1
Hi everyone,
Quick breakdown of why it's such utter bullshit that celebrities like @sethmeyers are promoting the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, (SESTA).
Perhaps the celebrities will learn something from this too, if they're willing to listen to sex workers.
2
First you should know - since this seems to be a majorly persuasive point for many reasonable people - that the act is backed by Ted Cruz, John McCain, and Marco Rubio.
These are, as you know, not nice people who care about women's autonomy.
3
Second, you should know that #SESTA is OPPOSED by most freedom of speech/information groups.
And even groups that you might be surprised were defending sex workers' rights, like the National Organization for Women.
That's because it threatens internet freedom.
4
Most important to me, of course, is that #SESTA threatens the lives of sex workers. But I want you to know that there are many, many reasons to oppose SESTA (which is now known as FOSTA-SESTA - Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act).
5
The most obvious reason FOSTA-SESTA is such an issue is that it cuts off many sex workers' access to money by limiting their access to clients.
It purports to "crack down on websites that promote sex trafficking"
But in our country, all sex work is conflated with trafficking.
6
That means that, by and large, this act will affect people who are engaged in consensual sex work.
Why?
Because any site that is thought to be connected to sex trafficking can be spied on, taken down, fined, and people involved in it can be subject to criminal investigation.
7
So let's state that again: ANY SITE THAT IS THOUGHT TO BE RELATED TO SEX TRAFFICKING in a country that increasingly conflates trafficking with consensual sex work - which comprises the majority of sex work - can be shut down.
8
That includes porn sites, by the way.
If there's suspicion that any performer has been trafficked or is on another site that is thought to enable trafficking.
9
That definitely includes cam sites.
It definitely includes escorting sites.
10
For sex workers, this is about our access to making a living.
But for everyone, this is also about supporting a free internet.
Which is why so many tech companies oppose it.
For once, these tech companies, with their overlaying financial interests, are in the right.
11
When sex workers don't have easy access to a variety of clients, it is harder for them to turn down or screen clients or to have in-community discussions about what clients are safe.
This results - as is confirmed by Amnesty International - in violence against sex workers.
12
And there are already ample laws in place to combat human trafficking specifically, without overreach. And if the laws need refinement, they can be refined without all this baggage, brought to the table by Republicans.
13
You should also know that this is an attempt by Republicans to target tech-heavy cities because they are sanctuary cities for immigrants.
Cities that harbor immigrants against ICE, etc, have tech-dependent economies which the government wants to gain power over.
14
These cities - however complicated their internal politics are - represent internet freedom and freedom for immigrants to the federal government.
FOSTA-SESTA means immigration will be framed as trafficking, punishable by attacking a city's economic foundation.
15
In short, here's what FOSTA-SESTA does:
• endangers sex workers' lives, (read: women's lives) particularly people with LGBT identities
• curtails internet freedom
• threatens pornography
• threatens immigrants
• empowers the GOP
17
Here's how: Go here. Fill out the form.
Two minutes.
You're done. act.eff.org/action/stop-fo…
And also, share this thread if you think it will help.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1
I have never dissed a business online before, but folks, I need to tell you about the experience I had at @NextRestaurant in Chicago, because it was one of the most expensive meals I've ever had.
And it was also hands down one of the worst I've ever had.
2
When you get dinner at Next, you essentially buy tickets for dinner. You get your seats, get a prix fixe menu, and you can't cancel. Fine, I get it. My boyfriend and I were in Chicago for my birthday, and since @Alinea was all booked, we got seats at Next.
3
My bf got me the meal, so I don't know exactly how much it was, but it was very expensive. Hundreds of dollars, for sure. He got us a non-alcoholic cocktail pairing, since I had an important phone call early next morning, and I didn't want to be drinking late into the evening.
1
Since everyone is throwing around the word "pedophile" these days, here's some clarifying info:
"Pedophile" and "child molester" are not the same thing, & neither mean "making jokes about kids&sex." Understanding distinctions helps understand what to do culturally+for victims.
2
A child molester is someone who has initiated a sexual encounter with a child (generally meaning pre-pubescent but not always - this is another distinction that makes a big difference on all fronts).
A pedophile is someone whose overall sexual orientation relates to children.
3
Pedophiles are sexually attracted to children. It is - for lack of better term - an aspect of their sexual orientation.
Pedophiles are extremely rare compared to child molesters, even though they molest children. They are difficult (impossible?) to change.
1
This new bill - started by Mark Rubio and Elizabeth Warren - comes on the heels of FOSTA.
It has already passed the House.
This is huge and horrible. Let me explain.
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @govtrack view original on Twitter
2
The idea behind this bill is that anyone found to be involved in human trafficking - which as we know from SESTA/FOSTA is a poorly defined term - can have access to banking and other financial services severed by the US government.
3
The first thing to note: Since FOSTA is now in effect, that means the government can not only fine or seize websites when a USER (not merely the owner) uses it for "human trafficking" (not well-defined) the owner is responsible & can have their access to banking severed.
1
Believe the victims. Yes. Believe them.
At the same time, we must talk about what constitutes belief and victimhood.
Because right now, unfortunately, the battle cry is "believe the victims!" without much reflection on what that means.
2
When we say "believe" part of that belief - this should be obvious, but unfortunately is not - is accepting that someone went through a painful experience.
It is not a value judgment on the experience.
It is not a determination of whether or not the experience "really happened.
3
This sort of belief is a counterbalance to the decades of non-belief. Decades of people, particularly women, saying, "I was hurt!" and others, particularly men, saying, "I'm sorry but I see no evidence of your hurt."
That counterbalance is needed. Why?
1
As uncomfortable as this makes me feel, I think it's necessary for me to express an encounter I had with Olaf Tyaransen when he interviewed me for @hotpress, in light of the newly disclosed evidence that he sexually assaulted sex worker Laura Lee (RIP). medium.com/@belledejour_u…
2
And I want to be clear that in telling you this story about Olaf and I, I'm doing so firstly, stand with sex workers and Laura, secondly to address how sex workers are routinely treated, and third, what we need to do to moving forward.
3
I am NOT addressing this to support a carceral or punitive model, but to help raise awareness to end abuse. I'm also NOT doing it to compare my situation to Laura's, or to aid in runaway pop discourse of equating uncomfortable sexual situations w/sexual assault.
With that said:
1
Hi, I'd like to tell you about what's been going on with porn and US culture in the past 24 hours.
I want you to understand first of all what sex workers are expected to constantly endure, but also that a cultural movement to ban pornography is building right now.
2
The first thing is that the NYTimes thought it was appropriate to publish - as their Magazine cover story seen by millions of people - a feature by @maggiepjones about why porn is so problematic for teen sexuality, and how we can mediate that problem.
It's a cowardly article.
3
Maggie displays no knowledge about porn history, porn as an artform, porn aesthetics, how pornographers make it..
She doesn't know anything about porn. She's an MFA professor.
Somehow, the @nytimes thought, "now THIS is the person to write this story about the problem of porn!"