rentboy office raided

[+ Gar1eth]

Thank you and QTR for the information.

 

Oops, quoththeraven is right about "custodial" and investigators who ignore legal requirements. Sorry about that.

 

 

Just as a further FYI in case you didn't know about QTR (quoththeraven), he is actually a "she"-one of three who post here.

 

Gman

[ajirons09]

This is what I think. There was a similar takedown of a straight escort website earlier this year - April or May, I think. Arrests were made, the corporate officers were prosecuted. I read about it only the other day. I think I remember the site was called "Red Door" or something like it. It seems like the Justice Department has decided to go after internet sex.

 

The website is or was called, "My Red Book"...

http://myredbook.com

[coriolis888]

The website is or was called, "My Red Book"...

http://myredbook.com

 

 

Good grief!

 

I opened the link that you provided and was I shocked -

 

http://myredbook.com

 

The art work used for the seizure notice is way overdone considering the trivial issue involved.

 

At reading the seizure notice I was reminded of old history books that discussed the "Gestapo" and similar tactics used to frighten or control citizens.

 

What on earth can justify seizure of a domain site just because some gays want to meet escorts and vice versa?

 

Well, it is back to the jungle and the days of the hyenas for our misguided Homeland Security.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Also, everyone needs to understand something about the right to remain silent. Moreover, also keep in mind, that any statements made to the media, posted on websites, or communicated in any other way to anyone but your lawyer can be used against you later in court. There is a specific exception to the rule against admitting hearsay for "statements made against interest." That is, if you say something that incriminates yourself, you can't use the hearsay rule to keep it out at trial.

 

You may well be right. Certainly, to make the case for arrest warrants -- which is all they were doing -- they put in a lot of unnecessary salacious detail. The underlying offense on which their Travel Act/Conspiracy theory depends is selling sex for money, and there it would have been more than sufficient to note the "prices" listed in ads for "incalls" and "outcalls," and that these two terms have a well establishing meaning in the "sex trade."

 

Sorry to be nosy, but inquiring minds want to know. Where'd you come from all of a sudden? You're a lawyer, you created a profile yesterday, you have posted 8 times since yesterday, all on this thread about this subject, you seem to be very well informed about the content of the case, and you seem to be making some informative but leading comments, like pointing out that "statements...made on websites...can be used against you later in court." And you seem to think it would have been "more than sufficient" for the government to make their case to simply point to three words: "prices,""incalls," and "outcalls" because somehow those words have something to do with something you called the "sex trade." Huh? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

What's your agenda here, and what do you know about this subject? It sounds like you are a lawyer who is actually defending what the Department of Homeland Security did.

[coriolis888]

Sorry to be nosy, but inquiring minds want to know. Where'd you come from all of a sudden? You're a lawyer, you created a profile yesterday, you have posted 8 times since yesterday, all on this thread about this subject, you seem to be very well informed about the content of the case, and you seem to be making some informative but leading comments, like pointing out that "statements...made on websites...can be used against you later in court." And you seem to think it would have been "more than sufficient" for the government to make their case to simply point to three words: "prices,""incalls," and "outcalls" because somehow those words have something to do with something you called the "sex trade." Huh? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

What's your agenda here, and what do you know about this subject? It sounds like you are a lawyer who is actually defending what the Department of Homeland Security did.

 

 

Good point Steven.

 

In the indictment, the feds admitted they had agents attend at least one meeting. At the meeting (s), the agent (s) did not identify that he or she was a federal agent.

 

Things are very volatile now and no one (except for the feds) knows why the raids occured and what will result from the raids.

[+ WhamIAm]

What js51569 is saying makes perfect sense, is absolutely accurate and is good for all of us to know. Arrest warrants are issued based on "probable cause," which is a much lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt." The website terms cited in the complaint, the lists of interests, and the listing of hourly rates all more than satisfy that low bar. And, by that or any other name, the "sex trade" has been around for a long, long time. Let's not delude ourselves about what's going on here. Whether or not js515679 is trolling for DHS (I'm thinking not, but could be wrong), in order to understand this (not agree or condone, but understand), you need to be open to learning about and understanding the system. Know your enemy.

[+ FreshFluff]

Sorry to be nosy, but inquiring minds want to know. Where'd you come from all of a sudden? You're a lawyer, you created a profile yesterday, you have posted 8 times since yesterday, all on this thread about this subject, you seem to be very well informed about the content of the case, and you seem to be making some informative but leading comments, like pointing out that "statements...made on websites...can be used against you later in court." And you seem to think it would have been "more than sufficient" for the government to make their case to simply point to three words: "prices,""incalls," and "outcalls" because somehow those words have something to do with something you called the "sex trade." Huh? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

To be fair, I think any defense lawyer would give this advice. If I were LE, the last thing I'd do is tell people to shut up when they're being questioned. If anything, I'd wait a few weeks until things calm down and make a typical newbie post asking about people's experiences.

[coriolis888]

What js51569 is saying makes perfect sense, is absolutely accurate and is good for all of us to know. Arrest warrants are issued based on "probable cause," which is a much lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt." The website terms cited in the complaint, the lists of interests, and the listing of hourly rates all more than satisfy that low bar. And, by that or any other name, the "sex trade" has been around for a long, long time. Let's not delude ourselves about what's going on here. Whether or not js515679 is trolling for DHS (I'm thinking not, but could be wrong), in order to understand this (not agree or condone, but understand), you need to be open to learning about and understanding the system. Know your enemy.

 

 

"Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."

[+ Gar1eth]

Good grief!

 

I opened the link that you provided and was I shocked -

 

http://myredbook.com

 

The art work used for the seizure notice is way overdone considering the trivial issue involved.

 

At reading the seizure notice I was reminded of old history books that discussed the "Gestapo" and similar tactics used to frighten or control citizens.

 

What on earth can justify seizure of a domain site just because some gays want to meet escorts and vice versa?

 

Well, it is back to the jungle and the days of the hyenas for our misguided Homeland Security.

 

 

The notice at Rentboy is very similar.

 

Gman

[+ Gar1eth]

The days of raids like Stonewall are not necessarily behind us. This occurred as recently as 2009.

 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Lounge_raid

 

 

Gman

[js515679]

Sorry to be nosy, but inquiring minds want to know. Where'd you come from all of a sudden? You're a lawyer, you created a profile yesterday, you have posted 8 times since yesterday, all on this thread about this subject, you seem to be very well informed about the content of the case, and you seem to be making some informative but leading comments, like pointing out that "statements...made on websites...can be used against you later in court." And you seem to think it would have been "more than sufficient" for the government to make their case to simply point to three words: "prices,""incalls," and "outcalls" because somehow those words have something to do with something you called the "sex trade." Huh? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

What's your agenda here, and what do you know about this subject? It sounds like you are a lawyer who is actually defending what the Department of Homeland Security did.

 

Sorry it seemed sudden, but there never seemed a need for me to say anything before. My information on this case comes from the Complaint and Affidavit of in Support of Arrest Warrants. I do not agree with what Homeland Security or the U.S. Attorney's office did here, quite the opposite.

 

My remark about prices, incalls and outcalls was merely meant to illustrate the point that the Complaint and Affidavit does indeed go out of its way to highlight sexual details that are entirely unnecessary to support the probable cause showing the government needed to make in the Complaint and Affidavit in order to obtain the arrest warrants they wanted. The allegations are that those arrested because of their association with Rentboy conspired to facilitate an unlawful activity, namely prostitution as defined under New York law. I do not agree with that claim, but I do know that to show the probable cause necessary to obtain those arrest warrants, the government did not have to get into the personal descriptions/sexual details they presented in the Complaint and Affidavit.

 

Those details were, best case, meant to sensationalize the allegations and, worst case, as an attack on the LGBT community. Since selling sex for money is the alleged underlying unlawful conduct, they could have established the probable cause necessary to support the arrest warrants by pointing to the fees stated on most Rentboy ads and the use of terminology in those ads that is in common usage (and has been for many, many years) with respect to escort services that the government has successfully prosecuted in the past. The fact that the Rentboy site itself established those fields as important information to be provided by its advertisers would suggest, although not prove, that it understood and promoted that activity. (I do not, by the way, believe that those allegations alone would be sufficient to prove the government's case beyond a reasonable doubt, but showing probable cause is a much lesser standard.)

 

Don't read too much into my caution about statements made on websites, since statements against interest can be made in any forum where human communication takes place. I'm simply saying that there are circumstances where what someone says publicly, even though not directly to investigators, can later be used against them. Silence, in other words, is the safest and most sensible course of action for anyone who advertised on Rentboy or who used the services offered by those advertisers.

 

I don't have any agenda other than to highlight some of the ins and outs of the rights to remain silent and to counsel. I am in private practice -- not in New York -- and I practice in the constitutional law area, among others. Long ago, I served in the Department of Justice, so I do have a feel for some of these things, and how cases are usually prepared and brought. As I said, I do not support this case.

[Rudynate]

The website is or was called, "My Red Book"...

http://myredbook.com

 

Thank you.

[Guest]

I didn't mean 'no' I wanted to waive my rights. But 'no' I don't understand it. What happens if you don't (or at least say you don't) understand the Miranda Rights?

 

 

Well, I guess the appropriate response would be: "What part of the warning did you not understand and why?"

[+ stevenkesslar]

Silence, in other words, is the safest and most sensible course of action for anyone who advertised on Rentboy or who used the services offered by those advertisers.

 

I don't have any agenda other than to highlight some of the ins and outs of the rights to remain silent and to counsel. I am in private practice -- not in New York -- and I practice in the constitutional law area, among others. Long ago, I served in the Department of Justice, so I do have a feel for some of these things, and how cases are usually prepared and brought. As I said, I do not support this case.

 

Thanks for responding directly to my question. For what it's worth, I am still the only person on the forum who hit the "like" button when you first identified yourself as a lawyer with the word "Yes," and I did so because as Daddy has been saying for years it makes total sense that we should understand what the law says in our local jurisdictions, and we should not break the law. As several people just said, it makes sense to know your enemy and how they think, even if you don't agree with them. I'm pretty sure most LGBT people on this site could say they've had a lifetime of experience in doing just that. And you are reinforcing what Killian already said, which is that people named in the complaint or most vulnerable to harassment because they used Rentboy's services might be best served by getting legal advice and letting lawyers speak for them.

 

I am sticking with my main point, which is political rather than legal, which is that this complaint reads like a broad attack on the gay community, gay sexual practices, gay pornography, and pretty much gay everything, and it is written in a way that dredges up page after page of negative and discriminatory and derogatory stereotypes about gay men and uses these stereotypes to bolster what is basically a weak and I think offensive case. At it's core it is based on a bunch of "inferences", to use your words.

 

There are parts of the complaint that are just absurd to me. What Rentboy calls "primary interests" is redefined in the complaint as "sexual acts [escorts] are willing to perform." These include things like "leather" and "shaving". Leather is defined (by Rentboy) as "dressing up in leather fetish gear" and "shaving" is defined as "a fetish for smooth skin." I'm sorry, but when did wearing a particular type of clothes and liking smooth skin become a "sexual act"? I wear clothes every day and I shave almost everyday, and somehow I don't see that making me part of the so-called "sex trade." It's absurd.

 

I've had a number of appointments with clients who asked me to wear a nice suit because we were eating at a nice restaurant. I suppose by the Department of Homeland Security's standards, this could be defined as a "sexual act." I've gone on dates with boyfriends where we discussed what type of clothing we were wearing to particular restaurants. I suppose maybe that could be called a "sexual act," too. My guess is that the complaint did not state things like "wearing fashionable clothes to dinner" because it makes people like me sound like normal human beings. So they instead dredge up a bunch of crap, literally. In addition to mentioning "fetishes" like "leather gear" and "shaving" they also make a point of describing "scat" as a "sexual act" as follows: "Sex play involving shit. A rare treat for the connoisseur only." Sorry. Maybe I'm a weirdo, but shitting somehow doesn't strike me as a "sexual act." Its usually what I do after I eat a lot of food. The only reason I can think of that DHS would go there is to make us look like perverts and threats and to try to somehow connect these scary things to something called the "sex trade."

 

If your point is that all DHS needed to do to arrest people is throw around words like "sex trade," you are obviously correct, because the arrests did happen. But the burden now seems to fall on DHS to prove in court how all of this adds up to some "sex trade" conspiracy, if this in fact goes to court. Out of curiosity, I Googled the words "sex trade" and "sex trade definition" and the first entire page of results failed to define "sex trade" and instead defined either "sex trafficking" or "human trafficking." I'm pretty sure everybody would agree they are very scary things, but they are not what Rentboy has been accused of. My point is that I'd guess there are as many possible definitions of "sex trade" as there are posters on this site, and they would probably be all over the map. It's not a phrase I use, and likely suspects like Google or wikipedia are not helpful in defining what "sex trade" means. Wikipedia doesn't have a definition for "sex trade" other than to say that it is a synonym for "sex industry" which includes things like pornography and sex toys and men's magazines, all of which I have enjoyed, and none of which are illegal. If a judge or jury end up deciding that an escort stating a "price" for something called an "incall" or "outcall" proves that they are part of something called a "sex trade conspiracy," that will actually come as a big surprise to me. Then again, I'm dumb enough to not understand that the choices I make in clothes to wear or whether or not I shave in the morning is actually a "sexual act" and is therefore potentially a threat to national security. I think it's absurd, and it's an anachronistic slam on gay men. So maybe it's a good thing I'm not a lawyer. All I know is I charge for my time, just like lawyers do, and that's what the escorts I know do, as well.

 

I'm beating this to death, I know. I think if we all decide we should be cowed by this, then we are really screwed. It makes sense to me that people that have been arrested or named in complaints or that used Rentboy might want to be silent right now and let lawyers who are most familiar with the ins and outs of the laws make their case, if needed, just like lawyers made the case for gay marriage to the Supreme Court. But it wouldn't have worked as well as it did if the rest of us had just shut up and been cowed or intimidated. What we actually did is shouted and organized and unified, and fought for our rights, and that is exactly what we need to be prepared to do now.

[Mocha]

Okay this is all crazy as fuck. I'm pissed. I just paid for an ad the other week and haven't even gotten my first client from this renewal.

 

It's time to start marching. Hit the streets, protests, take Baltimore and Ferguson to New York

[rogerG]

In order to change laws, you need advocacy, and you need a lot of it. Numbers make the difference in any debate. Unlike the lilly-white, romantic images that the word marriage conjures, few people want to step forward and defend "escorting" or their need to pay for sex and intimacy. In order to win over average hearts and minds, certain people in society need to talk openly about the positive impact of a safe and healthy sex life, the one they can only find by paying for it.

 

There is a dark, seedy side to escorting. The word "prostitution" has been around a very long time, with many iterations. Lawmakers need to hear about the health benefits of sex. Modern society needs another Masters and Johnson, reputable doctors who are willing to talk openly about sexual dysfunction and the human need for intimacy and how this affects the health of our body and mind.

 

Too many people live with miserable sex lives and are complacent with their status. Misery loves company, so this is one hard nut to crack. Every pun intended.

[Dave]

As the post-Rentboy arrest hours accrue, I’m feeling an increased sense of discontent. Rentboy.com has been seized. This event is going to affect all of our lives - effectively turning most of us reading this thread into victims. But we all know - WE ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG. We - the real clients and escorts - are doing good things for each other. It’s odd to paraphrase Jeffrey Hurant (the arrested CEO of Rentboy, who had the highest bail to post and seems to have the greatest charges against him), but whether you see him as smart or reckless in his talk, he said of Rentboy, “we do good things for good people, and bring good people together.”

 

I know firsthand that escorts can provide clients with emotional closeness, teach clients about sexual topics, laugh and have fun with them, and share sexual experiences.

And I know firsthand that clients can provide mental and physical satisfaction for escorts, emotional support to them, and, of course, help their income.

 

What really bothers me is this - actually, Rentboy had been designed, and effectively worked, to RESPECT the law that kept prostitution illegal - by keeping it off the streets, out of the bars, and away from public places. Consider these things:

 

< Hiring an escort off a site like Rentboy was a consensual act done between two adults.

< An escort website like Rentboy had been carefully configured to be discreet - escorts were found on the internet, not street corners.

< Being online, it was out of the public eye - one had to enter the site by agreeing to its terms, and confirming that one was of legal age to view the adult material on the site.

< And, it had been arranged by the people who ran it, to use codified language, euphemisms, and loopholes; perhaps the most obvious being that you couldn't say you'd have sex for two hundred dollars, but you could say you'd buy an escort's time for two hundred dollars.

 

All of this was done to make a service that's been around since “forever”, operate in a society that has currently deemed it negative. An interesting link for a global and chronological perspective on prostitution can be found here.

 

Woops, there’s that pesky word, “prostitution”, again. Escorting, hooking, hustling, wh0ring - call it whatever the hell you want, the services that escorts provide are both necessary and inevitable. Necessary, in that escorts provide so much more to their clients than what those opposed to the industry want to focus on - including perspectives on orientation and gender issues, intimate verbal discussions, friendship, and actual companionship. Inevitable, because humans want to learn about their sexual selves and explore alternative sexual concepts. We are sexual beings. We are animals, and we have instinctive sexual drives. But because we are human and have the quality of choice, we can decide to what extent we pursue such. Some people choose to act on that more than others, and do so. In my opinion, that is one of the greatest things we can do, in having a life well-lived. So yes, I’m pissed because this is coming down to other people taking control of our choices.

 

And, dear Reader, you should be, too. Are we going to let the government get an even stronger position in criminalizing prostitution? Are we going to let them win their War on Sex? We’re dealing here with a victimless crime, but if they have their way, it will drastically change the way people who hire procure services, and the way escorts advertise their services.

 

This is our Stonewall. Amnesty International makes a significant statement declaring that sex work needs to be decriminalized, multiple LGBT groups come forth and support that statement, and just weeks later, the largest male escort website in the United States gets attacked? Let’s not retreat in fear. I think the time is now, for us to stand up in the name of sexual freedom, admit that this IS prostitution - but it’s being done the RIGHT way - and make a demand for decriminalization. Until then, it’s just a matter of time - just like another raid on The Stonewall Inn - before the other escort sites go under.

[+ SimplyAdam]

Thank you, Dave (and all) - exactly! In many respects, this IS our Stonewall. A true tipping out.

 

With nerves wracked, I've just issued my response: www.simplyadam.com/blog/in-response-to-the-raid-and-shutdown-of-rentboy-dot-com/

 

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

 

In solidarity...

[Michael Wayne]

I cannot say it better than DAVE...nor shall I attempt to. I do not feel it is the time to REMAIN SILENT but it is in fact time to speak up and speak out! I am damn proud of my career and of how many clients I have made very happy over my 22 years in this biz! Let me close with this: I was RENTBOY before there ever was a rentboy.com and now that rentboy.com is gone I am still RENTBOY. If McDonalds closed tomorrow you could still find a good burger. The industry leader is down and for that we grieve and we wish all of those arrested the best. We have their backs! I refer everyone to www.men4rentnow.com and to www.rentmen.com/mikeyusatop as there are still plenty of good, well reviewed available choices in DC as well as all over the USA!!!!

[mike carey]

Thank you Adam, a lovely intervention!

[Rudynate]

Having lived for many years in a country where prostitution is simply legal I am looking at this development with amazement. Cynically enough, prostitution was made legal there to better fight the exploitation of victims in the sex industry. Here they made it illegal in an attempt to fight the exploitation of others. I however don't see any signs that the last approach actually works. (Most of all it forces sex workers into unsafe situations.)

 

I wouldn't be surprised if many American websites now to move to countries where prostitution is legal. I remember suggesting Hooboy to move his review site to Amsterdam, as he already lived there as well. Gay Romeo made a comparable conclusion and they moved years ago. Although their main office is still in Berlin, from a legal point of view they're located in Amsterdam. (Their move had little to do with prostitution, and more with more adult-friendly legislation in The Netherlands.)

 

Most of all I wonder "So how does this relate to the American spirit of Free Enterprises ?"

 

Anton.

 

Obviously, one can conclude that "Free enterprise" is only free to a certain point.

[Kevin Slater]

New York Times editorial on the matter.

 

Kevin Slater

[Lankypeters]

Any reports on the meeting at Judson Church?

[+ stevenkesslar]

In order to change laws, you need advocacy, and you need a lot of it. Numbers make the difference in any debate. Unlike the lilly-white, romantic images that the word marriage conjures, few people want to step forward and defend "escorting" or their need to pay for sex and intimacy. In order to win over average hearts and minds, certain people in society need to talk openly about the positive impact of a safe and healthy sex life, the one they can only find by paying for it.

 

You are absolutely correct. I've heard some knee-jerk reactions like, "We need to have a march on Congress," and my personal reaction is, "Huh? They can't get anything else done. Why in God's name would we think they are going to give a shit about us?" As you said, this is a hard nut to crack.

 

It was just earlier this month that Amnesty International called for the decriminalization of "prostitution."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/12/world/europe/amnesty-international-votes-for-policy-calling-for-decriminalization-of-prostitution.html?_r=0

 

Also this month, a number of LGBT rights groups came out in support of this position

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gay-rights-groups-decriminalize/2015/08/22/id/671407/

 

As you said, we need advocacy, and there are a bunch of recognized national organizations focusing on this. I hope the Rentboy bust will add fuel to their fire. I agree with everything Dave said above. Websites like Rentboy helped take something that was on the street, in your face, and potentially dangerous, and turned it into something more professional and safe. If you like the idea of human sex trafficking and runaway teens getting into drugs and sex and bad pimps owning human sex slaves, you really should be against Rentboy and against decriminalization. If the Amnesty International studies are right, the Department of Homeland Security is basically spending taxpayer money to make America less safe. None of these are easy points to make, but they all actually make sense and have research behind them.

 

In the short term, what matters most to me is something I know very little about: legal strategy. To reiterate it again, this is a good time to remember Daddy's rules: we should know the law, and not break the law, and call a lawyer if somebody claims we are breaking the law. To me the best thing that could come out of this is that DHS takes their best shot at a gay-oriented website like Rentboy and it just doesn't fly, and at this point how that plays out is mostly a legal matter.

 

If I look at it from DHS's perspective, and assume that they succeed beyond their wildest dreams, it actually still adds fuel to the decriminalization fire. Even if they win a victory against "prostitution" how is DHS actually making America more secure by doing this? I'm just going to cut and paste what Daddy himself wrote on this site on Wednesday: "Is this the best that the Department of Homeland Security can do to fight the war on terrorism?" It seems that they have made a priority of taking down a 19 year old website that provided a legitimate advertising outlet for a group of people that have been marginalized for such a long time."

 

One of the sick comforts I take out of this is that it is almost certainly going to turn a lot of gay men against DHS. The Rentboy bust has solidified my belief that the agencies charged with focusing on national security to prevent another 9/11 have in fact become a threat to personal security. The NSA feels they can spy on our mail and then lie about it, until the media calls them out and Congress - which can agree on very little - actually agrees to shut down their spying. The TSA can block me from making a flight to meet a client by shutting airports down for hours for no reason at all, at least no reason they will explain. They can actually fuck up almost every test of airport security screening DHS puts them through to the point where they have to reassign the Acting TSA Director. And now in a Summer when a whack jobs slaughtered innocent Marines and churchgoers in Tennessee and in South Carolina - real acts of terror that investigation by DHS might have prevented - we learn that what DHS apparently thinks taxpayers want it to focus its investigative resources on is shutting down a gay website that is part of a nefarious sex conspiracy and uses words like "piss" and "leather" and "penis size" - lions and tigers and bears!!!! These agencies are not very effective, and they have been allowed to run amuk.

 

Part of the problem is no politician wants to be seen as being against "national security." As bad as the Iraq War was, arguably the single most fucked up thing that happened after 9/11 is the way Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia - a disabled and decorated war veteran - was run out of office for being "weak" on national security. From Wikipedia:

 

In 2002 Cleland faced Saxby Chambliss for the Georgia Senate seat. Cleland enjoyed a comfortable lead in the polls early in the race but lost much ground in the weeks running up to it. On election day Cleland lost to Chambliss 53-46. Some supporters blamed a Chambliss TV ad featuring the likenesses of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein while criticizing Cleland's votes against homeland security measures.[16]Cleland supporters claimed the ad questioned the senator's patriotism,[17] while Chambliss supporters claimed it simply questioned his judgment.[17][18] The ad was removed after protests from prominent politicians, including Republicans such as John McCain and Chuck Hagel, both of whom are also veterans of the war in Vietnam.[19][20]

 

Rule #1 for politicians is save their own ass first. The only good news about what happened in 2002 is it's now over a decade old, people forget, and Congress actually just clipped the out of control spying of the NSA on the Patriot Act in a way that actually vindicated Cleland, I think.

 

I actually tried to find a recent poll that showed how popular DHS is, and this is the closest I could find:

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/11/13/senate-committee-considers-new-leader-for-the-favorably-viewed-homeland-security-department/

 

It's a few years old. At least in 2013, DHS was actually toward the top of the list of government agencies viewed favorably. At that time, the Center for Disease Control was #1, which is interesting because the CDC took a big hit in public perception when Ebola hit in 2014. To that point, as the poll above points out, while DHS had a 66 % favorability rating in 2013, it only had a 43 % favorable rating in 2010. Things can change.

 

I don't delude myself that most of America cares about things like the Rentboy bust, but I hope as this plays out people who do think about it are asking the question Daddy is raising: How does this actually fight the war on terror? The fact that the NSA just lost a high profile fight to protect their right to spy on us suggests the tide may be turning, and I hope eventually there is political support for reigning out of control agencies in and getting them to refocus on real threats. I hope this helps do that.

 

To end on a happy note, let's also remember that the glass is half full. Two points on that.

 

First, RogerG said that while "marriage" conjures up "romantic" images, this is hardly what words like "escorting" conjure up. True, sort of. Let's also remember that a decade ago, "gay marriage" conjured up mostly negative images among a majority of Americans, who were against it. We can, and did, change those perceptions over time.

 

This ad is a gay marriage spoof, which if you haven't seen already is just wicked funny.

 

 

The reason I include it is I think as escorts we can take comfort in the fact that even if we have to put up with a less than perfect world, we are not suffering. Instead of telling the world, "Fine, discriminate against us, we will marry your girlfriend!, what we can tell the world is this: "Fine, discriminate against us, we will get hired by your husband!" It's true. If it's not their husband, it's their father, their brother, or their gay uncle. To put it in selfish and personal terms, I just came back from a 12 day trip to Europe with a client, that involved staying at great hotels, eating at fabulous restaurants, and seeing wonderful sights. I will spend a big part of the rest of this year doing similar things in Mexico. Sorry, DHS, but even though I am an escort, like the ones you just targeted in New York, somehow I just don't feel like I am part of this vague and nefarious and threatening "prostitution ring" or "sex trade conspiracy".

 

So unless and until you get in the 21st century, escorts like me can at least take comfort in the fact that we will continue to get hired by your fathers, and brothers, and sons, and uncles, while you work hard trying to move America backward, unfairly persecute us, and make America a more dangerous place. And if you think your fathers, and brothers, and sons, and uncles are going to stop hiring escorts - guess, what? You're actually not just living in the pre-Internet age, you're living in the prehistoric age. Because we all know this is the oldest profession in the world, whatever you call it.

P.S. Thank you, Kevin, and THANK YOU, NEW YORK TIMES.

[+ stevenkesslar]

From the New York Times editorial:

 

Prosecutors can credibly argue that the site’s operators were breaking the law. But they have provided no reasonable justification for devoting significant resources, particularly from an agency charged with protecting America from terrorists, to shut down a company that provided sex workers with a safer alternative to street walking or relying on pimps. .

 

Amnesty International announced this month that it would be pushing for the decriminalization of consensual sex work worldwide. After a lengthy and at times fraught debate, the organization’s experts concluded that sex workers were less likely to be harmed and exploited in places where the trade is lawful. Several gay and transgender rights organizations, including Lambda Legal and the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, issued a joint statement supporting Amnesty International’s position.

 

Gay men in the United States turn to sex work for a variety of reasons. In New York, where homeless shelters for gay and transgender youths have lengthy waiting lists, sex work can mean the difference between sleeping on a bed and sleeping on the street. For others, it is a way to afford a degree.

This is a serious question and/or proposal. I wonder if it is time for some of us to start contacting gay-friendly media (there are lots of papers like The New York Times across the US) and "come out" as gay escorts or people who hire them and ask them to write stories or editorials that: 1) question why the Department of Homeland Security is targeting escorts rather than terrorists, and 2) promoting the idea that it is time for a serious debate about decriminalization in some jurisdictions? There are a bunch of very articulate people who post on this site - escorts and clients - some of whom don't need to hide what they are or do, and we could make a list of media outlets that are likely to support us, and start contacting them.

 

The New York Times obviously gets the point, and the generic "stories" they mention are poignant. I think it may be time to go back to Harvey Milk's advice: that we have to put a set of human faces on this. To me there are a lot of positive and personal stories to be told by people that post on this site. That is in fact part of the huge value of this site. It does not promote prostitution. Speaking for myself, it promotes personal integration and professionalism. On the escort end, they range from stories of entrepreneurial escorts who used escorting to start businesses and smart guys who used escorting to get college degrees, to more marginalized and vulnerable people who, as the NY Times says, are simply worse off and in greater danger if DHS succeeds and shuts more gay websites down. In my years as a community organizer I won lots of difficult campaigns and one of the first steps was always contacting media outlets that could help communicate the perspectives and points of view and goals we wanted to get across. People should not only be seeing this from DHS's perspectives, which is that we are perverts and threats.

 

I am glad escorts who are not named in the complaint and do not live in a targeted jurisdiction like New York (or who do, like Adam) are speaking out.