Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does anybody believe that Jack Johnson....

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Yes, he was guilty. Johnson regularly consorted with prostitutes, traveled across state lines with prostitutes, pimped them out of his Chicago restaurant, loaned one the money to set up her own whorehouse and married at least one of them. He was exactly the kind of person the Mann Act was targeting.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Kid McCoy View Post
      Yes, he was guilty. Johnson regularly consorted with prostitutes, traveled across state lines with prostitutes, pimped them out of his Chicago restaurant, loaned one the money to set up her own whorehouse and married at least one of them. He was exactly the kind of person the Mann Act was targeting.
      ^^^ none of this stuff was actually illegal though, aside from the pimping. and there is no proof that he was a pimp in all that i have read.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Timothy Horton View Post
        ^^^ none of this stuff was actually illegal though, aside from the pimping. and there is no proof that he was a pimp in all that i have read.
        watched unforgivable blackness on netflix they never said hewas a pimp but he ran ran establishments that had prostitution.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Timothy Horton View Post
          ^^^ none of this stuff was actually illegal though, aside from the pimping. and there is no proof that he was a pimp in all that i have read.
          Johnson's restaurant in Chicago doubled up as a whorehouse. What with that and all his other behaviour, he was a pimp by most definitions. If there's a law designed to stop the interstate trafficking of women for immoral purposes and you have a man who's traveling around the country with prostitutes, and also owns and operates a whorehouse, then he's guilty of violating the Mann Act. You can argue about whether such a law was justified in the first place, but by the letter of that law, he was guilty.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Kid McCoy View Post
            Johnson's restaurant in Chicago doubled up as a whorehouse. If there's a law designed to stop the interstate trafficking of women for immoral purposes and you have a man who's traveling around the country with prostitutes, and also owns and operates a whorehouse, then he's guilty of violating the Mann Act. You can argue about whether such a law was justified in the first place, but by the letter of that law, he was guilty.
            The Champion's cafe was not a whorehouse. Not from my understanding anyway....

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by Kid McCoy View Post
              Johnson's restaurant in Chicago doubled up as a whorehouse. What with that and all his other behaviour, he was a pimp by most definitions. If there's a law designed to stop the interstate trafficking of women for immoral purposes and you have a man who's traveling around the country with prostitutes, and also owns and operates a whorehouse, then he's guilty of violating the Mann Act. You can argue about whether such a law was justified in the first place, but by the letter of that law, he was guilty.
              i think that they just want the loud mouth black champ gone

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Mannie Phresh View Post
                watched unforgivable blackness on netflix they never said hewas a pimp but he ran ran establishments that had prostitution.
                I thought it was more that he allowed prostitutes in - it's not really Johnson's fault if hookers are plying their trade. I kind of think Johnson cared just about the money that these types of women would generate. I do not believe that these women were paying him to use the establishment for prostitution - if they were Johnson would have been a pimp.

                If you get the chance read Randy Roberts book as well. Papa Jack.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Kid McCoy View Post
                  Johnson's restaurant in Chicago doubled up as a whorehouse. What with that and all his other behaviour, he was a pimp by most definitions. If there's a law designed to stop the interstate trafficking of women for immoral purposes and you have a man who's traveling around the country with prostitutes, and also owns and operates a whorehouse, then he's guilty of violating the Mann Act. You can argue about whether such a law was justified in the first place, but by the letter of that law, he was guilty.
                  and from all of the accounts i have seen or read, we was not profiting directly from prostitution (as the Act states that you have to) and thus could not have been a pimp. The Roberts' book went into The Mann Act pretty extensively.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Timothy Horton View Post
                    The Champion's cafe was not a whorehouse. Not from my understanding anyway....
                    It was. The second floor was a whorehouse. If he was running prostitutes out of his own establishment, I don't really see how he wasn't profiting from it. And you didn't have to profit financially in order to be violate the act, it just concerns the transportation of women for "immoral purposes". The first two men charged under the act had done nothing more than take their girlfriends away for a holiday.

                    Originally posted by Mannie Phresh View Post
                    i think that they just want the loud mouth black champ gone
                    I'm sure they did, but Johnson's behaviour made it a lot easier for them.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Kid McCoy View Post
                      It was. The second floor was a whorehouse. If he was running prostitutes out of his own establishment, I don't really see how he wasn't profiting from it. And you didn't have to profit financially in order to be violate the act, it just concerns the transportation of women for "immoral purposes". The first two men charged under the act had done nothing more than take their girlfriends away for a holiday.



                      I'm sure they did, but Johnson's behaviour made it a lot easier for them.
                      am going to try and find some quotes - the original reason was to stop interstate trafficking of prostitutes, namely those brought into the country, just traveling with hookers isn't the same.

                      Johnson having a motel upstairs is not the same as being a pimp or madam.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP