4 ms·

> I think this has largely been achieved. Definitely true, and it's worth noting that crackdowns on 'trafficking' and 'abetting' sex work in the US consistentl

> I think this has largely been achieved. Definitely true, and it's worth noting that crackdowns on 'trafficking' and 'abetting' sex work in the US consistently undermine not sex work but safe sex work. - Acts like "renting an apartment out for a sex worker" become abetting, which drives sex work to happen on the street and at client's residences - the places where serious violence are most likely. - Any attempt at collaboration, like sex workers sharing the cost of private security or hygienic supplies, can be reclassified as a form of trafficking. (The tortured legal logic is that "you give me $10 and I buy paper towels for us both" constitutes taking money from a sex worker and enabling their business, and therefore trafficking.) - When Washington, D.C. attempted to crack down on sex work, women carrying condoms were arrested or forced to throw them away - a move which did nothing to prevent trading sex for money, but effectively undermined safety and disease prevention. - When the government moved against Backpage, quite a lot of sex workers were deeply upset. Because the website didn't make sex work happen, it helped it happen safely, allowing workers to choose their clients before meeting them in person. Over and over again, we see that anti-trafficking laws are actually used to marginalize sex work and destroy any possibility of a safe, healthy, or voluntary environment for the workers. At a certain point, it looks like the scenario of vulnerable sex workers who face constant violence is actually being driven by these laws that punish any worker who tries to live a better life.

Spivak 9y ago
Right but you have to address the solution which is proposed by the authors of these laws -- don't be a sex worker. It's not exactly a secret that the goal is to outlaw any kind of sex work but you don't get anywhere punishing the victims so you go after people trying to legitimize it. They view sex work as fundamentally abusive and degrading, something that no one should even consider as an option, and therefore needs to be illegal so that police can intervene -- just like organ harvesting, suicide, and a lot of drug laws. Then you make the punishment for facilitating it in any way steep as a deterrent.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  I agree, and I didn't mean to downplay that. My concern is that even within a framework where all sex work is objectionable, these are bad laws. If they made voluntary sex work harder, they'd be successes within that frame. But they don't - they leave the basic transaction untouched, and only undermine worker safety from disease and assault. The situation is actually very similar with drugs. A law that reduced voluntary, non-addictive use would upset some people and please others. But the laws we actually have aren't a success even if you think all drug use is immoral. Crackdowns on supply haven't reduced use, but have increased prices and violence while lowering purity. Crackdowns on drug trafficking haven't reduced use, but have, though the iron law of prohibition, driven a shift to harder and deadlier drugs. And restriction of paraphernalia hasn't reduced use, but has pushed users to unsafe practices like sharing and reusing needles. Deterrent effects are real, though they're exceptionally weak in these cases; sex and drugs have some of the most inelastic demand outside of food and water. But my concern is that these laws aren't actually deterrents against any step essential for the transaction. They're entirely deterrents against incidental features that make the transaction safer or healthier, and so rather than reducing the behavior they simply reduce safety.
- morogop 9y ago
  I'd like to share two observations about your response: 1) Your implicit argument that the police exist to punish people for wrongdoing, not to help rehabilitate people back into society. 2) Your argument that the solution is entirely on the supply side (don't be a sex worker!), while ignoring entirely the demand side (don't patronize sex workers!). There are many sex workers who are the victims of trafficking, however there are no sex work patrons who are such victims. As such, enforcement actions against patrons can be similarly effective, and it does not have the side effect of transforming trafficking victims into criminals I feel this combination of responses is very common, and very sub-optimal. Additionally, your comparisons to organ harvesting, suicide, and a lot of drug law strike me as unthoughtful. It is legal to donate organs. Laws against suicide are rarely enforced. And drug laws are a failure, thus it seems unwise to put them forth as a model. Your argument that it is acceptable to make any sort of facilitation have incredibly steep punishments also strikes me as a blow against justice. Crimes should have punishments that are aligned with the severity of the crime. I do not believe one could argue that one is being just, when one says that we should make something like "selling condoms to a prostitute" a crime with very steep penalties. These are bad laws. Your counter-argument, that it is fine to have horrible, unjust, and ineffective laws, so long as they have good intentions, does not change my mind. Nor do I think a wise person would ever seriously proffer your nonsensical position.

Spivak 9y ago

Right but you have to address the solution which is proposed by the authors of these laws -- don't be a sex worker. It's not exactly a secret that the goal is to outlaw any kind of sex work but you don't get anywhere punishing the victims so you go after people trying to legitimize it. They view sex work as fundamentally abusive and degrading, something that no one should even consider as an option, and therefore needs to be illegal so that police can intervene -- just like organ harvesting, suicide, and a lot of drug laws. Then you make the punishment for facilitating it in any way steep as a deterrent.

Bartweiss 9y ago
I agree, and I didn't mean to downplay that. My concern is that even within a framework where all sex work is objectionable, these are bad laws. If they made voluntary sex work harder, they'd be successes within that frame. But they don't - they leave the basic transaction untouched, and only undermine worker safety from disease and assault. The situation is actually very similar with drugs. A law that reduced voluntary, non-addictive use would upset some people and please others. But the laws we actually have aren't a success even if you think all drug use is immoral. Crackdowns on supply haven't reduced use, but have increased prices and violence while lowering purity. Crackdowns on drug trafficking haven't reduced use, but have, though the iron law of prohibition, driven a shift to harder and deadlier drugs. And restriction of paraphernalia hasn't reduced use, but has pushed users to unsafe practices like sharing and reusing needles. Deterrent effects are real, though they're exceptionally weak in these cases; sex and drugs have some of the most inelastic demand outside of food and water. But my concern is that these laws aren't actually deterrents against any step essential for the transaction. They're entirely deterrents against incidental features that make the transaction safer or healthier, and so rather than reducing the behavior they simply reduce safety.
morogop 9y ago
I'd like to share two observations about your response: 1) Your implicit argument that the police exist to punish people for wrongdoing, not to help rehabilitate people back into society. 2) Your argument that the solution is entirely on the supply side (don't be a sex worker!), while ignoring entirely the demand side (don't patronize sex workers!). There are many sex workers who are the victims of trafficking, however there are no sex work patrons who are such victims. As such, enforcement actions against patrons can be similarly effective, and it does not have the side effect of transforming trafficking victims into criminals I feel this combination of responses is very common, and very sub-optimal. Additionally, your comparisons to organ harvesting, suicide, and a lot of drug law strike me as unthoughtful. It is legal to donate organs. Laws against suicide are rarely enforced. And drug laws are a failure, thus it seems unwise to put them forth as a model. Your argument that it is acceptable to make any sort of facilitation have incredibly steep punishments also strikes me as a blow against justice. Crimes should have punishments that are aligned with the severity of the crime. I do not believe one could argue that one is being just, when one says that we should make something like "selling condoms to a prostitute" a crime with very steep penalties. These are bad laws. Your counter-argument, that it is fine to have horrible, unjust, and ineffective laws, so long as they have good intentions, does not change my mind. Nor do I think a wise person would ever seriously proffer your nonsensical position.