Amber Taylor, Todd Zywicki, Pejman Yousefzadeh and many others link to this account-- of a woman in Germany who was briefly faced with the possibility of not stopped receiving welfare payments because she refused to accept employment in a brothel.

Amber seems to champion the result-- the others seem more skeptical. Personally, I find that this sort of thing drives me crazy. According to the article, the government decided that a "morals" exception would have been too untenable-- how to tell brothels from bars?

There is some merit to this as a point of sheerly analytic philosophy, but back here in the real world, it is ridiculous. Sure, there would be some tough calls, and sure, Amber is right that this is not true coercion but rather state bribery, but things like this are what make otherwise reasonable people think it is wise to criminalize (some) sex between consenting adults simply because money has changed hands.

UPDATE:

A reader points out that this woman's benefits were not in fact withdrawn, and that in fact job centres will handle these things in a sensible way. Good!

UPDATE TWO: More evidence that this is overblown here

One of the many exciting oral argument MP3s you can download from Oyez.org-- the arguments in Shelton v. Alabama (do you get a lawyer before having a suspended sentence imposed?). The case features not only now-Judge William Pryor (then the Attorney General of Alabama) but also former-Solicitor General Charles Fried, now of Haravrd, and Professor Steven Duke of Yale.

Sadly, however, the arguments for Rotary Int. v. Rotary Club, with Professor Judith Resnik arguing, won't download on my computer.