Moral panic about sex work leads to law enforcement practices that reach far beyond anyone engaged in or with erotic labor. The latest example comes from San Diego County, California, where cops are putting up a creepy surveillance tower under the auspice of stopping sex sellers and sex buyers from meeting.
The prostitution surveillance tower, stationed along National City's Roosevelt Avenue, will record video of anyone who happens to be in the area.
You are reading Sex & Tech, the newsletter from Elizabeth Nolan Brown on sex, technology, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture. Want more on sex, technology, and the law? Subscribe to Sex & Tech. It's free and you can unsubscribe any time.
Normalizing Warrantless Surveillance
A supporter of the surveillance tower told a local CBS affiliate that it will help reduce prostitution by recording the license plate numbers of people who enter the area to pick up sex workers.
Schemes to catch people who want to pay another consenting adult for sex are a waste of money and manpower and a violation of privacy, free association, and bodily autonomy, of course. But even if you think that punishing prostitution customers (or sex workers themselves) is a swell idea, it's hard to see how the surveillance tower makes any sense.
You can't charge someone for simply picking another person up off the street, even if police think the person on the street looks like a sex worker. Even if money visibly exchanged hands—well, it's not a crime to give someone cash. Unless the entire sexual exchange happens right in front of the cameras, it's hard to imagine on what basis cops could possibly make any charges stick.
Besides, the tower is very visible and local media have been publicizing it. Smart sex workers and their customers will simply move to another, less visible area. If the surveillance tower has any impact at all, it will be to drive prostitution from one part of the city to another. That's it.
It seems clear that the idea here isn't actually cracking down on prostitution. It's just a way for authorities to look like they're doing something about sex trafficking while further normalizing the idea of conducting broad, warrantless surveillance of everyone.
So Many Sex-Trafficking Myths
Local reporting on the new surveillance tower has been heavy on human trafficking myths and dubious statistics. Citing a group called The Ugly Truth, Fox 5 San Diego suggested that "there are over 3,000 to 8,000 sex trafficking victims in the county each year."
And on what data does The Ugly Truth base this? Its website doesn't say. But considering that that's vastly more victims than we see in trafficking arrests across the whole country in a year, and considering the fact that "sex trafficking stings" in California and elsewhere routinely turn up few or no victims, I'm going to guess this data is bogus, if it exists at all.
The Ugly Truth's website also states that there are "approximately 18,000 victims in the U.S." If we take that at face value (and again, it's dubious), that would mean that around 17 to 44 percent of all U.S. trafficking victims are in San Diego County. Why, it's almost as if these numbers are completely made up…
Such sketchy figures are par for the course when it comes to activism and reporting about sex trafficking.
Fox 5 also claims that the "the average age of entry into sex trafficking is 16" and that prostitution is "an $800 million industry locally." It does not cite any sources for these statements.
Claims like these tend to be based on shoddy studies put out by anti-prostitution activists and from groups whose funding depends on proving that sex trafficking is a major issue. For instance, there's a persistent claim that the average age of entry into prostitution or the average age at which someone becomes a trafficking victim is somewhere between 13 and 16. Here's what sex worker Maggie McNeill toldReason about this "fact" back in 2014:
There's a researcher named Melissa Farley who does an awful lot of these kind of studies to provide numbers for the anti-prostitution people. And on her site she traced this supposed number of average of 13 to several old studies which all drew back to a study done here in LA actually in the early 80's—in '82. And that study found the average age of entry for underage sex workers—not for all sex workers, but only for underage ones—was about 16. In a different part of the study, they listed 13 as being the average age of first sexual contact. First kiss, first groping in a car, first whatever. Farley seems to have conflated the two numbers to represent that 13 as being the age not of first sexual contact, but of first accepting money for it. Even so, she still was only claiming that that was the age of origin for underage sex workers. Normal distortion, the gossip game syndrome, has changed that from underage to average of all.
Thankfully, there seem to be fewer nonsense statistics about sex trafficking in the media now than a decade ago, when trafficking panic was reaching a peak. But coverage of the National City surveillance tower serves as a good reminder that debunked myths are still out there—and still being used to justify police antics that otherwise might creep people out.
And while sex trafficking panic is arguably less omnipresent now than it was a decade ago, its press coverage should remind us how institutionalized this panic has become.
Authorities overseeing old-school vice stings routinely call them "human trafficking operations" or "sex trafficking stings" now, and reporters and people on social media just casually parrot this language. See, for instance, a recent announcement from Caflironia Attorney General Rob Bonta, who alleged that "sex traffickers capitalize on large events like Comic-Con to exploit victims" (never mind that these sorts of claims around big events have been debunked again and again) and bragged that "an investigation by the San Diego Human Trafficking Task Force" led to "14 individuals [being] arrested."
Local, national, and even international media have run with Bonta's framing in their headlines. "14 Arrested at Comic-Con In Anti-Human Trafficking Sting," NBC reported. "Fourteen arrests in undercover sex trafficking sting at San Diego Comic-Con convention," Sky News said.
If you read a few paragraphs down into Bonta's press release, you'll see that no sex trafficking or labor trafficking arrest resulted from this trafficking sting. The 14 people arrested were picked up for trying to pay another adult for sex. That other adult, however, turned out to be an undercover cop.
The FBI, Homeland Security Investigations, and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service assisted in these efforts.
This is the sort of vice sting that cops have been doing from time immemorial—and which many people started seeing as a waste of taxpayers' resources when it was done simply to arrest adult sex workers or their would-be clients. So now, authorities dress up their prostitution stings in the language of stopping sexual exploitation and slavery.
In this case, authorities also pretended to be prostitution clients and contacted sex workers. But instead of calling this what it is—a sex worker sting—they say they're recovering "potential victims of trafficking." If you frame all sex workers as potential trafficking victims, then you can call luring them to police under false pretenses a rescue mission, even if all that happens once they're in custody is they get "offered services." (That is, they get the phone numbers of some local charities.)
And while it's unclear if the "victims" here were arrested, this isn't uncommon in these sorts of operations, with police justifying it by saying they need to arrest them in order to save them.
The Comic Con operation did find one 16-year-old selling sex. (A minor selling sex is legally considered to be a sex trafficking victim, even if there is no trafficker.) Helping minors who are selling sex—whether they're actually being "trafficked" or not—is a good goal, of course, and people will point to this one teen as evidence hat the whole operation was a success. But arresting would-be sex buyers had nothing to do with finding this teenager; you didn't need to do one to do the other. And is the best way to help teenage sex workers really to terrify them in a sting and then turn them over to child welfare agents? Shelters and social services for victims—teen or adult—seem like a much more effective and humane approach.
More Sex & Tech News
• The Department of Justice is suing TikTok, claiming the company has violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Much of the complaint turns on the idea that TikTok should magically know whether any user is under age 13, even when users lie about their age or sign in with credentials from another website. The Justice Department also alleges that TikTok collected too much data on users it knew were under 13, and it objects to the fact that the company wouldn't delete minors' accounts upon parental request unless parents certified under penalty of perjury that they were in fact the users' parents.
• The Consumer Product Safety Commission says Amazon is legally liable for recalling products sold by third parties.
• Some New Jersey lawmakers want to require adult-oriented websites to verify visitor ages. Meanwhile, a measure sponsored by Assemblyman Michael Inganamort (R–Morris) would require computer manufacturers to block porn sites unless a user pays a $20 fee, and to block "any website that facilitates prostitution."
• Another blow to "net neutrality": The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit "blocked the Federal Communications Commission's reinstatement of landmark net neutrality rules, saying broadband providers are likely to succeed in a legal challenge," reports Reuters. The court had already delayed the rules—which were initially adopted under former President Barack Obama then rescinded by former President Donald Trump—after the commission voted in April to bring them back. The court on Thursday said "it would temporarily block net neutrality rules and scheduled oral arguments for late October or early November on the issue, dealing a serious blow to President Joe Biden's effort to reinstate the rules," Reuters reports.
Today's Image
photo by Elizabeth Nolan Brown—Brooklyn, 2016 (Brooklyn | 2016)
Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com
posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary
period.
Subscribe
here to preserve your ability to comment. Your
Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the
digital
edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do
not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments
do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and
ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
We've seen this movie in America before, roughly four years ago. In that case it was one riot in one place, and basically everyone who participated had their lives ruined. That is going to happen tenfold in Britain. And Starmer is far more competent than Biden, younger than Biden, and was previously the UK equivalent of the Attorney General.
I get the grievances of the British right. But unless you are prepared to overthrow the government by force and install Farage as Franco (which I do not advocate, to be clear), the only long-term consequences of these riots will be the jailing and bankruptcy of those who participate, and a general delegitimization of right-wing, anti-immigration politics in Britain (which should be on the rise - Nigel's an MP!)
Yes, you are second-class citizens in the country of your birth. That sucks. The only way is through.
These men owe it to their families not to engage in activism that *cannot work*
Decentralized right-wing riots *do not work*
The bulk of the British public will support Starmer, the rioters will have zero international support, they have no leadership, no clear demands, no purchase among elites, nothing other than righteous anger which is not enough
It's like they read Luttwak's Coup D'Etat: A Practical Handbook and did the opposite
The existence of a two-tier system of policing is undeniable now. Cops ran away from the Harehills riot, yet they stayed put in Southport and Hartlepool and cracked heads. They used kid gloves on ‘pro-Palestine’ protesters who waved brazenly anti-Semitic placards, yet they declared war on the anti-Islam agitators of Southport, Hartlepool and London. The police do not operate in a vacuum. They get their cues from the establishment. And the cue here is that white working-class men are the lowest of the low, the most morally corrupt of identity groups, and thus deserve everything they get.
All of this raises a pressing question about the authoritarian measures Starmer has promised to introduce in response to the post-Southport riots. Why these riots? What is it about this street violence that offended Starmer so much more than the Harehills street violence, to the extent that he now feels he must build a ‘national violent disorder unit’ to counter it? His proposed panoply of tyrannical measures is frightening. He says facial-recognition technology will be used to track the movement of certain activists. He says ‘surge teams’ of police officers will be sent to smash ‘far-right’ agitation. And he has ‘warned social media’ to keep a check on misinformation – like the misinformation that swirled around the identity of the Southport stabber – or else face consequences. In short, he’ll deploy AI, censorship and new armies of cops.
That the cultural elites’ greatest fear post-Southport has been the reaction of the throng is not actually surprising. We live under officials who seem maniacally obsessed with observing, checking and deflating the views and emotions of working-class society. Bereft of solutions to knife crime, too cowardly to confront the rise of radical Islam, clueless in the face of a new culture of nihilism, our rulers focus instead on controlling the public response to such horrors. They erect a vast edifice of political correctness to police what can and cannot be said on these matters, in the hope that if peace cannot be maintained through tackling violent behaviours, it might at least be propped up through shooting down any passionate public reaction to such behaviours. Their obsession is with maintaining a phoney social calm by silencing people’s concerns rather than addressing the things that concern us.
You see it on so many issues. On Islamist terrorism, the familiar call is ‘Don’t look back in anger’. Don’t get too het up. Don’t ask awkward questions. After every terror attack of recent years, the cry has gone out: if you get too angry about this horror, you might stir up ‘Islamophobia’. You might embolden those who wish to ‘[seize] this atrocity to advance their hatred’. Even using the word ‘Islamist’ has become a risky business. Counter-terror police once considered changing the language around terrorism, by replacing ‘Islamist terrorism’ with ‘faith-claimed terrorism’, and ‘jihadis’ with ‘terrorists abusing religious motivations’. Why? To bring about ‘a change in culture’, they said; to break the ‘link’ in some people’s minds between Islam and terrorism. Can’t stop terrorism? Stop the discussion about it instead. Curb people’s thoughts, defuse their feelings.
Political correctness strangles the discussion of knife crime, too. Your knife chatter is nurturing racist visions of ‘violently nihilist, feral, often black or ethnic-minority teen gangs’, warns the Institute of Race Relations. So watch yourself. Perhaps say nothing at all, to be safe. And we are well used to public concern about mass immigration being written off by the educated classes as simmering xenophobia, a disease of the Little Englander mind.
Perhaps the worst case of public discussion being ruthlessly sidelined by an elite that outright distrusts us was in relation to grooming gangs. For years, local councils and police forces around England failed to be open about these largely Pakistani-Muslim gangs that were targeting white-working class girls for sexual exploitation and abuse. In some cases they even failed to investigate them properly. All because they feared our response. They presumed, with spectacular prejudice, that ordinary people would rise up in an orgy of ‘Islamophobic’ violence if they discovered the truth about grooming gangs. So they hid it. Their dread of pleb feeling, of working-class concern, had become so great, so overpowering, that they ended up more content to let girls be raped than to let the public know the rapes were happening.
Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)7 months ago
Yes, the British people must organize and overthrow their Marxist government. Then they can imprison/execute their Marxists and deport all these Islamic migrants that the EU and the Marxist British government has forced on them.
This can serve as a model for other countries to pursue.
They really are, though. It's not "comic" con anymore. Hasn't been for years. It is basically advertising for Disney movie franchises and other hollywood blather.
Comic book movies or star wars or whatever, it's all so fucking horrible. How the fuck anyone can be a "fan" of any of that shit is beyond me. You're just Mickey's little bitch if you are.
What is the hyperventilating for, other than ENB standard? This is called being in public, now include stingrays or genetal warrants on the cell towers and you have something but this, this is just a dashcambor bodycam writ large.
There's no need to make it less visible. In CA, it's legal to pay anyone whatever they'll accept (above minimum wage, anyway) for pretty much any sex act that can be named, as long as it's filmed for distribution.
San Diego is a bit more "conservative" than the other major cities, but at the state level the primary issue with prostitution is probably that paying in cash raises suspicion that those involved in the transaction might be trying to avoid payroll and other taxes which are assessed on employers and employees alike.
Schemes to catch people who want to pay another consenting adult for sex are a waste of money and manpower and a violation of privacy, free association, and bodily autonomy, of course.
I agree that it's a waste of time and money. But, it's a little silly to suggest that surveilling a public location is a violation of privacy. Of course, a legal market would probably be a little more discreet (unless it was a localized tourist phenomenon).
You can't charge someone for simply picking another person up off the street, even if police think the person on the street looks like a sex worker. Even if money visibly exchanged hands—well, it's not a crime to give someone cash. Unless the entire sexual exchange happens right in front of the cameras, it's hard to imagine on what basis cops could possibly make any charges stick.
Cops have fabricated charges on much flimsier evidence. I have read of cases where merely stopping and talking to anyone in an area known to be frequented by prostitutes or drug dealers was enough for convictions, and warrantless searches are a piece of cake.
The police don't have to charge people for prostitution, all they need to do is file civil asset forfeiture for every car they suspect of prostitution.
There seems to be no end to the lies much of our populace is willing to believe; either because of confirmation bias or appealing to a sense of virtue.
Smart sex workers and their customers will simply move to another, less visible area.
By the way, on a serious analysis level, this might be true, it might not be true. There are lots of reasons why a prostitution track appears where it appears. Often times, visibility is the reason women walk certain tracks. Plus, there may be access to other forms of conveniences and infrastructure that make ‘street-walking’ style prostitution likely. Take Aurora Ave in Seattle (link posted on comment below “erotic labor”.). The reason that has been a long-time popular spot is it’s a long, high traffic throughway, it’s a poorer, working class neighborhood, and it’s peppered with cheap, dive motels.
There are all kinds of places where the profitability would dry up if you “moved it to a less visible area”.
edit: And like "sanctuary cities", if you moved it to a "sex-work-is-work" wealthier white progressive neighborhood, the residents simply wouldn't put up with it.
edit: And like “sanctuary cities”, if you moved it to a “sex-work-is-work” wealthier white progressive neighborhood, the residents simply wouldn’t put up with it.
And, again per your point above in a sort of trifecta or 'triangulation of truth' notion, "*smart* sex workers" aren't cruising the corners at Comic Con.
They marry into the title of Duchess of Sussex or work into the position of Social Media Executive at a major international arms manufacturer and then kneecap the women beneath them by refusing to hire "gun bunnies" or talking about how horribly sexist their time working for Deal or No Deal was.
Or use their run for VP in an attempt to vault over a walking corpse into the WH.
Years ago - 1979 perhaps - I was at the World SF Convention in Brighton and the main con hotel was the Grand. On the first afternoon the foyer had two or three obvious hookers sitting around - smoking, as they did - and I thought, "you heard that there was a big convention in town and didn't realise what kind of convention it was". They were not around the rest of the weekend.
War on Drugs is ramping down? Since when? Around here the local police team up with the DEA (so they can engage in Equitable Sharing and get around state laws forbidding police departments from keeping the property that they steal) to bust an illegal grow every few weeks.
I mean, I'm not trying to be a dick, and I fully admit that I live in the bluest bubble of blue bubbles, but up and down the entire west coast, we are in a David Simon fever dream where drugs have been either legally decriminalized, or tacitly decriminalized. It took until 2023 for someone to stand up, look at all the devastation around them and say, 'maybe we should institute some kind of public drunkenness standard... or something?'
"Sex trafficking" is a Liberal construct. It is often hyped to provide funding for Liberal run charities that pay their Liberal senior employees a high wage. They then get the Police who are usually members of a Union that supports Liberal Politicians. These Police follow the orders of those Liberal Politicians, yet Reason would have you believe that Conservatives cause these problems. What a Joke!
Human trafficking – both sexual and non-sexual – is easily the fastest growing crime in the world. Those stats you ridicule? Those are extrapolated based on the amounts that we DO catch and stop. If you think we’re catching and convicting everyone, we’re barely even scratching the surface.
that would mean that around 17 to 44 percent of all U.S. trafficking victims are in San Diego County
Why is that so hard to believe? San Diego is a massive base for border jumping and human smuggling. Who do you think we’re talking about when we discuss human trafficking? The farmer’s daughters out in Iowa or Nebraska? No. We’re talking about people (primarily women) who are being brought in here illegally. And even if they are here legally, well guess what – if you’re a prostitute and you work for a pimp – unless y’all are filing 1099’s, you’re both in the illegal human trafficking business.
I will never understand people like you, ENB. You desperately want to rationalize prostitution as a legitimate economic/career choice. I get it – but why would you defend/deny/diminish the reality of human trafficking just so that you can do so? You’ve got a feather on one side of the scale, and a cargo container filled with young girls on the other – and you pretend like it all balances out.
A significant fraction of onions are picked by illegal immigrants. Therefore, according to AT "logic", onions enable trafficking, and need to be banned. Anyone who supports legal onions is denying human trafficking.
Then you add this bit of nonsense: "And even if they are here legally, well guess what – if you’re a prostitute and you work for a pimp – unless y’all are filing 1099’s, you’re both in the illegal human trafficking business." Well, no. You're both engaged in tax evasion.
A significant fraction of onions are picked by illegal immigrants. Therefore, according to AT “logic”, onions enable trafficking, and need to be banned.
Well, no - in that case, the lucrative onion picking market would enable illegal immigration. (Or, would it? Do they really come here to get into the wild and adventurous life of onion picking?) But that's not a reason to ban onions. Onions are harmless. And delicious. It's a reason to round up illegals and throw them out of the country.
Is human trafficking harmless and delicious?
Now, if they were picking opium, then we'd have a problem on BOTH sides of the issue - which is what we have with human trafficking and illegal border jumping.
I think the problem is that there are too many people trying to conflate a bunch of different things. Some people want to refer to all prostitution as "human trafficking", or blur the lines to promote that perception among the public.
And a lot of "human trafficking" is of people who are paying to have themselves trafficked. We could have a much more reasonable conversation if people on all sides of the debate would be a bit more honest and curious.
Flesh peddling is flesh peddling. Whether it's pornography, pole dancing, or prostitution. A million dollar escort is no different than a dollar-in-the-g-string stripper. There's no conflation there. It's all the same. Those engaged in the practice are selling their bodies.
YMMV on how OK that should be a in healthy and ordered society, but it doesn't change the fact that it all is what it is.
Whether you're doing it of your own volition, or someone is forcing/coercing you into doing so also makes no never mind. Whether I choose to take my dog, or forcibly take (or maybe just deceptively lure) your dog, and put it into a dogfighting pit is irrelevant - the dogfighting itself is the problem. Not the means by which the dogs ended up there.
The problem, contrary to your assertion, isn't the "conflating" of things - but rather your attempt to tease them out to absurd degrees in order to rationalize some but denounce others, while ignoring the bigger issue that encompasses them all.
Your data is an estimate- so I would not be shocked to find that it is equally bogus.
You should stop pointing your rage at ENB (who is the last person I would choose to defend) and instead point it at the police who have INSISTED that prostitution is synonymous with human trafficking. They are the ones who repeatedly claim that arresting a whore is somehow a "human trafficking arrest". If they weren't so interested in muddying that water, we wouldn't be risking the very real threat of human trafficking being delegitimized.
Your data is an estimate- so I would not be shocked to find that it is equally bogus.
Uh... the ILO is a Swiss labor rights organization. Estimates are and always will be estimates, but the idea that a Swiss labor rights organization is ginning up human trafficking fears based on American (or one state thereof ATCMB) policing is positively retarded on several levels.
They are the ones who repeatedly claim that arresting a whore is somehow a “human trafficking arrest”.
I can't speak for the entire country, because the policing profile in my bluer-than-blue-found-in-nature-blue district is prostitutes don't get arrested. Their customers are arrested, and then the prostitutes are directed into human services organizations.
Criminalized prostitution enable trafficking. When trafficking victims are as subject to arrest as the pimps, what does it benefit them to seek protection from law enforcement?
With California having around 25% of the nation's population of illegal immigrants, it wouldn't be unimaginable for there to also be a large over-representation of human trafficking victims.
When trafficking victims are as subject to arrest as the pimps, what does it benefit them to seek protection from law enforcement?
A cell is a whole lot more safer than on your back with a pipeline of street drugs ran into your system as some pimp turns you out a dozen times a night.
I'd seen those exact same towers in my town, never knew what they were for or what they were called. Now I know they're called "prostitution surveillance towers".
“I only hire the most qualified candidates,” [Sheriff] Wright told the Herald-Journal in a meeting inside his office. “It’s not a Black thing or a white thing. It’s a This-is-what-you-have-to-have thing.”
Asked by the Herald-Journal what recruiting strategies his office is taking to attract more Black deputies, Wright said it’s “racist” to target one race over another.
“We want more diversity too, but to hire someone just because of their skin color whether it be white or Black is racism” Wright said “I hire on the content of character, not the color of your skin.”
He notes that his deputies must be a U.S. citizen of at least 21 years of age who have never been convicted of a felony, a domestic violence crime or any criminal offense that carries a sentence of a year or more in jail.
Finding minority cops is a challenge
Law enforcement agencies everywhere struggle to find enough minority officers.
Of the 701,000 sworn police officers in the United States in 2016, 71.5% were white, Bureau of Justice Statistics data show, compared to an estimated 60% of the population.
In South Carolina, of the 130,000 men and women with a badge, 17 percent are Black, according to the state's Criminal Justice Academy. By comparison, the state’s population is 29 % Black, according to census data.
Abortion getting the same Federal/FFnC treatment that firearms, alcohol, weed, automobiles, boats, hunting and fishing licenses, property taxes, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. have gotten... for decades... bringing the US more conceptually in line with the way Europe has operated... for decades? HUMAN RIGHTS CRISIS!
However much you hate ENB propagandizing for murder, you don't hate her enough.
OK, I know ENB is dumber than dishwater but the point of of a scheme like this is explicitly to move the seedier elements away from the event. Arrests or even reductions are not the point of this obvious and telegraphed "trap", removing the event from the focal point of the LE activity (if any) is the point. This makes it more palatable for event runners and advertisers to continue to hold their events in these locations.
I don't 100% agree with this analysis, but he's right that the Chemjeff state is preparing a J6 committee style assault on the people.
The British Right is about to get absolutely reamed.
We've seen this movie in America before, roughly four years ago. In that case it was one riot in one place, and basically everyone who participated had their lives ruined. That is going to happen tenfold in Britain. And Starmer is far more competent than Biden, younger than Biden, and was previously the UK equivalent of the Attorney General.
I get the grievances of the British right. But unless you are prepared to overthrow the government by force and install Farage as Franco (which I do not advocate, to be clear), the only long-term consequences of these riots will be the jailing and bankruptcy of those who participate, and a general delegitimization of right-wing, anti-immigration politics in Britain (which should be on the rise - Nigel's an MP!)
Yes, you are second-class citizens in the country of your birth. That sucks. The only way is through.
These men owe it to their families not to engage in activism that *cannot work*
Decentralized right-wing riots *do not work*
The bulk of the British public will support Starmer, the rioters will have zero international support, they have no leadership, no clear demands, no purchase among elites, nothing other than righteous anger which is not enough
It's like they read Luttwak's Coup D'Etat: A Practical Handbook and did the opposite
I just realized that this isn't the morning Roundup thread.
My apologies.
Prostitution good, cops bad.
Especially child prostitution. - Jeff
Has Jeffy met with ENB yet regarding the interest of NAMBLA (Jeffy IS NAMBLA’s new CEO)?
Prostitution is truly a victimless crime,adults exchanging money for a service,be it cleaning gutters or sex should be allowed to do so.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/08/03/after-southport-the-rage-against-the-throng/
The existence of a two-tier system of policing is undeniable now. Cops ran away from the Harehills riot, yet they stayed put in Southport and Hartlepool and cracked heads. They used kid gloves on ‘pro-Palestine’ protesters who waved brazenly anti-Semitic placards, yet they declared war on the anti-Islam agitators of Southport, Hartlepool and London. The police do not operate in a vacuum. They get their cues from the establishment. And the cue here is that white working-class men are the lowest of the low, the most morally corrupt of identity groups, and thus deserve everything they get.
All of this raises a pressing question about the authoritarian measures Starmer has promised to introduce in response to the post-Southport riots. Why these riots? What is it about this street violence that offended Starmer so much more than the Harehills street violence, to the extent that he now feels he must build a ‘national violent disorder unit’ to counter it? His proposed panoply of tyrannical measures is frightening. He says facial-recognition technology will be used to track the movement of certain activists. He says ‘surge teams’ of police officers will be sent to smash ‘far-right’ agitation. And he has ‘warned social media’ to keep a check on misinformation – like the misinformation that swirled around the identity of the Southport stabber – or else face consequences. In short, he’ll deploy AI, censorship and new armies of cops.
That the cultural elites’ greatest fear post-Southport has been the reaction of the throng is not actually surprising. We live under officials who seem maniacally obsessed with observing, checking and deflating the views and emotions of working-class society. Bereft of solutions to knife crime, too cowardly to confront the rise of radical Islam, clueless in the face of a new culture of nihilism, our rulers focus instead on controlling the public response to such horrors. They erect a vast edifice of political correctness to police what can and cannot be said on these matters, in the hope that if peace cannot be maintained through tackling violent behaviours, it might at least be propped up through shooting down any passionate public reaction to such behaviours. Their obsession is with maintaining a phoney social calm by silencing people’s concerns rather than addressing the things that concern us.
You see it on so many issues. On Islamist terrorism, the familiar call is ‘Don’t look back in anger’. Don’t get too het up. Don’t ask awkward questions. After every terror attack of recent years, the cry has gone out: if you get too angry about this horror, you might stir up ‘Islamophobia’. You might embolden those who wish to ‘[seize] this atrocity to advance their hatred’. Even using the word ‘Islamist’ has become a risky business. Counter-terror police once considered changing the language around terrorism, by replacing ‘Islamist terrorism’ with ‘faith-claimed terrorism’, and ‘jihadis’ with ‘terrorists abusing religious motivations’. Why? To bring about ‘a change in culture’, they said; to break the ‘link’ in some people’s minds between Islam and terrorism. Can’t stop terrorism? Stop the discussion about it instead. Curb people’s thoughts, defuse their feelings.
Continuing:
Political correctness strangles the discussion of knife crime, too. Your knife chatter is nurturing racist visions of ‘violently nihilist, feral, often black or ethnic-minority teen gangs’, warns the Institute of Race Relations. So watch yourself. Perhaps say nothing at all, to be safe. And we are well used to public concern about mass immigration being written off by the educated classes as simmering xenophobia, a disease of the Little Englander mind.
Perhaps the worst case of public discussion being ruthlessly sidelined by an elite that outright distrusts us was in relation to grooming gangs. For years, local councils and police forces around England failed to be open about these largely Pakistani-Muslim gangs that were targeting white-working class girls for sexual exploitation and abuse. In some cases they even failed to investigate them properly. All because they feared our response. They presumed, with spectacular prejudice, that ordinary people would rise up in an orgy of ‘Islamophobic’ violence if they discovered the truth about grooming gangs. So they hid it. Their dread of pleb feeling, of working-class concern, had become so great, so overpowering, that they ended up more content to let girls be raped than to let the public know the rapes were happening.
Yes, the British people must organize and overthrow their Marxist government. Then they can imprison/execute their Marxists and deport all these Islamic migrants that the EU and the Marxist British government has forced on them.
This can serve as a model for other countries to pursue.
Where do I sends the check?
The prostitution surveillance tower, stationed along National City's Roosevelt Avenue, will record video of anyone who happens to be in the area.
I like to think of it as congestion pricing, but for the bitches.
Even if true, that's a mean thing to call Comic-Con attendees.
They really are, though. It's not "comic" con anymore. Hasn't been for years. It is basically advertising for Disney movie franchises and other hollywood blather.
Comic book movies or star wars or whatever, it's all so fucking horrible. How the fuck anyone can be a "fan" of any of that shit is beyond me. You're just Mickey's little bitch if you are.
Obligatory Mickey and Randy Marsh
https://youtu.be/yEvI3ECx0uc?si=R86aFya6NWixk_Mv
What is the hyperventilating for, other than ENB standard? This is called being in public, now include stingrays or genetal warrants on the cell towers and you have something but this, this is just a dashcambor bodycam writ large.
Smart sex workers and their customers will simply move to another, less visible area.
Thanks, captain obvious.
Smart sex workers don't walk the track. They monetize their activity either through high end agencies, self-promote and are the "CEO of their lives"
They're on airplanes to Vegas and other cities, or doing 'data scientist' interviews on Reason.
“Smart Johns will herd their drug addicted 15 year old’s to another, less visible area.”
There. I fixed it.
Too bad ACORN isn’t still around to enable those pimps to commit loan fraud and obtain housing loans.
It apparently isn't obvious to the police and politicians behind this.
There's no need to make it less visible. In CA, it's legal to pay anyone whatever they'll accept (above minimum wage, anyway) for pretty much any sex act that can be named, as long as it's filmed for distribution.
San Diego is a bit more "conservative" than the other major cities, but at the state level the primary issue with prostitution is probably that paying in cash raises suspicion that those involved in the transaction might be trying to avoid payroll and other taxes which are assessed on employers and employees alike.
“My body, my choice (except when it comes to commercial sex, or drug use. Then it’s a bad thing)”.
Unless you film it, and then it's okay.
Always have the camera out. Them it’s just porn.
Or unless it's an experimental shot you don't want.
Or do it in a public library.
Like Kendra Sunderland?
Kendra stole the idea from Ginger Banks.
Schemes to catch people who want to pay another consenting adult for sex are a waste of money and manpower and a violation of privacy, free association, and bodily autonomy, of course.
I agree that it's a waste of time and money. But, it's a little silly to suggest that surveilling a public location is a violation of privacy. Of course, a legal market would probably be a little more discreet (unless it was a localized tourist phenomenon).
ENB, what a sheltered life you have led!
Cops have fabricated charges on much flimsier evidence. I have read of cases where merely stopping and talking to anyone in an area known to be frequented by prostitutes or drug dealers was enough for convictions, and warrantless searches are a piece of cake.
The police don't have to charge people for prostitution, all they need to do is file civil asset forfeiture for every car they suspect of prostitution.
Smart erotic labor.
I thought San Diego was a super boring suburb. I totally missed these interesting scenes.
Well, I just learned Seattle's streetwalkers look light years more attractive than anything in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, or Winnipeg.
The worst ones in that video were still nicer looking than the best up here. Almost suspect he curated the shots.
There seems to be no end to the lies much of our populace is willing to believe; either because of confirmation bias or appealing to a sense of virtue.
Smart sex workers and their customers will simply move to another, less visible area.
By the way, on a serious analysis level, this might be true, it might not be true. There are lots of reasons why a prostitution track appears where it appears. Often times, visibility is the reason women walk certain tracks. Plus, there may be access to other forms of conveniences and infrastructure that make ‘street-walking’ style prostitution likely. Take Aurora Ave in Seattle (link posted on comment below “erotic labor”.). The reason that has been a long-time popular spot is it’s a long, high traffic throughway, it’s a poorer, working class neighborhood, and it’s peppered with cheap, dive motels.
There are all kinds of places where the profitability would dry up if you “moved it to a less visible area”.
edit: And like "sanctuary cities", if you moved it to a "sex-work-is-work" wealthier white progressive neighborhood, the residents simply wouldn't put up with it.
What I’m trying to say here, ENB, is a Pimp’s love is not like a square’s love…
edit: And like “sanctuary cities”, if you moved it to a “sex-work-is-work” wealthier white progressive neighborhood, the residents simply wouldn’t put up with it.
And, again per your point above in a sort of trifecta or 'triangulation of truth' notion, "*smart* sex workers" aren't cruising the corners at Comic Con.
They marry into the title of Duchess of Sussex or work into the position of Social Media Executive at a major international arms manufacturer and then kneecap the women beneath them by refusing to hire "gun bunnies" or talking about how horribly sexist their time working for Deal or No Deal was.
Or use their run for VP in an attempt to vault over a walking corpse into the WH.
Are comic nerds really spending money on hookers instead of comic nerding ?
The san diego comicon isnt for nerds. It is for the "trendy" to be seen.
Years ago - 1979 perhaps - I was at the World SF Convention in Brighton and the main con hotel was the Grand. On the first afternoon the foyer had two or three obvious hookers sitting around - smoking, as they did - and I thought, "you heard that there was a big convention in town and didn't realise what kind of convention it was". They were not around the rest of the weekend.
With the War on Drugs ramping down, cops gotta have a war on something.
War on Drugs is ramping down? Since when? Around here the local police team up with the DEA (so they can engage in Equitable Sharing and get around state laws forbidding police departments from keeping the property that they steal) to bust an illegal grow every few weeks.
Where do you live that people get arrested for drugs?
Apparently Maine is not only a hotspot for right-wing bumper stickers, it is also the only place in the country doing big pot busts.
I mean, I'm not trying to be a dick, and I fully admit that I live in the bluest bubble of blue bubbles, but up and down the entire west coast, we are in a David Simon fever dream where drugs have been either legally decriminalized, or tacitly decriminalized. It took until 2023 for someone to stand up, look at all the devastation around them and say, 'maybe we should institute some kind of public drunkenness standard... or something?'
"Sex trafficking" is a Liberal construct. It is often hyped to provide funding for Liberal run charities that pay their Liberal senior employees a high wage. They then get the Police who are usually members of a Union that supports Liberal Politicians. These Police follow the orders of those Liberal Politicians, yet Reason would have you believe that Conservatives cause these problems. What a Joke!
Alternatively it is one of those grisly alignments of interest.
I’m going to guess this data is bogus, if it exists at all.
Classic whore logic. Warp reality to defend prostitution.
1) Trafficking exists.
2) Prostitution enables trafficking.
3) Simply deny trafficking exists.
4) Prostitution is peachy keen!
Human trafficking – both sexual and non-sexual – is easily the fastest growing crime in the world. Those stats you ridicule? Those are extrapolated based on the amounts that we DO catch and stop. If you think we’re catching and convicting everyone, we’re barely even scratching the surface.
that would mean that around 17 to 44 percent of all U.S. trafficking victims are in San Diego County
Why is that so hard to believe? San Diego is a massive base for border jumping and human smuggling. Who do you think we’re talking about when we discuss human trafficking? The farmer’s daughters out in Iowa or Nebraska? No. We’re talking about people (primarily women) who are being brought in here illegally. And even if they are here legally, well guess what – if you’re a prostitute and you work for a pimp – unless y’all are filing 1099’s, you’re both in the illegal human trafficking business.
Here, you want stats? Try this on for size: https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/21-million-people-are-now-victims-forced-labour-ilo-says
I will never understand people like you, ENB. You desperately want to rationalize prostitution as a legitimate economic/career choice. I get it – but why would you defend/deny/diminish the reality of human trafficking just so that you can do so? You’ve got a feather on one side of the scale, and a cargo container filled with young girls on the other – and you pretend like it all balances out.
Why?
Bad logic.
A significant fraction of onions are picked by illegal immigrants. Therefore, according to AT "logic", onions enable trafficking, and need to be banned. Anyone who supports legal onions is denying human trafficking.
Then you add this bit of nonsense: "And even if they are here legally, well guess what – if you’re a prostitute and you work for a pimp – unless y’all are filing 1099’s, you’re both in the illegal human trafficking business." Well, no. You're both engaged in tax evasion.
A significant fraction of onions are picked by illegal immigrants. Therefore, according to AT “logic”, onions enable trafficking, and need to be banned.
Well, no - in that case, the lucrative onion picking market would enable illegal immigration. (Or, would it? Do they really come here to get into the wild and adventurous life of onion picking?) But that's not a reason to ban onions. Onions are harmless. And delicious. It's a reason to round up illegals and throw them out of the country.
Is human trafficking harmless and delicious?
Now, if they were picking opium, then we'd have a problem on BOTH sides of the issue - which is what we have with human trafficking and illegal border jumping.
Well, no. You’re both engaged in tax evasion
What product are they selling, dork?
I think the problem is that there are too many people trying to conflate a bunch of different things. Some people want to refer to all prostitution as "human trafficking", or blur the lines to promote that perception among the public.
And a lot of "human trafficking" is of people who are paying to have themselves trafficked. We could have a much more reasonable conversation if people on all sides of the debate would be a bit more honest and curious.
Flesh peddling is flesh peddling. Whether it's pornography, pole dancing, or prostitution. A million dollar escort is no different than a dollar-in-the-g-string stripper. There's no conflation there. It's all the same. Those engaged in the practice are selling their bodies.
YMMV on how OK that should be a in healthy and ordered society, but it doesn't change the fact that it all is what it is.
Whether you're doing it of your own volition, or someone is forcing/coercing you into doing so also makes no never mind. Whether I choose to take my dog, or forcibly take (or maybe just deceptively lure) your dog, and put it into a dogfighting pit is irrelevant - the dogfighting itself is the problem. Not the means by which the dogs ended up there.
The problem, contrary to your assertion, isn't the "conflating" of things - but rather your attempt to tease them out to absurd degrees in order to rationalize some but denounce others, while ignoring the bigger issue that encompasses them all.
Anyone who works for a living is selling their body.
*sigh*
Selling their body for sexual exploitation, you gimp pedant.
Your data is an estimate- so I would not be shocked to find that it is equally bogus.
You should stop pointing your rage at ENB (who is the last person I would choose to defend) and instead point it at the police who have INSISTED that prostitution is synonymous with human trafficking. They are the ones who repeatedly claim that arresting a whore is somehow a "human trafficking arrest". If they weren't so interested in muddying that water, we wouldn't be risking the very real threat of human trafficking being delegitimized.
Your data is an estimate- so I would not be shocked to find that it is equally bogus.
Uh... the ILO is a Swiss labor rights organization. Estimates are and always will be estimates, but the idea that a Swiss labor rights organization is ginning up human trafficking fears based on American (or one state thereof ATCMB) policing is positively retarded on several levels.
They are the ones who repeatedly claim that arresting a whore is somehow a “human trafficking arrest”.
I can't speak for the entire country, because the policing profile in my bluer-than-blue-found-in-nature-blue district is prostitutes don't get arrested. Their customers are arrested, and then the prostitutes are directed into human services organizations.
You make the argument, but you don't explain it.
Why isn't prostitution synonymous with human trafficking? What exactly is it you think the prostitutes are trafficking in?
Criminalized prostitution enable trafficking. When trafficking victims are as subject to arrest as the pimps, what does it benefit them to seek protection from law enforcement?
With California having around 25% of the nation's population of illegal immigrants, it wouldn't be unimaginable for there to also be a large over-representation of human trafficking victims.
When trafficking victims are as subject to arrest as the pimps, what does it benefit them to seek protection from law enforcement?
A cell is a whole lot more safer than on your back with a pipeline of street drugs ran into your system as some pimp turns you out a dozen times a night.
Surveillance tower in town, just proving that we are all in prison state now. no need for jails since everywhere is a prison
>>Smart sex workers
like programmable dolls?
I'd seen those exact same towers in my town, never knew what they were for or what they were called. Now I know they're called "prostitution surveillance towers".
Saw them in the Lowe's and HEB parking lots.
They don't call San Diego Spanish for a Whale's Vagina for nothing!
Spartanburg Chief of Police and Deputy Chief are black, as was the previous Chief (who was actually the Public Safety Director).
At Spartanburg Sheriff's Department, only 14% of the deputies are black.
OTOH
https://www.goupstate.com/story/news/2020/10/27/spartanburg-law-enforcement-struggles-improve-diversity-within-workforce-sc/6022243002/
“I only hire the most qualified candidates,” [Sheriff] Wright told the Herald-Journal in a meeting inside his office. “It’s not a Black thing or a white thing. It’s a This-is-what-you-have-to-have thing.”
Asked by the Herald-Journal what recruiting strategies his office is taking to attract more Black deputies, Wright said it’s “racist” to target one race over another.
“We want more diversity too, but to hire someone just because of their skin color whether it be white or Black is racism” Wright said “I hire on the content of character, not the color of your skin.”
He notes that his deputies must be a U.S. citizen of at least 21 years of age who have never been convicted of a felony, a domestic violence crime or any criminal offense that carries a sentence of a year or more in jail.
Finding minority cops is a challenge
Law enforcement agencies everywhere struggle to find enough minority officers.
Of the 701,000 sworn police officers in the United States in 2016, 71.5% were white, Bureau of Justice Statistics data show, compared to an estimated 60% of the population.
In South Carolina, of the 130,000 men and women with a badge, 17 percent are Black, according to the state's Criminal Justice Academy. By comparison, the state’s population is 29 % Black, according to census data.
Skin color is the most important thing..
Seems a lot like lack of probable cause to me in those searches.
But you know, people who say "Okay" when officer asks to search need to maybe study up on their rights.
Oops. Wrong article.
"How much to watch?"
^^ just a better vantage point than the lifeguard chair
Does San Diego's prostitution surveillance tower include watching the city council members and the mayor too or just the respectable whores?
Abortion in the USA: The Human Rights Crisis
Abortion getting the same Federal/FFnC treatment that firearms, alcohol, weed, automobiles, boats, hunting and fishing licenses, property taxes, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. have gotten... for decades... bringing the US more conceptually in line with the way Europe has operated... for decades? HUMAN RIGHTS CRISIS!
However much you hate ENB propagandizing for murder, you don't hate her enough.
OK, I know ENB is dumber than dishwater but the point of of a scheme like this is explicitly to move the seedier elements away from the event. Arrests or even reductions are not the point of this obvious and telegraphed "trap", removing the event from the focal point of the LE activity (if any) is the point. This makes it more palatable for event runners and advertisers to continue to hold their events in these locations.
ENB, have you *been* to National City?
"Erotic Labor"
Nice..