As an abuse survivor, let me say that lawmakers and LEO did not begin to care about sex abuse, until gobs of money and power started to come with it (during 80's-90's). Before then, women and children knew (from exp) that few/no police or officials were there to protect them.
Given what internet+sex-trafficking bills actually accomplish, it's fairly clear they're designed to cripple the power that the internet brings to the electorate. The trafficking rhetoric is little more than marketing.
This doesn't surprise me at all. From what a poster said down thread from your remark, it's largely platitudes.
I never appreciated the nature of abuse until a friend of mine confided in me about their own experience being an abuse survivor from something that happened when they were a child. The Internet is just a high profile target. I won't say that the overwhelming majority of abuse happens among people who know the victim, but it's almost certainly close. Of the survivors I've spoken with, while this is anecdotal, it seems to me that they all knew the perpetrator personally either through church, school, family, etc. The Internet wasn't involved.
If anything, targeting the Internet may actually impede one's ability to speak out against abuse and seek out others to help encourage them to speak out, find help, or approach the appropriate authorities.
It reminds me of a sad story. A number of years ago, there was a pastor who found out that there had been some abuse of a child in his church. So he reported it and the perpetrator to the authorities. When the dust settled, the church committee fired him for sewing division and dissent when all he did was follow the law. That's kind of what bills like this feel like.
> I won't say that the overwhelming majority of abuse happens among people who know the victim
Well, one could argue about "overwhelming", but I believe on the "majority" part there is no question, statistically speaking. So let's say it: the majority of abuse cases involve people familiar to the victim and their immediate relatives, regardless of any factor connected to the internet.
> the majority of abuse cases involve people familiar to the victim and their immediate relatives...
This is and has always been true.
>... regardless of any factor connected to the internet.
The LEO narrative seems something like 'We didn't sex abuse before the internet so the internet must be responsible.'
The flaw with that perspective is that police did not see sex abuse because (historically) they overwhelmingly Did. Not. Care. about children's (or women's) well being.
As evidence, I offer a century of clergy (and other) sex-scandals that were rarely (or possibly never, ever, ever, ever) shut down by police - even tho the cops were the people who's actual damn job it was to put a stop to it.
> The LEO narrative seems something like 'We didn't sex abuse before the internet so the internet must be responsible.'
This is what worries me the most, because it's masking the underlying truth and trying to sideline the reality.
As the sibling comment to mine delved into, it's kind of terrifying how much of this occurs within activities that should be safe and are sanctioned by bodies of authority.
Of course, I feel I can't say as much about how LEO and politicians are poised to abuse the narrative to get what they want as I've never been a victim of such abuse. That's why I am glad that people like you are speaking out against it, because the chilling effects of potentially causing greater harm to victims who haven't come forward really bothers me.
If you look at convictions you quickly arrive at the conclusion that all government action against abuse is there for other purposes. It just doesn't even target the observed problems.
Most (just about half) child abuse is committed by other children (mostly slightly older than the victim). Almost always under government supervision (translation: at school/school related activities).
Half of what remains is committed BY the government (meaning teachers/trainers/social workers/... government employees). A significant portion of this kind of abuse is either very young or "almost adult" kids. These cases are special because of often one sees very large numbers of victims per perpetrator (it is absolutely exceptional for a pedophile outside of any institution to have even 3 victims, whereas institutional employees have seen cases with thousands of victims for ONE perpetrator).
You might wonder how one person even abuses thousands of children. In some cases government employees (ie. social workers, psychiatrists, ...) are found to abuse the power of the institutions they work for with the specific intention to abuse children. In one famous case, a German youth services therapist took that job, and climbed to director of an institution, to prove that both vulnerable children and pedophiles (including, of course, he himself) "benefit from being placed together". He implemented his experiment, not just placing children with himself, but also with pedophiles entrusted to him by the justice system, and managed to continue this practice ... for 30 years. He was in it, literally, to prove that child abuse benefits children. Hundreds, maybe thousands of victims.
If you look into "clergy" sex abuse scandals you will find that these also mostly happened at schools, school-related youth associations and in things like orphanages. And as we can see now, clergy has mostly disappeared, school employees haven't. The abuse also hasn't disappeared. People abuse children when they have access to children. Clergy used to have that, because they were school employees, and their profession attracted pedophiles because of that. Now other people, almost all government workers, have access to children, and abuse that access just the same.
For the remainder the largest groups is people the family knows that aren't related. Then strangers. Then relatively far or indirect relatives. And only then do we start seeing first foster siblings, foster parents, then "reconstituted family" siblings and parents (ie. legal, but not biological sibling/parents due to often multiple divorces and remarriage), and then as the least likely group natural parents.
You will never hear anyone discuss anything but the need to hide these to maintain the reputation of various institutions (from schools to CPC itself). Sometimes things like teachers' unions actively suggest ignoring kids complaints to protect teachers (e.g. against false accusations, or to avoid pointing out that CPC regularly CAUSES abuse of a child to start, not exactly what they're here for. And questioning the results of CPC "protection" for kids, even when well-intentioned, we don't seem capable as a society to admit that good intentions don't make for good results).
Anti-child abuse action invariable focuses on natural and reconstituted family parents, the least likely groups to abuse children. And going further, like acknowledging the many things that cause the abuse (like sexualization of youngsters in commercials and entertainment, even to youngsters themselves). Getting such groups to acknowledge the very big role of the government and various education and protection services play is just out of the question.
If you want to limit child abuse, the area of focus for maximum effect seems very clear: school. Both protecting kids from each other as well as from the staff and other government employees (including, perhaps even especially due to large number of victims per perpetrator, those whose job specifically is to protect children).
It seems it is very hard for people to believe that exactly children themselves and the people who we entrust children to are the biggest problem when it comes to child abuse. That, and of course that governments don't want to take clear measures against their own employees, even if they are the most likely child abusers. There are many sad cases where a perpetrator who is a teacher, sometimes with multiple previous convictions, succeeds in having child services go after parents after a complaint is filed. And of course, on occasion convicted child abusers are found to have taken jobs as for example a teacher or in youth mental care specifically with the intention to abuse children (even though it is pretty obvious that these people aren't in those jobs for the money).
> the conclusion that all government action against abuse is there for other purposes.
This has been my conclusion also. I'd broadly expand it to include any efforts to wage a "war against $PROBLEM" where it tends to either mask or make $PROBLEM worse. Or, in the case of sexual abuse, make it harder for victims to seek help. Or even know they can get help. Then it levies onerous requirements on otherwise law abiding services to do the government's policing in its stead making the companies arbiters of right and wrong.
> He was in it, literally, to prove that child abuse benefits children.
Good Lord, these people are sick!
> For the remainder the largest groups is people the family knows that aren't related.
This is what happened to my friend. It was someone whom they knew, and the family knew, who abused not only my friend but also everyone's trust. Since it also happened in a foreign country and my friend is American, it complicated matters. I don't know if they ever elucidated the outcome, but I gather there was never any legal action taken.
What worries me about this, too, is the fact that the abuser apparently has a family of his own now, and without any legal repercussions, I would be concerned that he might abuse his own children or their friends for the reasons you highlight.
> You will never hear anyone discuss anything but the need to hide these to maintain the reputation of various institutions
So true. No one wants to admit that there's a problem, and they will actively attack the people trying to stop it from happening.
> like sexualization of youngsters in commercials and entertainment
This is despicable, too. What's even more disgusting and reprehensible is the efforts by certain groups and companies trying to normalize this!
Because the latter often has deep pockets, getting the government to do anything about it is probably an effort in futility.
> It seems it is very hard for people to believe
I'm not sure why, except to reference your earlier remarks about institutions protecting institutions and deliberate, willful ignorance. It only seems logical that people who have access to children will therefore be the more likely to abuse said children. So, it seems that at least part of the onus on resolving this rests on society and bringing to light the reality that, just because a truth is uncomfortable, doesn't make it any less true.
At the risk of drawing the ire of others, I have half a mind to suggest that sometimes an appropriate length of rope is the only solution.
Edit:
I meant to thank you for your thoughtful (and thought-provoking) post! I appreciate you for taking the time to reply.
Glad you said this. If the 'government' wanted to protect sex workers a better strategy is what numerous other countries have done. Legalize the sex trade with strong provisions to protect the workers and support systems for escaping that life if they so choose.
When a sex worker gets a record for being a sex worker it makes it a lot harder to escape that life.
Having safe houses and required STD testing are other supportive measure for sex workers.
The government does not care about the sex workers in the slightest.
This is about censorship and control in the name of 'safety'.
Gives them the power to take a website down in the name of safety if there's ANY questionable content on it even if there's millions of users. They will cudgel sites with it to give in to their demands for data requisition and to remove messages that they don't like...or suddenly the site will be brought down by force of law due to one person out of millions posting something questionable.
Just like what Duterte did in the Philippines with his bloody drug crusade that also happened to not so coincidentally kill a bunch of his political rivals.
Anytime the government tells you it's doing something for you in the name of 'safety' chances are you're about to get screwed.
The average ignorant human's fear of whatever nightmare scenario the government and the media has created playing out in their head, is what ruins the world.
> Legalize the sex trade with strong provisions to protect the workers and support systems for escaping that life if they so choose.
There’s strong indications that the immediate effect of a jurisdiction trying to do that is to make the jurisdiction a magnet for sex trafficking. Now, you can argue that the long term effects will be better, or its a matter of fine tuning protections, or that the effect is in part illusory because it makes detecting trafficking easier, or that it actually makes things net better, and that the trafficking it reduces is greater than the trafficking it diverts in from other jurisdictions; I personally think all of those arguments have truth to them. But those are things that are less apparent from the data, so its a hard sell.
however once you legalize something you can regulate it. Require all sex-workers to work with registered brothels, require government issued licensing and certification. I men it you have to get a licence to cut hair requiring a licence to sleep with clients is an easy sell. It a lot harder to traffic people when they have to go into a government office and register with government issued ID.
> however once you legalize something you can regulate it.
Yes, but no one haa found a way to regulate it thst doesn’t result in an apparent increase of trafficking activity compared to prohibition.
Again, I’m pro-legalization and subscribe to the whole list of reasons I cited upthread for not considering that appearance decisive. But it makes legalization a hard sell.
This hasn't led to a decrease in trafficking in the countries that have tried it though. Many of them in Europe have become trafficking destinations for women from other countries. There's lots and lots of studies out there that show that decriminalizing prostitution does not lead to lower trafficking or better outcomes for prostitutes.
Also the rhetoric we use here (defeatist, people are going to solicit sex and break the law so let's make it easier for them, etc.) is in stark contrast to how we talk about problems we actually want to fight in our societies like obesity, racism, worker mistreatment by employers, etc. In those situations we never say that people are going to do such things anyways and criminalizing it just makes those who do those crimes more unlikely to change, more unlikely to get back into society, more distrustful of the system, etc. In those situations we spend tons and tons of money at the corporate and the government level trying to teach people these behaviors are wrong and to not engage in them.
Why can't we do that with people who solicit prostitutes?
Specifically it made sex trafficking victims harder to rescue, by eliminating the means that LEO used to find them.
Evidence indicates that lawmakers don't care about victims in a meaningfully helpful way. They absolutely crave the power/cash that anti-trafficking rhetoric brings.
A competent press would examine the history of trafficking laws and report the actual outcomes - instead of parroting the PR that pols hand to them.
I was specifically referring to your claim that “lawmakers don't care about victims in a meaningfully helpful way. They absolutely crave the power/cash that anti-trafficking rhetoric brings.” This article says nothing about that, and TechDirt isn’t exactly a reputable, well-researched newsgathering organization. Sure, they’re great at pointing out hypocrisies and weaknesses for our amusement, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen them do any in-depth analysis or reporting.
> I was specifically referring to your claim that lawmakers don't care about victims in a meaningfully helpful way.
Lawmakers were warned that shuttering Backpage would harm LEO efforts to rescue trafficking victims and they passed SESTA/FOSTA anyway.
The law has been used exactly one time.
> I was specifically referring to your claim that They absolutely crave the power/cash that anti-trafficking rhetoric brings
Is your assertion that lawmakers do not crave the power/cash that comes with anti-traffic rhetoric? If so, why do you believe that?
> TechDirt isn’t exactly a reputable, well-researched newsgathering organization.
That's an interesting opinion about one of the few news orgs that actively documents their analysis in every article (inc court filings), consistently targets all administrations (inc popular ones) - and (unlike most news orgs) isn't at all known for parroting Gov/Corp/LEO PR w/o contextual or historical analysis.
> Lawmakers were warned that shuttering Backpage would harm LEO efforts to rescue trafficking victims and they passed SESTA/FOSTA anyway.
I’ll stipulate to that. But it’s a pretty long logical leap to deduce from the fact that they heard a lot of opinions and made a (perhaps incorrect) judgment call that they don’t care about sex trafficking victims.
Also, linking to other news sources and commenting on them isn’t “newsgathering.” That’s just operating a blog. If they perform their own investigations, then my opinion might change.
> it’s a pretty long logical leap to deduce from the fact that they heard a lot of opinions and made a (perhaps incorrect) judgment call that they don’t care about sex trafficking victims.
Before passage: LEO warned lawmakers and those lawmakers minimized and gaslighted their expert concerns - concerns voiced by the exact people in the best possible position to know.
After passage: LEO exampled the harm done by FOSTA/SESTA and how the law was further endangering sex trafficking victims. In response, lawmakers crowed about the success of the law - w/o offering anything at all that might indicate success.
Creating a law that further harms and endagers sex trafficking victims while pretending the opposite - this seems like a fairly stellar example of not caring about the well being of sex trafficking victims.
This reply is basically a shitpost. You asked for a source and got it, and then complained it wasn't good enough. The linked article actually sources from a local news report. Where's your evidence that this report is incorrect?
In my view, a person making a claim—especially one stating there is “evidence” of this— that a group of people have improper motives in contradiction to the default-held position that their motives are generally good bears the burden of persuasion.
It is one thing to claim that we are passing laws in good faith that end up not working as well as we hoped. It’s quite another make unsubstantiated claims that people are acting in bad faith.
Correction: the politicians are accused of acting Amorally. Of taking action regardless of the consequences, of just not caring about the predicted real life effects, or the observed real life effects of legislation. That they're in it purely for their own interests, which have nothing to do with the victims. That they couldn't care less if the legislation helps anyone, just what it will do for them.
They're not accused of acting Immorally, which would be taking action with mal intent. They're not trying to increase child prostitution. They're not trying to enable it. They're not looking to abuse children themselves.
They're accused of being psychopaths, not criminals.
I don't understand how the default position can be anything but that politicians indeed act amorally. There is a very long history of politicians enacting laws specifically to hide prostitution, not to stop it. There is an equally long history of people asking them to do so. Society definitely wants prostitution. Society also wants very vulnerable prostitutes, well hidden from view.
> As evidence I offer the site, in partial or it's entirety.
TechDirt has been on a backslide in readership for years, primarily from it's crappy "we just post what we hear" nonsense. What you see now is a rebranding (eg* "free speech") which has served them better than the previous snicker journalism that they are known for. The fact that they have seemingly well-sourced articles is incidental to the past, which you seem wholly ignorant enough to assume was a quality source.
*It does seem to be working as other sites are increasingly linking to it.
> “We assume it’s a great thing that Backpage closed down,” Stefanie Jeffers said. “And it is, because it’s horrible that Backpage existed and so much trafficking occurred through the users of Backpage. But I do think that it comes with its dangers too.”
> Jeffers, the founder of the nonprofit Grit Into Grace, works with women who are engaged in street prostitution in Indianapolis to help them get out of the life. She says Backpage’s closure came as a shock to the women she talked to.
I don't get why you're hung up on whether TechDirt is reputable or not, just read the actual article?
Compulsive Techdirt hatred is a weird thing. Without fail, I see it 'evidenced' with w/ unsubstantiated innuendos - pretty much what the haters say TD does.
I suspect if the news article was linked to directly, we wouldn’t be having this specific discussion. But even the source article provides no support for the argument that Congress acted with malice towards the innocent.
Agreed that decriminalizing prostitution is not a fix to sex trafficking, or the other attendant problems of sex work.
However, we know very well that making prostitution illegal has no effect on those either. All else equal, it's more expensive to fight something you can't stop or even really slow down very much, which is why I think less money should be spent on enforcement than, say, treatment of the inevitable consequences.
(Or better yet, trying to address the underlying factors that drive demand, though we almost never try that)
I think there are legitimately different classes of problems, and some are better addressed through regulation, and others are just made worse.
Racism (read: systematic racism at an organizational or policy level) and worker mistreatment are likely in the former: problems that are possible to at least noticeably mitigate through legislative changes, incentives, and punishments.
Alcohol and drug prohibition I would put into the latter class: things people will continuing doing no matter how illegal they are.
Prostitution seems like it clearly belongs with drugs and alcohol, though I would love to hear the reasons you disagree.
By the way, I have no idea why your comment got downvoted. I disagree with it so far, but it's a coherent argument and not particularly nasty. It's hard to have discussions on HN when dissenting opinions just get buried.
For example, the criminal justice system is all messed up. Over-criminalization, coercive plea bargains, law enforcement unaccountability etc. But we focus on police shootings of black men, which aren't actually disproportionate to the number of police encounters with black men.
Because it's a thing you can put video of on the television and get people frothy about, but it's not a thing you can solve on its own because it's a consequence of all of those other things and not a cause in itself.
By getting people to focus on the wrong thing, they can get votes without having to do the hard work of solving the underlying problems. Instead they give you empty symbolism -- take down statues, rename stuff -- which doesn't fix anything. More than that, because the underlying problems never get solved that way, they can keep campaigning on it forever.
Exactly. Just like the rise of domestic extremism is a consequence of young men being left behind by technological progress and algorithmic echo chambers. Seeing no way for themselves in the world they are easily radicalized on social media. The mentally ill carry out spectacular displays of violence once they are nurtured by these groups. "Cracking down on domestic extremism" is a convenient way to maintain favor with the upper classes who are fearful of the discontent and militant attitudes and supposed actions of these groups (people are claiming membership in movements that have no central authority). It does not address the problem though and actually "cracking down" will only further inflame it. The solution is finding a way to offer these discarded people a way forward, real opportunity where they can see themselves being somebody that matters in their community. Attaching themselves to an extreme ideology is a cheap, last ditch effort to be somebody.
The only way legalized sex work can fail to reduce trafficking in sex workers is if there's insufficient background checks on sex workers. I'm familiar with the facts you're citing, and that's the only thing that makes sense. It makes precisely no sense to imagine it's a reason to keep sex work illegal.
You make some very interesting points. I don't know why it was modded into invisibility. Speaking for myself, the prostitutes, sorry that should be ‘sex workers’, don't benefit from the job. Who does are the pimps who control the industry. In the case of the Internet that woud be the cyber-pimps. It's a very self-destructive ‘lifestyle’. You'd be better off flipping hamburgers. I know this is a novel concept to some on here but prostitution is degrading both to the ‘sex workers’ and their clients.
-------
Quoting @notsureaboutpg: “This hasn't led to a decrease in trafficking in the countries that have tried it though. Many of them in Europe have become trafficking destinations for women from other countries. There's lots and lots of studies out there that show that decriminalizing prostitution does not lead to lower trafficking or better outcomes for prostitutes.
Also the rhetoric we use here (defeatist, people are going to solicit sex and break the law so let's make it easier for them, etc.) is in stark contrast to how we talk about problems we actually want to fight in our societies like obesity, racism, worker mistreatment by employers, etc. In those situations we never say that people are going to do such things anyways and criminalizing it just makes those who do those crimes more unlikely to change, more unlikely to get back into society, more distrustful of the system, etc. In those situations we spend tons and tons of money at the corporate and the government level trying to teach people these behaviors are wrong and to not engage in them.
Why can't we do that with people who solicit prostitutes?”
"I know this is a novel concept to some on here but prostitution is degrading both to the ‘sex workers’ and their clients."
You seem very confident that this is an indisputable fact. Can you explain to us why paying for sex work and performing sex work are always degrading acts?
> Why can't we do that with people who solicit prostitutes?
We completely agree about the purpose of government.
The government exists to provide education and support for people to escape toxic situations, NOT more LAWS backed by the threat of violence, with over reaching questionable authority to force people to do what a subset of people believe is morally right, based on sensationalized media reporting, whether that's prostitution, drug use, abortion, gun laws, mask usage...etc.
Unless there's unquestionable hard science to make a law over, with data effecting the majority of the population, the federal government should not be involved in a legislative capacity.
There's already an uncountable number of federal laws(you can google it).
We need to err on the side of freedom not safety and morality.
Lawmakers/LEO/Press (created and) amplified each other's narratives about child sex abuse. With that came fatter agency budgets and the rise of related orgs that could raise huge amounts of cash.
> they're designed to cripple the power that the internet brings to the electorate.
IIUC, they're part of Hollywood's Righteous War on Tech and its Wild-West Internet. Based on SESTA/FOSTA lobbying. So perhaps "to media consumers" rather than "electorate". Perhaps roughly: Hollywood fighting to bring law and order to the Internet (there's little good about it, and it's mostly just video packets), against media consumers steeped in entitlement and illegality, Google/BigTech's unconscionable power, and their corrupted mendacious supporters in Congress.
That much press writes about this, and it's discussed here, as if trafficking was the issue... oh well. I'm reminded of a, IIRC, a Columbia Journalism Review column, roughly "why a liberal dislikes the NYTimes", describing each morning getting it and Financial Times, skimming NYT, throwing it out, and reading FT... because while FT was "of the enemy", at least it didn't misdescribe political issues as conflicts of ideas rather than of interests.
Given what internet+sex-trafficking bills actually accomplish, it's fairly clear they're designed to cripple the power that the internet brings to the electorate. The trafficking rhetoric is little more than marketing.