Guest writer Ty Mitchell submitted an article to the Huffington Post on March 8th, 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.
Dear Jackie,
ReplyDeleteYour decision write about Ty Mitchell's take on the FOSTA-SESTA (Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act) is inspiring if only for the length of the name alone. I had the opportunity of reading the article myself, and while Mitchell writes from more of a personal stance it is important to not ignore the articles he uses to support his stance against the bill. One article he uses comes from Amnesty International which clarifies why Mitchell and the organization support the decriminalization of sex work "It does not mean the removal of laws that criminalize exploitation, human trafficking or violence against sex workers. These laws must remain and can and should be strengthened. It does mean the removal of laws and policies criminalizing or penalizing sex work". If sex work is legalized laws are introduced to control it as lawmakers see fit, whereas decriminalization allows sex workers more autonomy and access to health benefits. Like you mentioned, trafficking is a horrific abuse of human rights and neither Mitchell nor the lawmakers for FOSTA-SESTA want a future where it exists. Yet, there has to be some compromise between protecting individuals from trafficking and protecting sex workers who maintain an ethical business, which is why other options such as decriminalization deserve a chance to be explored.
You are sensational, keep up the great writing,
Stephen