RentBoy Raid...My 2 Cents

[+ stevenkesslar]

It's slowly catching on.

http://kfor.com/2015/09/01/okc-councilman-says-yes-to-legalizing-prostitution/

 

And

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/local/dc-councilman-looking-into-decriminalizing-prostitution/2015/08/14/ed84e25e-426e-11e5-9f53-d1e3ddfd0cda_video.html

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/solving-prostitution/2015/08/16/a95bbb3c-41f8-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html

 

I made extensive comments on this in a different post, which I won't repeat here.

 

I agree with Corndog. The New York Times did not support decriminalization. They focused on the fact that the Rentboy raid is a bad use of resources. The Washington Post actually opposed decriminalization. And this is what two leading liberal newspapers are saying.

 

I'm not saying I'm against decriminalization. I'm for it, even though I'm not 100 % sure what that actually means. I think the very best we can hope is that we can start a loud debate for decriminalization that helps to focus resources better than they were by DHS in the Rentboy bust. Namely, that resources are focused on real victims and real violence, mostly against women and children and stigmatized populations like transgendered street workers.

 

Maybe we can win local laws - SF was at least in the ballpark of victory in 2008 - but that worked in part because it made it clear that criminal penalties, like against battery against sex workers, would be enforced. I would not call what SF proposed "wholesale" decriminalization, which is what the Post opposed. I think we can and should promote decriminalization strategies that are built on common sense values that can unify our natural allies. If we can't do that, we can't win.

[+ stevenkesslar]

This makes me wonder ...

 

If we can convey the message that taking down websites like Rentboy will move sex workers back into the streets, back where families don't want them, and that this can be prevented by decriminalizing it, I wonder in which direction public opinion will go.

 

Anton.

 

Excellent point, Anton. Do you have a take on what is happening with the brothels in Amsterdam? If you believe what you read, hundreds have been shut down, and one report said there were something like 13 murders of sex workers. If any of that is remotely true, nobody arguing for more of that is going to get very far. The better argument is that the Internet is safer, where people can do what they are going to do any way, free of pimps and violence.

 

This is an issue right in our backyard. Note some of the language from a report on last weekend's anti-Rentboy raid rally in Chicago, regarding Lakeview, one of the predominantly LGBT neighborhoods in Chicago, where I lived from 1984 to 1990:

 

Lakeview "was our [sex worker's] home before all these rich, white men moved in." Another statement describes Lakeview as "a gentrifying [LGBT] neighborhood where many residents are calling to criminalize and push out street-based and queer youth of color." Both comments set this up as a fight between rich white guys and street-based sex workers. And it's a little confusing, in part because I'm not sure what "criminalize" means in this context because, obviously, street-based sex work in Chicago is already illegal.

 

Lakeview is a liberal area on Chicago's North Side, and it's been gentrifying at least since the 1980's. When I lived there I volunteered on the campaign of Dr. Ron Sable, the first openly gay man to run for City Council. In 1987 Sable lost in a very close race to the incumbent alderman, Bernie Hansen. Hansen got the message and became a leading proponent of gay rights legislation. Sable died in 1994 of AIDS. I suppose he could be characterized as either a "rich, white man" or as a gentrifying professional, but to me he was a hero who helped to move a gay rights agenda along. Even in losing, we won some things, both recognition as a force to be reckoned with, and legislation.

 

I'm not as close to life in Lakeview as I once was, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of rich Gay men of all colors who live there now and used websites like Rentboy, and they are natural allies. Language that makes this sound like a fight between rich liberals and street workers confuses me. The whole time I was in Chicago I was community organizing. I worked on federal laws and getting huge banks all over the country to cough up millions of dollars for low-income people to buy homes. One of my colleagues actually built a partnership to open up a health center in Lakeview, on Belmont Street, that targeted marginalized and low-income people needing health and social services.

 

My point is that there are some obvious win/win strategies here. Anton is right. It's a plus for us that taking this off the street and putting it on the Internet, where escorts can openly advertise things like their "Rate," makes it safer and better for everyone. And marginalized street workers who don't use the Internet need support, not more attack. Right now we're all in a lose/lose situation, and we are all victims of harassment and busts. Time to unify.

[Odinochka]

Haha, sadly I'm very very white. My ancestry composition is as follows ( according to 23andme ):

• 99.4% European
  
• -- 92.7% Northern European
  
• ---- 49.5% British & Irish
  
• ---- 15.8% French & German
  
• ---- 4.3% Scandinavian
  
• -- 2.8% Eastern European
  
• -- 0.3% Southern European
  
• -- 3.6% Broadly European
  
• 0.3% Sub-Saharan African
  
• 0.3% Native American
  

 

 

Well, the bartender who shook your martini shook it very well....

[+ stevenkesslar]

Seven articles and a press release that all focus on San Francisco in one way or the other.

 

http://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco_Decriminalization_of_Prostitution,_Measure_K_(November_2008)

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/15/local/me-sfsex15

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/us/01prostitute.html?_r=0

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/29/us-usa-sexworkers-sanfrancisco-idUSKBN0FY0ZH20140729

 

http://www.wired.com/2015/02/redbook/

 

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/california-operator-myredbookcom-sentenced-13-months-prison-facilitating-prostitution

 

http://www.sfexaminer.com/san-francisco-identifies-291-human-trafficking-victims-during-six-month-period/

 

http://sfgov.org/dosw/sites/sfgov.org.dosw/files/HT%20Report_FINAL.pdf

 

Here is my summary and editorializing on what I learned reading them.

 

1. It reinforces that as much as we might like to think decriminalization makes sense, we are actually in crackdown mode. A decriminalization effort failed in SF in 2008. The Redbook bust occurred in 2014. Redbook was based in the SF area, and the shutdown directly and negatively impacted adult female escorts in SF as described in the Wired article.

 

2. While the Redbook defendants both initially pleaded innocent, first one and then (quickly after) the other agreed to a plea bargain. Red Omuro, Redbook's owner, pleaded guilty to promoting prostitution, forfeited $1.28 million, and in May was sentenced to 13 months in prison. Any of this sound vaguely familiar? Are we starting to see a pattern here? Buckle your seat belts, gentleman. we are in for a bumpy ride.

 

3. While initial media reports linked the Redbook bust to a child sex trafficking sting, that arrested 281 pimps and rescued 168 children nationwide, no proof was ever presented that this bust actually linked in any way to Redbook. To editorialize, here's the part that makes the least sense to me. There is no question that children are being trafficked for sex, and it is abhorrent. Law enforcement readily admits they monitor sites like Redbook and Backpage to find pimps who traffick children. What makes little or no sense to me is that if identifying and prosecuting traffickers, which is not easy, is made easier by getting on a website and starting an investigation, does it make sense to shut those websites down and drive trafficking further underground? Most Americans don't think the way to stop gun violence is to close all gun stores. Generally Americans do support approaches that attempt to control gun sales so kids, or people we think are dangerous, can't buy them. Few people would argue that the way to stop gun violence is to turn the person who sold the gun into a felon. It will be interesting to see whether the attack on Rentboy results in even one actual "boy" being identified as a victim. Particularly since we know that neither the sales of guns, nor the use of the Internet to facilitate sex, paid or not, are about to go away, I'd rather target law enforcement to working with gun sellers and internet site operators to identify and weed out the bad apples.

 

4. There is a complete mismatch between the resources law enforcement officers have, and the scope of the problem. The phrase that sums this up is that most victims of trafficking are "hidden victims." Again, to editorialize, how does it make sense to drive victims who are already hidden further into the dark, and to target for crackdown websites that don't traffick anyone, or victimize anyone, but instead offer safer platforms for adult consensual relationships?

 

5. San Francisco just released a report on trafficking that identified 291 human trafficking victims. The 291 were identified by 19 agencies (the 291 likely includes duplication because of this), most of whom are community-based non-profits that work with marginalized communities, especially women of color. While the report mentions the Internet as a place where trafficking allegedly occurs, exactly zero of the 291 victims were identified or assisted through the Internet. Here's me editorializing again: If the real goal is to identify and assist trafficking victims, am I silly to think the best way to do that is direct resources to non-profits that are the most effective way to identify and help these victims? Shouldn't we target law enforcement, in part, to be developing better partnerships with these agencies?

 

5. The decriminalization debate pits liberals against liberals, every time. One of the most outspoken opponents of decriminalized prostitution in San Francisco is Kamala Harris, the SF District Attorney at the time, and (hopefully) California's next US Senator. Harris had this to say about decriminalization: “I think it’s completely ridiculous, just in case there’s any ambiguity about my position. It would put a welcome mat out for pimps and prostitutes to come on into San Francisco.” The article goes on: "Central to Ms. Harris’s objections is the theory that prostitution is a victimless crime. Instead, she said, it exposes prostitutes to drug, gun and sexual crimes, and 'compromises the quality of life in a community.'" Whether you agree with her or not, my guess is that if the Redbook and Rentboy busts lead to another drive to decriminalize in SF, she will be a passionate opponent. My question to her is this, in the Rentboy case: Who are the victims? Where are the guns? Where are the drugs? And in what community in San Franciso did Rentboy compromise the quality of life? Finally, and most important, how does driving it off the Internet and back on to Polk Street help matters in any way?

[Guy Fawkes]

Why no, and I've lived here for three years.

 

Ever hear of something in Vegas called the "hoe train"? It's when they sweep all the hookers off the street in Vegas, take them in for a few hours and let them go. It sounds pointless, until you find out that it allows them to keep getting funding for operations.

[adannyboy]

5. The decriminalization debate pits liberals against liberals, every time. One of the most outspoken opponents of decriminalized prostitution in San Francisco is Kamala Harris, the SF District Attorney at the time, and (hopefully) California's next US Senator. Harris had this to say about decriminalization: “I think it’s completely ridiculous, just in case there’s any ambiguity about my position. It would put a welcome mat out for pimps and prostitutes to come on into San Francisco.” The article goes on: "Central to Ms. Harris’s objections is the theory that prostitution is a victimless crime. Instead, she said, it exposes prostitutes to drug, gun and sexual crimes, and 'compromises the quality of life in a community.'" Whether you agree with her or not, my guess is that if the Redbook and Rentboy busts lead to another drive to decriminalize in SF, she will be a passionate opponent. My question to her is this, in the Rentboy case: Who are the victims? Where are the guns? Where are the drugs? And in what community in San Franciso did Rentboy compromise the quality of life? Finally, and most important, how does driving it off the Internet and back on to Polk Street help matters in any way?

 

Esplerp.org

 

Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project is suing Ms. Harris over the CA prostitution laws.

 

Check out the argument and who the presiding Judge is (Hon. Jeffrey White - judge who struck down DOMA in 2012). If they get an unfavorable ruling, it would go to the 9th circuit where their legal team thinks they have an even better shot than they do under Judge White. BUT - the 9th circuit would affect laws in more than just Cali.

We'll see what happens.

[corndog]

If we can convey the message that taking down websites like Rentboy will move sex workers back into the streets, back where families don't want them, and that this can be prevented by decriminalizing it, I wonder in which direction public opinion will go.

Conveying the message is the problem. Right now, at least in the U.S., there seems to be no appetite for public dialog on this subject. If we could get the talking heads on CNN to debate the issue and discuss the pros and cons, I think we could make some progress. But, unfortunately, so far, I don't think that many would-be supporters of decriminalization are inclined to even give the subject much thought. We can't win a battle if no one will show up at the battlefield.

 

I agree, of course, with your larger point that decriminalization would be a good thing.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Danny, I just saw that post you made last Sunday comparing Sweden and New Zealand.

 

Geeky question. Is there a link to where you got that page comparing the two countries? You put in a hyperlink to the 7 page report on criminalization of clients, but it does not include the info on New Zealand and Sweden, including the footnotes on where the data come from. The summary does say that in New Zealand the number of sex workers did not increase, and that in Sweden it shifted from street-based to other venues. But I can't read the footnotes and the hyperlinks don't work.

 

I've posted this before, which is a report showing that arrests and trafficking in Sweden did not decrease. In fact, arrests appear to be increasing. If there's other sources that say the same, that is useful to know. A lot of news articles suggest, without offering any real data, that Sweden did drive demand down by going after johns.

 

http://factsaresacred.ie/politics/has-demand-for-prostitution-declined-in-sweden/

 

The data above comes from a group called the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention and claims to be based on raw data from police reports. If it's true, it's the most "real" data I've found so far.

 

The 7 page report you put the hyperlink to by NSWP also references a 2007 report from the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Here's a link to that 72 page report.

 

https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/Lists/Artikelkatalog/Attachments/8806/2008-126-65_200812665.pdf

 

The report is basically a bunch of mush, with no really clear findings, as summarized this way:

 

It is also difficult to discern any clear trend of development: has the extent of prostitution increased or decreased? We cannot give any unambiguous answer to that question. At most, we can discern that street prostitution is slowly returning, after swiftly disappearing in the wake of the law against purchasing sexual services. But as said, that refers to street prostitution, which is the most obvious manifestation. With regard to increases and decreases in other areas of prostitution – the “hidden prostitution” – we are even less able to make any statements.

The bottom line to me is that this is all largely academic. What's relevant to me is what Kamala Harris argued in 2008 regarding San Francisco: that decriminalizing elements of prostitution would throw out a "welcome mat" to prostitutes and pimps and increase blight in the neighborhoods where they concentrated their activities. I think it's hard to argue that decriminalization would somehow REDUCE demand. I think it would be very good if we could have a lot of facts on our side showing that further wholesale criminalization - like targeting all johns - doesn't really seem to REDUCE it either.

[Wolfer]

And what if they decriminalized prostitution itself, i.e. paying and accepting money for sexual acts but keep pimps and brothel's criminalized? This way a sex worker would have legal grounds to sue or report a pimp or brothel without fear of the sex worker getting arrested or charged themselves.

[+ stevenkesslar]

That is EXACTLY how I see it, while fine-tuning one aspect of it:

 

Most people don't want to see hookers down the streets in their neighborhoods and near their children. The legislator might want to add that solicitation in public isn't allowed either.

 

That however would go towards decriminalizing brothels. I assume that, provided they're run well, a brothel could be a safe place for sex workers to offer their services.

 

Another two cents.

 

Anton.

 

Reality check time, guys.

 

This is from Wikipedia on brothels in Amsterdam. I'm posting the link, and the excerpt relating to what you said.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands

 

When the Dutch government legalized prostitution in 2000, it was to protect the women by giving them work permits, but authorities now fear that this business is out of control: "We've realized this is no longer about small-scale entrepreneurs, but that big crime organizations are involved here in trafficking women, drugs, killings and other criminal activities", said Job Cohen, the former mayor of Amsterdam.[6]

 

More recently, officials have noticed an increase in violence centered on this irregular industry, and have blamed this increase on the illegal immigration of individuals into Amsterdam to participate in the sex industry: "The guys from Eastern Europe bring in young and frightened women; they threaten them and beat them", said a resident of De Wallen.[6] Prostitution has remained connected to criminal activities, which has led the authorities to take several measures, including detailed plans to help the prostitutes quit the sex trade and find other professions.

 

At the end of 2008, Mayor Cohen announced plans to close half of the city's 400 prostitution windows because of suspected criminal gang activity.

I treat everything I read as suspect, but there is just no way you can read what is being written about brothels in Amsterdam and walk away with a rosy picture. At the risk of sounding glib, the fact that there are a lot more Apple stores in the world than there were in 2000 says to me that Apple is selling a product people wildly like. The fact that they are closing brothels in Amsterdam, on the face of it, says to me that there are real problems.

 

I think the most offensive part of it is what you said, Anton. People don't want to see it on the street. They don't want their kids to see it.

 

The next most offensive part of it is that a lot of people seem to feel, right or wrong, that in the interest of protecting women, they actually made women more vulnerable.

 

If the task at hand right now in the US was arguing that we should create Amsterdams all over the US, I would be heading for the hills. Even assuming the critics are all being hysterical, I simply would not take the risk of pushing for something that could result in such a mess.

 

The task at hand right now is quite different. Nobody is talking about opening brothels, or legalizing prostitution. In fact, we are in the middle of a well organized crackdown by abolitionists. Closing Redbook moves in the direction of taking women escorts off the Internet, where they are safer, and putting them back on the streets, which is what people don't want, and where they are less safe. Closing Rentboy does the same thing.

 

I really mean no offense to the Dutch, or Rent Men, but I hope somebody in Washington DC figures out that if closing Rentboy means that the servers all move offshore, to countries where the governments are more tolerant, and in effect it ends up being run out of the same country that gave us the brothels of Amsterdam, it is not likely to make life better for anyone in the US. Not the escorts who view this as legitimate consensual work, and not the law enforcement officers who are trying to control or abate the dark underside of the industry. Even assuming Rent Men is the best operated website in the entire world, it sets up a situation that is dangerous. Just like what appears to have happened in Amsterdam, if you assume the City's Mayor and cops actually know something, it allows criminal elements to gradually move in and slowly take over. That is exactly what we don't want.

 

To me the best thing about the Internet is that it empowers male and female escorts to make their own choices, and to offer whatever services they choose in the context of adult consensual relationships, under the scrutiny of review sites like this one. While that may not be our Constitutional right, at least it makes more common sense to people who are not moral purists. Keeping the websites in the US offers US law enforcement a way to enforce things that reasonable people care about - like making sure that the websites are not used to promote sex with minors, even if the minors are doing it simply to survive.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Thanks for taking me on, Anton . I love debate, and now is definitely the time for it.

 

Epigonos and Oliver must be laughing their ass off now, if they are reading this.

 

To let everyone in on that inside joke, the 4 of us (Anton, Epigonos, Oliver, and me) had dinner together a few years ago. (Off the clock, for fun, so no DHS, it can't be counted as criminal sexual activity). I asked a truly innocuous political question (if there is such a thing) and for about 20 minute or so Epigonos and Anton went back and forth in a heated and escalating debate, with Anton playing the liberal, and Epigonos the conservative. Oliver and I mostly just sat and watched. Finally Epigonos shut it down, as both him and Anton dug their heels in (I don't mean high heels - it was not a sexual fetish thing, DHS). At which point Oliver blamed it all on me, by saying something like, "Yeah, I notice Steven asked the question, and then just sat back and grinned like the Cheshire cat!" Moi? Really? I would never do such a thing!

 

In terms of Amsterdam, I am almost totally ignorant. I was there once, on Queen's Day. I spent the first night in a sex club, where I was a total whore, and I had a blast. Dutch guys are hot. Then I spent the next two nights in a hotel with a European fuck buddy, mostly in a hotel room, doing .... guess what? That was hot, too. As for Amsterdam, it was lovely. It felt quite safe. The only bad thing I can say is that I made the mistake of getting a hotel room with a window facing a public square, where the huge Queen's Day crowd partied all night long. At some point we both wanted to sleep, and the windows were literally shaking. It was one of the wildest things I have ever seen. The Dutch people were warm and friendly and clearly know how to party . So I am reluctant to say anything about brothels, because I know it sounds like I'm just wanting to dish on them.

 

My bias on this is that if you are advocating a policy, you ought to have numbers to back it up. So far, it looks to me like the prohibitionists, who are arguing that targeting johns makes sense because it reduces demand, have no numbers to back them up. The more you research it, the more the case for further criminalization of prostitution falls apart. If anything, the numbers in Sweden suggest that prostitution is alive and well and bigger than ever, as measured by numbers of arrests.

 

Meanwhile, there's no data that show that legalizing prostitution in Amsterdam made it better or safer. If anything, if you add up what is available online - the overwhelming negative stories and comments from former Mayors and statistics about brothel closings - it looks suspect, at least to me.

 

The reason that matters is that this isn't a friendly and playful debate over dinner like what we did a few years ago. This is a debate that is occurring in response to a crackdown that has a lot of Gays up in arms, and 7 people facing big fines and time in the slammer. If our response is going to be that decriminalization is better, the burden of proof is on us. That's not even my opinion. It is simply a fact. We do not have public opinion on our side. Even in San Francisco, the closest we could get in 2008 was 59/41, and leading pro-LGBT liberals like Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom were against decriminalization. Amnesty International put out a policy report for decriminalization, and the Washington Post, one of the most liberal papers in the US, immediately comes out against "wholesale" decriminalization.

 

Now I'm confused. I understand you don't like the fact that women are being made more vunerable by criminalizing prostitution. But you don't like a situation where (part of it) is made legal either. Which of the two do you advocate?

 

Mostly, what I'm advocating at this point is that DHS overreached and pissed off a big chunk of the Gay community, among others, by busting Rentboy. Period. There's a very broad spectrum of people and organizations that feel that way, and it seems to be getting broader by the day. I think we need to keep harping on the main reasons we oppose it: it's an ineffective use of their resources, it does nothing to address the goal of protecting women and kids from trafficking or violence, and it could make things worse, if it drives escorting off the Internet and back to the streets, or off US-based sites to offshore sites where law enforcement has even fewer tools to help victims or stop violence.

 

It's in relation to the last point, driving websites offshore, that I think it's valid to point out that things are less than rosy in Amsterdam. I'm not suggesting websites there are or would be used to promote sex with minors. Mostly what I am doing is reporting what seemingly credible people, like a former Mayor, say. He's the one that said that legalization facilitated criminals and traffickers moving in. You haven't really said you disagree with him. Do you? I think your point is this: legalization may have caused a spike in criminal activity, but it also led to an appropriate response by law enforcement to weed the criminals out. Which makes my point. "Criminalize" versus "decriminalize" is a false dichotomy.

 

Let's not get too hung up on "criminalization" or "decriminalization." The words themselves create as much confusion as clarity. The issue is complicated and divisive. It doesn't lend itself to sound bites. The sound bites that can and have been used, like Kamala Harris saying its "ridiculous" to decriminalize, generally don't work in our favor. When you dig into it, a lot of sensible strategies really involve elements of both. For example, the TVPA cracks down hard - you could say further criminalizes - the act of trafficking, but it does it in part by effectively decriminalizing sex work for women who are illegal immigrants, who can actually get visas if they can prove they were being trafficked. But that turns out to be difficult to do. As policy, I'm all for it. But the number of women actually helped by the law is a drop in the bucket. That doesn't surprise me, given the resourcefulness of predators, and given how many people feel about illegal immigrants, let alone ones that are stigmatized as "prostitutes." Anybody wanna guess what Donald Trump would say about that?

 

What I think matters most now is what DHS does next, and we don't have a clue what that is. Meanwhile, I think learning and debating make sense. Knowledge is power, and people are power. The Amnesty vote and the Rentboy bust are both big drivers that I think will move a debate forward.

 

I recognize that a lot of people are going to hit the snooze button. I completely respect that choice. Have a nice nap, and we'll wake you when it's over. Whatever happens, as the snoozers already know, the world will pretty much still be the same.

 

Meanwhile, as I said at the beginning, thanks for taking me on. Those of us that do want to speak up need to be thinking hard before we open our mouths, and both challenging and supporting each other.

[maninsoma]

1: Pass a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting a federal tax on income.

 

2: Put in place a consumption tax. People pay tax on the money they spend, not the income they report.

 

You support regressive taxation, then, since poor people would be taxed on all of their income since they have to spend everything they earn; meanwhile, someone who earns 7 figures or more could pay minimal taxes by consuming less and, more than likely, manage to evade paying taxes on consumption by buying overseas.

[mike carey]

I was there once, on Queen's Day.

To the eternal disappointment of all of us here, Queen's Day is no longer observed in the Netherlands.

[+ stevenkesslar]

To the eternal disappointment of all of us here, Queen's Day is no longer observed in the Netherlands.

 

But why? There are plenty of queens there. I mean, my God, I think I managed to have sex with a few dozen of them in just one night!

[mike carey]

But why? There are plenty of queens there.

Apparently, to my great surprise, it was not named after those queens. It was renamed King's Day on the ascension of HM King Willem-Alexander to the throne in 2013, and the date it's observed moved from 30 April to 27 April, his actual birthday.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Apparently, to my great surprise, it was not named after those queens. It was renamed King's Day on the ascension of HM King Willem-Alexander to the throne in 2013, and the date it's observed moved from 30 April to 27 April, his actual birthday.

 

Let's not get hung up on words. King? Queen? I think we are all just Prince Charmings.

[mike carey]

Let's not get hung up on words. King? Queen? I think we are all just Prince Charmings.

Indeed we should not be hung up on words! I'm sure you are prince charming, me not so much! As for the others here, I can only guess!

[+ stevenkesslar]

Keeping the websites in the US offers US law enforcement a way to enforce things that reasonable people care about - like making sure that the websites are not used to promote sex with minors, even if the minors are doing it simply to survive.

 

You have been referring to Amsterdam quite a lot. Are you suggesting that websites in the Netherlands are used to promote sex with minors? If so, please give me some examples.

 

As if I haven't been long-winded enough, I want to say more about why we should be thinking about local control, since it's why I was focusing on Amsterdam.

 

Your basic point is that even if former Amsterdam Mayor Cohen was right, and legalization of prostitution allowed "big crime organizations" to move in to Amsterdam's brothels, that's old news. You're arguing that policies like closing brothels and targeted local law enforcement efforts might have weeded out the criminal elements. Let's assume you are right, and that order is now restored.

 

It goes to my basic point, which is why I was picking on Amsterdam and Rent Men. Replacing websites in the US like Rentboy with off-shore ones undercuts the very thing you are arguing for, and I think make sense: local control, and partnerships with local law enforcement.

 

I went into detail about this 2014 San Francisco anti-trafficking report on a different thread because to me it actually is in the ballpark of what a decriminalized local control model could look like in the United States.

 

http://sfgov.org/dosw/sites/sfgov.org.dosw/files/HT%20Report_FINAL.pdf

 

There are local community-based groups, organized in a task force, and there's at least implied partnership between these groups and law enforcement. However imperfect, it's a grassroots vehicle for weeding out the most undesirable elements of prostitution, whether it's targeting traffickers or helping women or underage victims. A lot of policy wonks consider community-based policing models to be both popular and effective.

 

What does this have to do with websites like MyRedbook or Rentboy? Nothing, really. I know a lot about escorting in San Francisco. Nobody I know ever got busted there, I never heard of trafficking of Gay males, or of underage Gay boys using Rentboy or any other website to hustle. But since you asked about trafficking minors, let me shift back across the globe and describe a somewhat more plausible homeland security horror story:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/10/worlds-highest-murder-rates_n_5125188.html

 

3 of the 5 deadliest countries in the world are Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. To now leave Amsterdam alone and focus on real problems in ths US, recall that these are the countries that tens of thousands of kids fled from last year, showing up at the US border with stories of murders and trafficking by drug cartels. We did get Mexico to agree to catch and deport thousands of these kids before they get to our border (no thanks to Donald Trump), but there's still well over 10,000 of them showing up this year.

 

Here's a story about a 17 year old gay kid named Adrian from Guatemala that was trafficked across the US border last year, carrying pot for a cartel. He's now got legal status, and at the time this story was written was living in a youth shelter and attending school in San Francisco:

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/child-migrants-surge-unaccompanied-central-america

 

As bad as this human rights tragedy is, one thing we can be grateful for is that some enterprising predator hasn't figured out that if they just set up a website based in a country like Guatemala, they could not only terrorize and extort kids like Adrian and use them to transport pot. They could also put him in a defacto brothel in San Francisco and pimp him out for sex. Is this likely? No. But it actually sounds more likely to me than the idea that Lady Coco or anybody else at Rentboy was pimping out kids or women to adult Gay men.

 

What sounds even more likely to me is that Adrian himself, who was resourceful enough to escape Guatemala and get himself to San Francisco, could figure out how to use a website like Rentboy to pimp himself out. And if that were to happen, and somebody compassionate and attentive like the school principal described in the story were to figure it out, and try to get his ad removed, would it be better to have the website controlled by a woman in Sacramento, or a thug living in Guatemala City? (This is true. Asst. US Attorney Elise Becker told SF Weekly that MyRedbook employee Annmarie Lanoce "fielded correspondence from families and law enforcement about ads that might depict minors and deleted the ads from MyRedbook." )

 

Even if DHS could shut down every website suspected of facilitating prostitution, anywhere in the world, it still doesn't solve the problem. I'd say it would only make it worse. Adrian is exactly the kind of vulnerable and enterprising victim that would hustle to survive. If he could figure out how to survive murderous thugs enroute from Guatemala to San Francisco, he could surely figure out how to find a corner on Polk Street or Mission Street to hustle from. That's why we need local anti-trafficking task forces, based on partnerships between community-based groups and law enforcement, with resources, including visas. This is why community policing usually works when it's tried. It's how targeted decriminalization might work, if it were tried.

 

The main problem I have with your logic, Anton, is that it's just too logical. I'm not as optimistic as you are when it comes to how far criminals that are evil and even murderous are willing to go to exploit vulnerable people like Adrian. And how much danger victims like Adrian are willing to expose themselves to simply to survive, if we don't offer them real help. I wish DHS would forget about Rentboy and focus instead on real problems like this.