Online Censorhip of the Sex Industry

Guest writer Ty Mitchell submitted an article to the Huffington Post on March 8^th, 2018 regarding a new bill that focuses on sex trafficking in America. Ty is a queer culture writer, drag queen, and gay porn performer based in Brooklyn, NY. While he does link to supporting articles in his writing, most of what he says has an obvious bias to it. He strongly supports prostitution and engaging in sexual acts for money and it shows through his writing. He believes the government should support sex workers in having a safer environment in which to work.

Mitchell writes, “Meanwhile, state and local prostitution laws continue to treat all sex workers ― including trafficked ones ― as criminals, culpable for violating laws against exchanging sex for money. These laws see us as having agency, but only to punish us for exercising it. They encourage the entrapment and harassment of sex workers by police departments and make little pretense of protecting us from anything except our own indecency. They are implemented largely in the name of “broken windows” policing, which disproportionately targets trans people and people of color. And at their core, they function to prohibit consensual sex between adults just because it is explicitly transactional.”

The main focus of the article is the senate bill FOSTA-SESTA (Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act), sponsored by Rob Portman (Ohio Republican) and Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut Democrat). This bill will be voted on in the senate next Monday. I do not necessarily agree with Mitchell’s vehement support for sex work. However, he made some very interesting points on how this particular bill will affect the industry and, in fact, do little to help the victims of human trafficking.

FOSTA-SESTA actually targets the websites which enable sex trade activity and discussion. If passed, it would target ads for sexual services, force sites to censor any user content that alludes to the exchange of sex for money, and also censors information posted by people in the sex trade amongst themselves. Mitchell argues that by removing these online resources, sex work will actually become more dangerous for the workers. He brought up the valid argument that online forums and resources can actually assist authorities in preventing and solving crimes while providing needed evidence. He also mentions that workers use these online resources to communicate with one another about how to stay safe and remove themselves from abusive situations.

The main issue with this bill is the heavy focus on censorship without providing any real help to those actively working in the sex trade. Mitchell is a big proponent of providing protections to sex workers that will enable them to conduct their work in a safer environment. According to him, by censoring online ads for sexual services, those workers will now have to put themselves in more dangerous situations to obtain clients (such as working in public or with an abusive pimp.)

In the eyes of Ty Mitchell, sex work is legitimate work and “sex workers are asking for the same things other laborers have always asked for: payment for our work, safer conditions and the freedom to help protect each other as a collective.” While this sounds all fine and dandy and may appeal to the average worker, I think it misses the point that their work is ILLEGAL (mostly) and the intention is to not facilitate illegal activity. Though I do agree with him that these things will happen regardless and through online censorship we may do more harm than good to the people this bill is meant to protect.

What Does Masculinity Have to do With Mass Shootings?

There has been a lot of discussion about gun violence lately and most of that discussion is geared towards stricter gun control laws. But what about all the people who have access to guns and DON’T go around shooting people? There must be factors involved other than the access to guns. We need to be investigating what else is going on when looking at the rise in mass shootings in America. Author, comedian, and actor Michael Ian Black had one of the most interesting takes on this issue, in my opinion. He talks about gun violence in relation to our society’s understanding of what it means to be masculine. Black points out that mass shootings in America are not conducted by women. This is primarily a male-specific issue. As he puts it, “America’s boys are broken.” 

His article is really more a statement of his own theory than it is a factual argument. The writing appeals to our emotions and sense of identity more than our logical, analytical sides. In our country, we have a focus on promoting progress in women’s issues, redefining the definition of womanhood, and stepping into this new definition of what it means to be a woman. We have not put that same progressive thinking towards what it means to be a man. As a result, our country’s boys are left in this confusing state of uncertainty. Who are they? Who should they be? Black does not discuss any kind of authority he has to speak on this particular subject, except to appeal to his audience as the parent of a teenage son. His writing does not include facts or statistics to support his theory. However, I don’t feel his intention is necessarily to prove a point. He wants to start a discussion. A discussion in our country about what it means to be masculine and how we can support our boys in discovering that. This article seems to be written for all Americans. He wants this discussion to happen between adults, parents, our future generations, our nation as a whole. 

Personally, I think he did a beautiful job in providing the platform for this conversation. Stricter gun control laws is not the only issue here. We need to be having more discussions like this in our country.

Trump's lawyers Urge Him to Avoid Interview with Special Counsel

On February 5, 2018, The New York Times released an article regarding a potential interview of president Trump by Robert S. Mueller III. Mr. Mueller is leading the special counsel investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. The article discusses some of the pros and cons of the president proceeding with, or refusing, the interview and various viewpoints on the situation.

Donald Trump has stated publicly that he wants to cooperate and speak with the special counsel, but his lawyers and advisors strongly discourage this. Some are saying Trump should not consent to the interview because he has a history of lying and could get himself into trouble. Others feel “…running away from a prosecutor isn’t consistent with faithfully executing the laws.”

This article is worth reading because it is short, but really shows how out-of-sync Trump and his advisors are with one another. On one hand, Trump is openly announcing his willingness to participate in the interview and “clear things up.” On the other hand, his advisors and those close to him are trying to prevent this interview. I believe it shows that Trump’s advisors do not trust he can avoid incriminating himself during an interview with Robert Mueller.