This week the US Congress passed a set of censorship laws, commonly called FOSTA/SESTA, that aimed to prevent online sex trafficking but in practice work to shut down all forms of online sex work advertising. The laws were developed in the wake of claims that the website backpage was being used to buy and sell trafficked women, and basically make the website’s provider criminally liable for any sex trafficking that happens on the site. They do so by creating a trafficking exception to a section of a US law that exempts internet providers from being treated as media organizations. Currently under US law websites are treated as carriers, which means they aren’t responsible for the content of material that their users post online. This exemption is the reason that websites like reddit, craigslist and facebook can host a wide range of user-generated content with impunity.
In jurisdictions where sex work is illegal, sex workers use online resources like craigslist and backpage to advertise their services and screen clients. Many sex workers and porn stars who have a good community following also use Twitter and Instagram and other social networking services to manage their community and their client relationships, including organizing events and dates and discussing their work. But since the new law was passed all these websites have had to shutdown their services or warn users that any solicitation or discussion of business is now illegal. Craigslist has shutdown its personals page, which was often used by sex workers, and websites like Fetlife have had to put strict warnings on user content. Because they can be held liable under the new law for any sex work related content, they have had to tell users that no such content can be tolerated at all. At Fetlife this extends to consensual financial domination activities, and at Craigslist the only way they have been able to stop sex work related activity has been to stop all consensual dating of any kind. Because apps like Tinder are also sometimes used for sex work purposes, it’s also possible that these sites are going to have to toughen up their moderation and rules, though it’s unclear yet how they will do this or how serious the impact of the law will be.
The Cut has an overview of why sex workers disapprove of this law, and Vox has a summary of the history of its development and arguments about its impact. For the past few weeks sex worker rights organizations like SWOP have been providing advice to women about how to back up their online presence and what actions they may need to take to protect their online presence, potentially including self censorship. It is unclear at this stage what impact the law will have on online sexual activities outside of sex work, but it’s clear from Craigslist’s reaction that the effect will be chilling. For countries like the UK, Germany, Australia, Japan and Singapore where sex work is legal to varying degrees and women can safely and legally work in brothels or advertise publicly on locally hosted websites the effect may be minimal, but for women in countries like the USA and parts of Europe the impact will likely be huge. It will force women away from the internet and back onto the streets and into unsafe situations where they are unable to screen potential clients, cannot share information about dangerous clients, and cannot support each other or record client information for self protection. Sex worker rights organizations in the USA have been deeply concerned about the impact of these laws for months and worked hard to prevent them, but in the end the money and the politics was against them.
It is worth considering exactly why these laws were passed and who supported them. Although they were developed and pushed by conservatives and republicans, they were passed with bipartisan support and pushed by a coalition of christian conservatives and feminists. The advertising campaign was supported by liberal comedians like Amy Schumer and Seth Meyers, and after some reform it was also supported by major internet content providers and entertainment organizations like Disney. This should serve as a reminder that Disney is not a liberal organization (despite the complaints of some Star Wars fans that its liberalism wrecked the latest awful episode), and that in the American political landscape “liberals” are actually deeply conservative about sex and sexuality. In particular any feminist organization that supported this law should be ashamed of itself. This includes organizations like Feminist Current and other radical feminist groups that think prostitution is a crime against women, rather than a choice that women make. I have said before that this strain of radical feminism is deeply misogynist and illiberal, and is always willing to use state power to override the personal choices of women it sees as enemies to its cause.
These feminist movements need to recognize though that while tactically they may have scored a win, this strategy is very bad for women everywhere. Nothing angers a christian conservative man more than a woman who is financially and sexually independent, and sex workers are the model of a financially and sexually independent woman. Sex workers are uniquely vulnerable to legislative action and uniquely annoying to these legislators, but they’re just the canary in the coal mine. These christian conservative legislators want to destroy all forms of sexual freedom and they won’t stop at sex work. It’s unlikely that they’re shedding any tears over the fact that their pet law led Craigslist to shut down all its non-sex work dating functions – especially since they were especially well used by LGBT people. You can bet that they are already looking for ways to use some kind of indecency based argument to target a section 230 exception for LGBT people, probably arguing on obscenity or public health grounds; and I don’t doubt that ALEC and the Heritage Foundation are already wondering if there is a racketeering-based argument by which they can make a similar exception that can be used to target unions and other forms of left wing activism. It might trouble Feminist Current a little, but I doubt christian conservatives will be feeling particularly worried if Tinder has to shut down, and if this law makes it harder for consenting adults to fuck freely then conservative christians everywhere will be chuffed. Just as the 1980s alliance of feminists and christians distorted the porn industry and made it more misogynist and male dominated, laws like SESTA will distort the world of casual sex to make it more favourable to predatory men and less safe for ordinary women. Sex workers may always be first in the sights of christian conservatives but they are never last. Whatever your personal beliefs about paying for sex, supporting sex worker rights is always and everywhere better for women, better for LGBT people, and better for liberalism.
As a final aside, I would like to sing the praises of sex worker rights organizations. Their activism is strongly inclusive, and while their focus is obviously on protecting the rights of their sex worker membership, their viewpoint is always strongly liberal and aimed at broadening everyone’s rights. They’re strong supporters of free speech and free association, and they include everyone in their movement. As organizations they are strongly inclusive of all sexualities and genders, they are always aware of disability rights and the needs of people with disabilities, and they are opposed to any forms of restrictions on what consenting adults do. They are a consistent powerful voice for liberal rights, worker’s rights, and sexual freedom. These laws will likely restrict their ability to raise their voice in support of these issues, and that ultimately weakens all our rights. Sex worker organizations are a powerful voice for good, and sex workers are not victims, but an important part of our society doing a difficult job. Wherever you are in the world, you should support these organizations and the women, men and transgender people who do this job. Hopefully with our support they can overturn these laws, and through their work and activism broaden the scope for sexual expression for all humans no matter our gender or our sexual preference.
April 14, 2018 at 11:05 pm
“basically make the website’s provider criminally liable for any sex trafficking that happens on the site”
Awesome, so you’re now liable for any message I leave on this site?
With all due respect, and while you’re a smart guy, there is a good chance I could have an open conversation about insider trading of OTC derivatives here and it’d go right over your head. Is backpage liable for that sort of thing? Are you?
But, while I start with outraged disbelief, I end my examination of such ideas with unbreakable calmness. Because I don’t believe in testing such concepts here – I believe in testing them on politicans websites, Facebook pages [1] and community groups.
The law is a weapon. And there is nothing like beating lawmakers over the head to make them think “It should be less painful to endure.”
“At Fetlife this extends to consensual financial domination activities, and at Craigslist the only way they have been able to stop sex work related activity has been to stop all consensual dating of any kind.”
Seriously – I’d suggest these people advertise on the Republican forum. We all know it’s a target rich environment, plus even if the Republicans take action to block it they have to spend the time/effort to do so. How hard is it for a 1000 sex workers to leave one message a week advertising and then report the Republicans to the regulators?
Now some would say this is vexatious and the Republicans would never be prosecuted. They’re missing the point. The Republicans will never be presecuted because they’ll put the effort in to cleanse their forums. But doing so takes effort. Even if they don’t run forums you can target their supporters – shut down “TheDonald” on reddit by making it nothing but advertising – eventually it’ll be banned by reddit due to the law. Advertise below the line on Fox. Note that the advertisements in such hostile environments should probably have an incorrect digit or two in your phone number – feel free to make it the White House switchboard number.
The process is the punishment. The solution to such nonsense laws isn’t resistance, it’s ridiculous compliance.
[1] I’m working on an enterprise social media roll out at the moment, and I guarantee that Facebook is smart enough to come up with an idea I have – The group/profile owner is liable as the publisher for all content on their group. So if someone posts racist material on Paul Ryan’s page, he’s got a contract saying he takes responsibility for it [2].
[2] I’d use Donald Trump as an example, but he posts that stuff himself…
April 14, 2018 at 11:10 pm
A quick search suggests that the Republicans don’t have significant forums on their own websites or blogs. They appear to lock these down – that’s a good call from a legal stand point, the last person I’d want commenting is a Trump supporter.
But they still have to have forums where they organise themselves. I’d love to see Stormfront shut down not for it’s horrific racism [1] but for noncompliance with section 7b of the “Who you can bang” code.
[1] I continue to support letting people expose their horrible true selves. I like to know who to avoid.
April 15, 2018 at 3:20 pm
I guess that ignorance is no excuse, so yeah I guess if you quietly discussed insider trading and I didn’t notice I’d still be liable, or something. I like your plan to spam the websites associated with this law with adverts for sex work – Seth Meyers has a youtube channel, so it might force him to close the comments lest he fall afoul of the law he supported …
One alternative I have seen bandied about is that a forum could switch to a completely unmoderated free for all, since if you aren’t moderating at all you can’t be held responsible. I don’t understand how that works.
This might also give an example of why your suggestion on the facebook and censorship thread won’t work for these internet companies. Claiming the protections of a media organization will only work if political representatives take the 1st amendment seriously, and this law shows pretty clearly that they don’t. Free speech for me, but not for thee, is the view of this law’s supporters.