burning like matchsticks in the face of the darkness

(cross-posted to thisfinecrew)

It was International Sex Worker Rights Day on Saturday (March 3) and I learned via Twitter that FOSTA ("Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act" -- H.R. 1865) passed the House and the Senate will vote on its version (SESTA -- "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act," S. 1693) I think on March 12 though I can't now find where I found that date.

Not only do these bills conflate "sex trafficking" (which is unequivocally bad) with "sex work" (which, like all labor, can be variably exploitative/dangerous/etc. but which is in no way improved by criminalization), but it also "amends Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act to hold online publishers, apps, and services legally liable for the actions of people who post there or connect through them" (to quote a Reason article) -- 'cause who needs Internet safe harbor?

A brief phone script I saw on Twitter is: “Hi, my name is ___and I live in ___(city in district). I’m calling to urge Senator ____to vote NO on #SESTA, S. 1693 because it will lead to harm to people who trade sex, including victims of trafficking.”

If you'd rather, you could amend it to something like "because it weakens the important protections for online speech in Section 230." (more info from Electronic Frontier Foundation here -- written before the House vote)

If you're like me and want to do some more research to acquire some more talking points before you reach out to legislators (or your social media), behind the cut are some excerpts from some of the articles I've read in recent days. If folks are on Twitter, I'd encourage you to follow accounts like swopbehindbars (SWOP = Sex Workers Outreach Project) SupportSWRights melissagira. For SESTA specifically, you can follow hashtags #LetUsSurvive #SurvivorsAgainstSESTA #StopSESTA.

( Read more... )

I know FOSTA already passed the House, but I emailed my rep:

I was disappointed to learn you that voted in support of H.R. 1865. I know it was advertised as a bill to protect victims of sex trafficking, but if conflates sex trafficking (which is unequivocally bad) with prostitution (which, like all labor, can be variably exploitative/dangerous/etc. but which is in no way improved by criminalization). And its proposed Section 230 changes would hurt both sex workers and people who are trafficked by pushing sex work further underground, robbing sex workers of online communities within which they can warn and be warned about dangerous clients, etc. This bill has been opposed by many sex worker and free speech organizations (as well as survivors of trafficking https://injusticetoday.com/proposed-federal-trafficking-legislation-has-surprising-opponents-advocates-who-work-with-bf418c73d5b4). I hope that, moving forward, when voting on legislation impacting sex workers, you will seek out the voices of actual sex workers (e.g., SWOP -- Sex Worker Outreach Project).

Congress.gov is not the most user-friendly website, but the Feb 27 House vote on FOSTA is here if you want to reach out to your rep about how they voted on FOSTA.

Page 5 of today's metro was "Lawful prostitution? San Fran considers it." It's an AP article -- though the metro stops after, "Some form of prostitution is already legal in two states. Brothels are allowed in rural counties in Nevada. And Rhode Island permits the sale of sex behind closed doors between consulting adults, but it prohibits street prostitution and brothels." I did not know that about Rhode Island :)

***

Mark Puelo's column informed me:

If passed, Question Two would be stricter than current law by requiring those under the age of 18 who are caught to enroll in a mandatory drug prevention program and perform up to ten hours of community service. Besides paying the same $100 citation as adults, minors could also face up to $2,000 in fines should they fail to complete the substance abuse prevention training, and their parents held liable if they don't pay.

Blah. I was all stoked to vote Yes on Question 2. I hadn't realized it makes the law even stricter re: youth.

It's probably still an improvement on the whole. Opening paragraph: "On Election Day, voters in Massachusetts have the opportunity to remove the criminal penalties associated with possessing one ounce or less of marijuana. In place of possible arrest and jail time, Referendum Question Two creates a system of civil penalties for adults with a fine of $100 and the immediate loss of the contraband substance."

***

Speaking of Massachusetts ballot questions... I need to decide how to vote on Question 3 (greyhound racing).

Amusing thing about Question 1 (income tax): Jen after RED last week said she's from NH (no sales tax, no income tax), and she would vote against adding it in NH but also against taking it away in MA.

Edit: via davis_square: "http://www.imagineelection.com/ If you fill out your address in the top left corner, the site will show you what your ballot will look like November 4." Commenters point out that it's not entirely accurate (and point out the more complete WhereDoIVoteMA.com for Massachusetts residents). Apparently I have 6 party choices for President. I feel like I should actually look into these -- since Massachusetts is going to go blue regardless. (I really hate the electoral college system, but on a personal level I am comforted that my vote for President doesn't count, because that significantly reduces my stress level.)