US Senate green-lights controversial anti-sex-trafficking law amid warnings of power grab The US Senate has passed the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act (SESTA) with a 97-2 vote. The passage comes after its twin bill, FOSTA, was passed in the House. President Trump is expected sign the legislation into law shortly. Aimed at ending sex trafficking through online personal ads, SESTA has generated debate between …
Sex trafficking presumably must involve someone being coerced into their role. How can that be known unless the advert is explicit on that point - very unlikely - or someone investigates on a case by case basis?
At what point do Grindr and Tinder etc fall foul of these laws? Does paying for a meal or a drink constitute payment for sex?
As is often the case with these "morality" laws - the underlying causes that make people vulnerable are probably being ignored in favour of hiding the symptoms from sight.
It's been proven time and time again making more laws that make more things illegal only serves to drive sex work and sex trafficking underground and out of sight. It actually diminishes the chances these women have to escape what they are forced into.
The only way to go is making things MORE legal and giving sex workers actual, hard rights and a chance to go to the cops without getting thrown in jail themselves. There are enough of them that do the work by choice (not necessarily out of WANTING to do it per sé, but a free choice nonetheless) but right now they have nowhere to go if a customer or pimp rips them off or hurts them.
I detect a facetious tone. In the context of sex trafficking, what you are actually opposing is:
Rape = Bad, Giving Women the Ability to Neutralize Men's Physical Strength Advantage = Good
Are you sure you meant to do that?
As far as the advertising goes, I'm all for making things safer, though I am concerned if "making it safer" also raises demand, which increases trafficking. If safer = more trafficking, then I question the assertion of "safer."
Cull the adverts on websites such as Adultwork and Vivastreet and you kill the demand.
Its only the easy availability of women through such sites that enables sex trafficking to work. Remove the adverts and the Sergeis have nowhere to pimp their trafficked Romanians (or Russians, Serbians, Hungarians et.al.)
You sir, are naïve. You can't "kill the demand". Sex workers have existed pretty much since the dawn of man. Do you really believe killing some websites is going to do anything to change the demand?
Pimps forcing these women will always find a way to market "their" girls. Even if it means hanging out in bars or hotels and slipping lonely looking guys a card.
(USA! USA! USA!)
Okay folks:
It actually diminishes the chances these women individuals have to escape what they are forced into
FTFY
Cull the adverts on websites such as Adultwork and Vivastreet and you kill the demand.
Ummm. Perhaps if you load the water supply with the correct hormones you might cull demand, but I can *assure* you that sex trafficking has been around for quite some time, and since it predates the printing press I *seriously* doubt that the logic of your argument will stand any test.
Now, as to legislation on this front, I'm going to point out that making it a crime to get paid to have sex *WILL NOT* stop prostitution. Making it a crime to *pay* for sex will not stop prostitution. Making it a crime to *talk* about getting paid for or paying for sex will not stop prostitution. So. Perhaps we need a framework that makes it *safer* to be a sex worker. That gives the sex workers (voluntary or otherwise) a way of complaining about their situation that allows the law to step in and remove the abusers, rather than criminalizing the actions of the sex workers or their customers?
Puritanism. It *STILL* exists. See Mississippi state laws.
Note: I am sincerely biased on this front. Someone I once cared about was removed from this planet by the stupidity of a legal system that criminalized the victims of sexual violence, and the emotional stigma of that environment. One of those laws was finally changed 23 years after she died.
" Perhaps if you load the water supply with the correct hormones you might cull demand, [...]"
IIRC chemical castration has been seen to turn offenders to higher risk sexual offences to get their "high".
Ummm. Perhaps if you load the water supply with the correct hormones
It was sort of tried in the 2nd world war when British troops had there drinks laced with bromide in an attempt to curb their libido.
However as Spike Milligan said ,"I don't think that bromide had any lasting effect, the only way to stop a British soldier feeling randy is to load bromide into a 300lb shell and fire it at him from the waist down."
(Ok, I know it is an urban myth, but the concept remains the same)
I always thought the Puritans left England because they were being unfairly persecuted.
While that was a factor - a BBC documentary*** recently said they left because they were being prevented from imposing their strict rules on the majority of the population of England.
***IIRC it was the "Adventure of English" episode 5 about Newfoundland.
"I always thought the Puritans left England because they were being unfairly persecuted."
No it was because they wanted to be the ones doing the persecution. You just have to look at the laws they had in the towns they setup in North America.
'Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul, voted against the bill'
I had such hopes for him in the election until Trump came and stole the show. Not that I think a libertarian would be elected but his ideas of countering the interfering authoritarians out there were refreshing.
How do these laws help the legal sex worker? How do they help people who make personal choice and actively want to do sex work? If they could conduct their business without fear of reprisal then they would be able to report problems and a lot safer within the law than outside of it. To think it will stop just because a law says it should is to forget the past and present.
They like the online sites as they make things far safer, especially sites that allow reviews as news of problem punters can spread, plus, although there's theoretical anonynmity, the sites will be recording IP, (depending if member ship site) email address etc, all of which can aid in catching culprits if a crime is committed.
The more "underground" a sex worker goes, the more dangerous it is.
In similar way to someone working in multi worker premises (technically illegal) is a lot safer than someone on their own, plying the street.
Cannot speak about US groups per se, but they will probably have to make use of alternate methods to track problem customers e.g. in UK groups such as National Ugly Mugs allow sex workers to share information about dubious customers
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
