We're all in Jeopardy .... wanna play the 'categorically false' game?

[+ stevenkesslar]

From yesterday's Daily News report on the NY rally to fight what the New York Times called "the peculiar prosecution" of Rentboy.com:

 

In response to accusations that the prosecution was selectively going after gays and minorities, U.S. Homeland Security spokesman Khalid Walls said: "Any insinuation that a specific population was targeted is categorically false."

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/protesters-urge-feds-drop-charges-rentboy-article-1.2347796

 

Wow. Stunning. Hey Khalid, can you tell us which of the following categories that DHS Special Agent Susan Ruiz cited in her complaint prove that it is "categorically false" that you are targeting Gays:

 

Vanilla

Oral

Leather

S & M

Shaving

Watersports

Scat

Kissing

Anal

Sneakers

B & D

Spanking

Diapers

Role Playing

Toys

Feet

Fisting

Latex

P & P

 

And if it is "categorically false" to say that these categories, and the 22 page complaint built around them, target Gays, then let's play Jeopardy, and let me guess who they do target:

 

Who are Southern Baptists?

 

Who are the reporters at Fox News?

 

Who are Sarah and Todd Palin?

 

Who are Hillary and Bill Clinton?

 

Who is The Church Lady?

 

Who is Satan?

 

 

Cause it sure reads like an indictment of Gays and their sexuality to me.

 

Why should we doubt that the 22 pages of inferences isn't really an attack on Gays? Maybe because you folks wrote the book on how to say things in the "most truthful" or, shall we say, "least untruthful" manner. Or why don't we just let NSA Director James Clapper demonstrate how it's done?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdwv8d73aYo

 

 

How appropriate for you to use the word "insinuation," Khalid, meaning "an unpleasant hint or suggestion of something bad." You would know all about that, wouldn't you? You folks are Masters at it. (But not in the B & D sense, if you get what I'm implying).

 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=insinuation

 

Agent Ruiz points out repeatedly in the complaint she is "aware" of lots of things based on her "training and experience" regarding "the prostitution business." She is "aware" based on her "investigation" that a "twink" is "effeminate" and a "bottom" is "submissive." Thanks for helping to promote stereotypes of Gay men, Susan. It's like saying you'd know all about being "effeminate", since you are "naturally weaker than your male co-workers."

http://www.businessinsider.com/worst-stereotypes-of-professional-women-2014-3

 

Oh, wait, did I just say something that is not factually correct, but is stereotyped? I hope I didn't offend anyone!

 

Critically, Agent Ruiz redefines and actually reverses what Rentboy says we "can not" and "must" do. As she notes, Rentboy stated that escorts "can not include the following: Offers of sexual conduct in exchange for money." Yet throughout her complaint, this is redefined, so that a "Rate" is taken to mean what "customers must pay in exchange for sexual acts." Remember that, guys. If I tell you I'm not targeting you, it means I am. And if I tell you you "can not" do something, it means you "must."

 

It's all a stunning and sad reversal of what we thought was true. We thought the Internet liberated rentboys from unsafe street corners, bath houses, brothels, and pimps. We thought it gave us more choices, and economic freedom, and a way to pay our rent or our college tuition.

 

Instead, we have now learned that we were actually enslaved in a criminal Internet brothel. We are being told this by the new federal uber-pimp, the Department of Homeland Security, who is redefining our words, turning around our reality, and redefining what we "must" do, meaning "engage in sexual acts." Isn't it ironic that we have a new pimp, telling us we "must" be having sex with our clients? At least that's how DHS wants to define our reality, in order for them to make their case in court.

 

In case you're confused by all this double speak, don't be. Remember that people like Agent Ruiz and Director Clapper have a peculiar type of "training and experience." Agent Ruiz mentions in the complaint, "I am aware that prostitution is often referred to as 'the oldest profession.'" Here's one statement to support that. President Ronald Reagan said: "It's been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."

 

If you accept Reagan's innuendo as proof that politicians are all prostitutes, then I guess Agent Ruiz and NSA Director Clapper, like us, have a peculiar type of "training and experience." Let me spell it out, Susan. If we're a bunch of prostitutes, like Reagan implied, and you are saying prostitutes don't tell the truth about their prostitution, what does that say about what you folks say to people? Or Members of Congress? Or the media? Or judges? Do you get my hint?

 

But then, why would DHS want to go and hurt a lot of people, and offend Gays, by insinuating all kinds of things about a "global criminal enterprise" of "prostitution" comprised of Gay men, who DHS then "categorically" denies targeting?

 

The only thing I know to be categorically true is that this is not a game. Innocent people that worked for Rentboy are in jeopardy, for 5 years, and $250,000, because of your claims. And 5 years and $250,000 are not just words on paper. They are 7 lives destroyed.

 

That's why I'm donating $200 to the campaign to defend the only real victims named in this complaint, and the only people directly harmed by this action. It's the same as my hourly "Rate." And please, DHS, since you are so good at twisting words, please don't just infer or assume this means I "must" be engaging "in sexual acts" with Lady Coco or anyone else. I'm not. It means I am helping to protect them. And to protect the truth. I think that's something we all must do. And just to be clear, "must" means "must." I think protecting the truth, and protecting the Gay community from an unfair attack, is worth what many escorts charge for an hour of their time.

 

https://life.indiegogo.com/fundraisers/daddysreviews-com-clients-help-support-rentboy--2

 

And also sign the petition, and spread the link to your friends and other websites:

 

https://www.change.org/p/new-us-attorney-general-stop-the-anti-gay-prosecution-of-rentboy-com

 

Let's teach Susan that the Internet is not our "brothel." Let's teach her that "Rate" does not mean "sex." Not through twisting words, but through action. Let's do it by demonstrating we are not perverts, or sex criminals, or whatever she thinks we are based on a whole bunch of insinuations she wrote. Let's show her our most important "physical attributes" are our brains and our hearts.

 

Are the claims DHS is making the truth, or the "most truthful," or the "least untruthful," or simply "categorically false?" That's for a judge and jury to sort out. I think we've all learned that getting the straight truth out of these folks is about as likely as DHS admitting what we all know - that their complaint is built on an offensive set of categorical slurs against Gays.

 

Say what you will, DHS, but IMHO there is simply no denying that.

[+ stevenkesslar]

This is a footnote to what I said about the NSA and its Director, James Clapper, above, regarding the consequences of government overreach. It has no direct connection to prostitution, rentboys, and the DHS, but I think the broad lesson is the same.

 

Earlier in this post, I put these two brief segments of Clapper - first his covering up of the NSA's bulk data collection, and then his very awkward explanation of how his statement was the "least untruthful" way he could answer Sen. Ron Wyden's question.

 

 

 

The verdict on the consequences of this "least untruthful" statement are now in. The Senate voted 2-1 to scale back the NSA's bulk data collection, although they did not stop it:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/02/nsa-surveillance-congress_n_7496100.html

 

The other thing that is important to note, as mentioned above, is that when the bulk data collection was first leaked, the NSA claimed it had deterred "dozens" of terrorist attacks. Once the media started digging into that, it turned out that there was no evidence it had deterred a single attack.

 

Here's the latest twist, which actually makes me sympathetic to Clapper's perspective:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-spy-bemoans-loss-of-key-intelligence-program/2015/09/09/a214bda4-5717-11e5-abe9-27d53f250b11_story.html

 

First, he is now saying Snowden's leak "forced some needed transparency, particularly on those programs that effected the civil liberties and privacy in this country." I think it's fair to say that perhaps these are crocodile tears, and they should be taken with a grain of salt. Is he saying this because he is going with the flow, or because he really means it? Who knows. But I'm glad that we're moving away from unquestioned acceptance that the NSA knows best.

 

Second, he is now saying that the leaks also promoted the shutdown of bulk monitoring of cell phone calls in Afghanistan, which was, he says, "the single most important source of force protection and warning for our people in Afghanistan." On that, I am completely sympathetic.

 

The article above goes on to say: "The MYSTIC program in Afghanistan was used for tactical support for troops, such as alerting them to the locations of roadside bombs, said a former U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive details. 'That was what was key about it,' he said.

 

If you believe in Hollywood, as in Zero Dark Thirty, this kind of bulk cell phone monitoring may have actually helped us figure out where bin Laden was hiding.

 

My point is that I think most people would say that a spying program that helped keep American soldiers alive and out of harm's way makes absolute sense. It should be top secret, before, during, and after, in the interest of protecting Americans, as well as the people in Afghanistan who work with us.

 

The main reason it was stopped seems to be that once the program was leaked by Snowden, Afghan political leaders went nuts about it. That is exactly the type of situation where I'd rather have somebody with the temperament of a Donald Trump as President, basically telling corrupt leaders like former Afghan President Karzia that if they want our money, and our soldiers, we're going to do whatever it takes to keep them as safe as we can.

 

The final turn in this sad story is that the same technology was used to spy on drug traffickers in the Bahamas. The story concludes: "Although the use of such a program in a war zone may be understandable, what raised privacy concerns is the prospect of such technology being used in countries for traditional law enforcement. In the Bahamas, the Intercept reported, the capability was used to locate drug traffickers, “a far cry,” the site said, “from derailing terror plots or intercepting weapons of mass destruction.”

 

Again, none of this has anything directly to do with prostitution or the DHS, but I think it says volumes about the consequences of government agencies that use sensible laws to overreach. It's a no brainer that Americans would be overwhelmingly in favor of federal efforts that clearly and effectively prevent the trafficking of women and children. There is a century worth of laws, from the Mann Act to the Travel Act to the TVPA, that are designed to do just that. Where DHS really set itself up to charges of overreach, I think, is targeting a Gay website used by Gay men for consensual adult relationships.

 

The other reason I put this up as a cautionary tale is that (watch me really getting up on the soapbox) I think we have to be just as careful about overreaching with our rhetoric as well. I've been reading a lot of very vivid accounts about how sex workers interviewed by social workers and non-profits feel about cops. To put it diplomatically, it's not very pretty. But they are the cops, and they are the same ones that we expect to protect the safety of trafficked sex workers. If we come across as stridently anti-cop, I think we're going to risk having egg on our face, just like Clapper does.

 

One of the reporters at the LA rally commented on the "No Bad Whores, Just Bad Laws" sign. She asked, "Are there really no bad whores?" in a way that clearly indicated she was skeptical. Anybody who has been around this website knows it's not that simple. You guys can be appropriately harsh on escorts that you think lie, cheat, or steal. I'm all for signs and chanting and protest politics, but if we try to overreach and make it look like we're good and the cops are bad, we're going to expose ourselves just as much as Clapper did. He's a powerful man, and he can get away with it, at least for a while. He just proved it. I don't think we have that luxury.

[+ stevenkesslar]

The argument that Susan Ruiz would be targeting gays is however one I would put aside pretty quickly were I be sitting on the judge's or a juror's chair.

 

Yes, the way you write that, I agree 100%. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not really thinking about or proposing legal strategy. That's for the lawyers to figure out. I'm not suggesting that this is an argument to present to a judge or jury.

 

I've talked to enough Gay people that are inflamed by the language used in the complaint that at this point, what you and I think is basically irrelevant. Right or wrong, a lot of Gay men feel like it's a throwback to the language used for centuries to demonize Gays as perverts. There are still people being thrown off the roofs of buildings by ISIS, and stoned to death by crowds of spectators if they happen to survive, simply because they enjoy the types of sexual acts described in the DHS complaint.

 

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/isis-fighters-trick-men-dates-prove-they-are-gay090515/

 

The New York Times isn't "Gay," but they took it that way. The LGBTQ media is taking it that way.

 

Probably without intending to, DHS opened up a huge can of worms and touched on a lot of Gay men's very, very hot buttons.

 

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gay-man-wrongly-accused-making-and-owning-child-porn090515/

 

I just found this article in the last few days, but to me it helps explain why Gays could get pissed off at words seemingly as innocuous as "twink." This guy did no wrong, and had to go through hell, basically because of government bureaucrats' ignorance about our community. I'm still not sure why a complaint about prostitution would bring up the word "twink" at all. Is being a "twink" a "sex act?"

 

To your point though, I'm glad that some younger Gays posting in blogs don't take it as insulting. They haven't experienced that type of derogatory stereotyping, so they don't see it as an issue. That's actually good news. To me, it reinforces my point. If we are actually making progress, why turn around and go back the wrong way?

[coriolis888]

Steven,

 

You have done a great job presenting a case against the DHS being involved in a non terrorist issue.

 

Unquestionably, the prosecution was brought by the wrong agency (DHS) in the attack of a website that caters solely to adult gays.

 

I gather from reading your posts that you are located in California. Have you considsred contacting Barbara Boxer, the U.S. Senator for the area you reside?

 

Even though she represents California, she is a U.S. senator and this bizarre issue is within the boundry of federal civil rights.

 

Senator Boxer leaves office next year. It would be a "feather in her cap" if she were the senator to present this issue to the U.S. Senate, thus bringing this unconstitutional prosecution to an end.

 

She has a reputation for defending civil rights of gays (and others, of course).

 

The above is just something to consider.

[+ stevenkesslar]

I gather from reading your posts that you are located in California. Have you considsred contacting Barbara Boxer, the U.S. Senator for the area you reside?

 

Wow. What a wonderful idea!

 

There is a growing coalition of activist organizations that is coming together on this issue. I'm not the one to initiate contact with Sen. Boxer. They are. I'm uncertain about many things right now, but I am certain of the need for coalition building, I've done a lot of coalition organizing in the past, and it worked every time.

 

As you say, the immediate issue is why Rentboy was targeted by a federal agency that is charged with protecting Homeland Security. I don't know, but my guess is there might be US Senators who are skeptical about that. Especially if we do a good job presenting the facts, as we know them today: 1) there are no victims, 2) there was no violence, 3) closing down websites like MyRedbook and Rentboy is in fact likely to increase violence against women and kids, if you listen to the organizations that work most closely with them, like SWOP, and 4) closing a website used by adult Gay men does not relate to the primary goal of laws like the Mann Act and the TVPA, which is to protect victims of trafficking, mostly women and kids. There's other good arguments being put forth by groups like the ACLU and WHO, relating to things like protecting American civil liberties, and protecting people from disease, but I just listed my Top 4.

 

As the New York Times editorialized in questioning the logic of the raid: there may be a "credible" case here, but why target federal resources designed to protect Americans from a growing terrorist threat? I don't know that many Senators would relish getting dragged into a divisive debate about a "global criminal enterprise," if what that really means is what at least tens of thousands of Gay men do privately and consensually. Add women escorts and their clients to the mix, and you're now talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, impacted. Mostly, they are doing whatever they are doing privately, and it is between consenting adults. And even if many Senators are completely against "prostitution", however it is defined, by anyone, for any reason, they might conclude that "prostitution" is probably best left to the states, where it is largely considered a misdemeanor. At least where it doesn't meet the legal definition of "trafficking" spelled out in laws like the TVPA.

 

The broader issue relates to what Amnesty International and the World Health Organization and a lot of other groups just announced they are for: selective decriminalization of prostitution. That is a huge can of worms, and it is very divisive. If you read my long rant on Paul and Sheila Wellstone, both of whom I knew quite well, my guess is that were he alive and still a US Senator, he'd probably be against decriminalization. I know for sure that Kamala Harris, who will likely replace Senator Boxer, is strongly against it, and helped block it in San Francisco in 2008. It's a very complex issue. Amnesty International would be the first to admit that, because they had a huge, long debate that got them to where they ended up.

 

For now, my primary goals are ranting about what is wrong with the Rentboy raid, listening to what our allies are saying and have experienced on this issue, helping a whole bunch of people who are sending out press releases to anyone who will listen, and learning everything I can about prostitution, and efforts to decriminalize it. I think we'd all be wise to do that. It's early days.

 

At the risk of saying something offensive, I've spent enough time with current US Senators, both "on the clock" as a professional and "off the clock" bullshitting, that I don't think they are "prostitutes" themselves. I think most politicians are looking to do good, and we are best served by having well thought through factual arguments with a broad coalition behind them. And just to clear up any assumptions that agencies like DHS may read into words, like when a male escort like me refers to time I spent "on the clock" or "off the clock" with current US Senators, I am specifically and solely referring to work I did when I was employed by various federal, state, and local non-profit organizations. I have never, never, never had sexual relations of any type with any current or prior US Senator. I may be an escort, but I am most certainly not a whore!!!!

 

I may have very little virtue left, but I do have the virtue of patience. We need to build the strongest coalition we can, and figure out exactly what we want. Everything good comes to those who wait.

 

By the way, if and when we get to the point where we are ready to meet with US Senators, where do you live, and are you interested in joining us?

[coriolis888]

Thanks for the offer but I must decline because I am not in the U.S. enough to be of help to a cause.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Thanks for the offer but I must decline because I am not in the U.S. enough to be of help to a cause.

 

Ha ha. Maybe you should start an escort website then, based outside the U.S.

 

Of all the various half baked things about this raid, the one that makes the absolute least sense to me, even looking at it from law enforcement's perspective, is why they think it will help to go after and shut down websites in the U.S., that are under their legal jurisdiction. It would make more sense to me if it was something where they knew, with relative certainty, they could count on an international coalition, like the one that went after file sharing websites like Megaupload. On this one, there are lots of places that escort websites could open up shop where the governments likely wouldn't care. We'll be lucky if its Rent Men and the Netherlands, because I can think of other places that are havens for international crime and money laundering that would be far worse.

 

Anyhoo, thanks for the excellent suggestion.