it's consensual. How would you deal with the issue of consensual versus non-consensual in court, if a man is saying yes, this was–?