At 06:45 PM 8/22/00 -0400, Ulf M�ller wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 10:19:13PM -0700, Lizard wrote:
>
>> "The court rejected claims by a north German firm offering live online sex
>> chats that the immorality of the work done
>> by its staff should exempt the company from having to pay social
>> security contributions for them."
>>
>> Please note -- the company EMPLOYING the workers is arguing the job is
>> immoral! I find this so mind-bogglingly incomprehensible that, at last, I
>> understand how the Germans could have thought that Schickelgruber guy was
>> probably a good candidate to hold elected office...
>
>There is a provision in German law that bars the government from
>enforcing "immoral" contracts. Are you sure it would never have
>occured to an American lawyer to make use of that law if it existed in
>the US? :)
>
To the best of my knowledge, this provision (and similair ones in many
nations, including, I think, the US) are used on contracts which 'shock the
conscience' -- for example, someone signing up to be tortured to death in a
religious ritual. I don't think talking naughty on the Internet is in the
same category...
>Anyway, this is not really about sex workers' rights, but about people
>who sign up to do work as self-employed contractors and then sue to
>have their contracts converted into permanent employment.
>
That's a somewhat different issue, but without knowing the full terms, I
can't comment on it.
