Yes, he was guilty. Johnson regularly consorted with **********s, traveled across state lines with **********s, 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.
Does anybody believe that Jack Johnson....
Collapse
-
Yes, he was guilty. Johnson regularly consorted with **********s, traveled across state lines with **********s, 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
-
watched unforgivable blackness on netflix they never said hewas a pimp but he ran ran establishments that had prostitution.Comment
-
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 **********s, 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
-
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 **********s, 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
-
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 **********s, 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
-
If you get the chance read Randy Roberts book as well. Papa Jack.Comment
-
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 **********s, 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
-
I'm sure they did, but Johnson's behaviour made it a lot easier for them.Comment
-
It was. The second floor was a whorehouse. If he was running **********s 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.
Johnson having a motel upstairs is not the same as being a pimp or madam.Comment
Comment