Airport Human-Trafficking Posters Are Overstating the Risks to Young People
"That guy isn't being trafficked by anyone," says sociologist Emily Horowitz.

If you've recently been to a U.S. airport, you might have seen posters depicting an attractive, unsmiling young person. These posters are accompanied by sensationalist, hyperbolic claims that young people are at risk of predation from human traffickers. They include a contact number to report suspected trafficking.
The posters are part of the Department of Homeland Security's Blue Campaign, "a national public awareness campaign designed to educate the public, law enforcement, and other industry partners to recognize the indicators of human trafficking, and how to appropriately respond to possible cases."
I noticed one of these posters at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in Austin, Texas. I saw it again at Raleigh-Durham. (Note: Though the young man looks an awful lot like my editor, Robby Soave, he swears he is not moonlighting as a sex-trafficking victim impersonator.)

I've also recently seen a similar ad featuring a young woman of color. But a few years back, the trafficking posters in airports all looked like Brooks Brothers ads. Today, there's a wider array of ethnicities.
Still, the real question is: By urging travelers to be on high alert for sex-trafficking, are these ads serving any legitimate purpose?
"That guy isn't being trafficked by anyone," says Emily Horowitz, a sociologist and author of From Rage to Reason: Why We Need Sex Crime Laws Based on Facts, Not Fear, when I show her the poster.
Kaytlin Bailey, the founder of Old Pros, a nonprofit that advocates for sex worker rights, and host of The Oldest Profession Podcast, agrees.
"We're not having a problem with white middle-class kids disappearing from soccer games," says Bailey. "That's just not a thing that is happening."
What is happening, she says, is something remarkably akin to the white slavery panic at the turn of the 20th century, with the authorities once again "stoking these middle-class fears that a savage is coming to take your kid."
The sex trafficking of minors is an uncommon occurrence in the United States. When minors do use sex to survive, most "are running away from a worse situation back home, whether they're fleeing impoverished countries or abusive home relationships," says Bailey.
Consider the case of an underage teenager on the run who might agree to sleep with someone in exchange for a place to live. That's certainly a bad situation, and one that policymakers should work to prevent; it is not nearly the same thing as sex traffickers grabbing kids from airport bathrooms, or flying them around the country. Hysteria helps no one: For instance, the oft-cited statistic that the average age of entry into sex work is 13 years old is absolutely false. (Bailey puts it at 26 years old.)
Nonetheless, these posters are multiplying at airports, probably because the people who designed them feel good about fighting a crime that is indeed horrible, even if it is nowhere near as common as these posters seem to imply—and thank goodness for that.
Bailey likes to remind people that most instances of child sexual abuse are committed by someone known to the child, such as a family member or teacher. There are very, very few unfamiliar assailants lurking at airports, shopping malls, and sports stadiums.
"It is literally the opposite of stranger danger," says Bailey.
In the meantime, telling travelers to be on high alert for kidnappers might make life more difficult for interracial families who are just trying to board their plane. In 2019, Cindy McCain, the wife of late Sen. John McCain (R–Ariz.), apologized after she mistakenly reported what she believed to be child trafficking when she saw a child with a woman of a different ethnicity.
Placing posters of young people at airports probably won't do much to stop the underlying causes of human trafficking. They may be ginning up unnecessary fear and panic.
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.
Please
to post comments
Hey, Lenore, if some kids and young adults have to travel to places they don't like (for any reason), that is certainly trafficking. Just like if they have to work to support themselves, it is slavery.
If a 12 year old boy wants to earn a living by letting you and the reason staff tag team him up the ass, that is just old fashioned self help and ingenuity. I am sure he had it a lot worse at home. So, why not help the kid out by paying him to allow you to sodomize him. Right?
Remember kids, Libertarians are not libertines. Nope, not at all.
Monkeys fling shit.
Sorry people are getting in the way of your buying little boys for ass sex. What a shame. Have you considered relocating to Pakistan? I hear pederasts are more accepted there.
When did you stop raping puppies?
Monkey flings more shit.
Do you even have a point, beyond "how DARE YOU question our narratives?"
With puberty blockers, that 12-year-old could actually be 18. Win-win.
*Lying Jeffy is conflicted*
You can be his bestest friend without benefits.
Fuck off.
You miss the point completely, but I'm not surprised. These ads serve the sole purpose of making their distributors feel good about themselves without making any difference about the actual problem. You clearly didn't read the whole article. This is definitely a problem, but kids aren't getting snatched from their parents at Wal Mart. (Why is it always Wal Mart??) It just isn't happening.
She never said otherwise, goatfucker. She merely pointed out that such crimes are both far rarer and completely different than what the hysterics claim. If a horrific crime is relatively rare, I think that's something to be celebrated. If we can make it ever rarer, then I'll be even happier.
The sex trafficking of minors is an uncommon occurrence in the United States. When minors do use sex to survive, most "are running away from a worse situation back home, whether they're fleeing impoverished countries or abusive home relationships," says Bailey.
Because no kid who ever ran away ended up being exploited and abused. Is this woman really this stupid or really this evil?
Sure, the kids who end up working for pimps and whoring themselves out generally don't come from the best home life. No kidding. That, however, does not make the people whoring out kids any less evil and disgusting than what they are. Jesus fucking Christ is this woman actually claiming that minors doing prostitution is really okay because "the little gutter snipes had it worse at home"?
If you are buying sex from a minor or you are pimping minors out, you are a disgusting and evil person who needs to be hanged. It is really that simple. While we can debate about what the age of consent is, there is no denying that there is an age of consent. And someone engaged in something they can't meaningfully consent to doing, is enslaved within the ordinary meaning of the term.
Of all the stupid hills reason chooses to die on, "but underage prostitution is a myth and is really groovy when it happens anyway" is the dumbest and by far the most evil.
Oh, for fuck's sake. You need to go read that again. At no point did anyone suggest that underage prostitution is OK or that people trafficking in underage prostitutes are not awful criminals. Nor is anyone saying that it is a myth or not happening. The point is that the airport posters and other awareness campaigns create a false picture of what the problem actually looks like and what the roots of it are. A problem being real does not mean that it can't be misrepresented in unhelpful ways.
No one is saying it is a myth or not happening?
The sex trafficking of minors is an uncommon occurrence in the United States.
She seems to be. What else is she saying here other than "this is myth and hardly ever happens?"
At no point did anyone suggest that underage prostitution is OK or that people trafficking in underage prostitutes are not awful criminals
Read the quote again
When minors do use sex to survive, most "are running away from a worse situation back home, whether they're fleeing impoverished countries or abusive home relationships,"
That is exactly what she is saying. She is saying that a minor who is involved in prostitution isn't "sex trafficking" because we know that doesn't happen". Then she is saying the ones who do it are just running away from worse situations. The implication of that being that it is okay that they are doing it. The point of her remark is to say that trafficking doesn't really exist, because the kids who are prostitutes are making a rational choice to escape bad situations.
She is saying exactly what you claim she isn't. It is disgusting. Moreover, who the fuck cares if the signs are too broad? Is being too sensitive about trying to stop kids from being hookers really a sin? Is it really a problem that warrants an entire fucking article in this sick fish wrap? That is the real threat freedom, the signs trying to stop kids from being hookers?
For fuck sake, get your head out of your ass.
Would it be healthy if our entire society was continuously wound up about this as you are?
Remember that over 1,000 children are killed in car accidents every year, I never see posters in gas stations about that. Why?
I think it would be helpful if as a society we gave a damn about kids being raped and used for money. I think we probably would be okay if that were the case. Children being used as prostitutes isn't a real problem like say gang members being deported or something. I think it would be a good thing if it didn't happen.
Libertarians of course view it differently because everyone knows ass sex, pot and food trucks are the only things that matter. God forbid kids not contribute to the supply of ass sex.
1. Rare things are real things, not myths. "Rare" doesn't mean "not a problem anyone should care about"
2. Choosing the least bad of terrible alternatives isn't an OK situation. It is something that compassionate people should see a problem with and try to do something about. People exploiting people (particularly minors) in such situations are still doing bad things that should be crimes.
3. Overhyping things is a good way to get people to stop caring, or to care about the wrong things. If this is an issue you care a lot about, which seems to be the case, you should care that the information campaigns accurately describe the problem so that resources and attention can be put where they can do the most good.
4. I have room in my mind to think about multiple things. And writers are not obliged to write only about the things you think are most important and relevant.
. Rare things are real things, not myths. "Rare" doesn't mean "not a problem anyone should care about"
Now you are just playing word games. The whole point of saying it is "rare" is to say it isn't a problem that we need to solve. She is saying it is something that happens as an exception. That is just bullshit. That is admitting the possibility that it might occur and no more. She is saying it doesn't really happen.
2. Choosing the least bad of terrible alternatives isn't an OK situation. It is something that compassionate people should see a problem with and try to do something about. People exploiting people (particularly minors) in such situations are still doing bad things that should be crimes.
It doesn't have to say that but in this context, that is exactly what she is saying. Again, read what she said. She says sex trafficking rarely happens. Then immediately says that the kids doing prostitution are just getting away from bad situations. Put those two together and what she is saying is that kids doing prostitution because they are runaways and choosing to do it are not victims and they are not examples of sex trafficking. She is defining sex trafficking as physically kidnapping and forcing kids into prostitution. Sorry, but minors can't consent to sex. According to this lady they not only can but they can also consent to being prostitutes. You are being intentionally obtuse here pretending that she is not saying something that she clearly is.
3. Overhyping things is a good way to get people to stop caring, or to care about the wrong things. If this is an issue you care a lot about, which seems to be the case, you should care that the information campaigns accurately describe the problem so that resources and attention can be put where they can do the most good.
It is not being overhyped. The author of this peace and the person they are siting are lying and pretending that any time a minor nominally consents to being a hooker they are not being exploited and it isn't a problem. That is bullshit. Further, the article doesn't raise this concern at all. It raises no concern about the harm caused by child prostitution. The author's only concern is that someone might do something about it.
4. I have room in my mind to think about multiple things. And writers are not obliged to write only about the things you think are most important and relevant.
The writer thinks that the problem here is people trying to stop kids from being hookers. That makes him a sick fuck worthy of nothing but contempt.
The writer thinks that the problem here is people trying to stop kids from being hookers.
No. The writer thinks mischaracterizing most prostitutes as victims of human trafficking is not a helpful approach to the problem.
Every minor prostitute is a victim of sex trafficking. Minors can't consent to being hookers. So, any minor who is a hooker is being trafficked and forced.
That is the neat little evil trick that this and many other articles pull. They act like minors are the same as adults. They are not. Fuck off with your "most prostitutes are not victims of sex trafficking" bullshit. That may be true but it is not true of minors and that is what we are talking about here.
Every minor prostitute is a victim of sex trafficking.
Only if you expand the definition well beyond what any normal person would understand by that term.
Is a minor working as a prostitute who doesn't have a pimp being trafficked? By whom?
No I don't. Can minors consent to sex or not? If they can't, then they can't consent to being a prostitute. If they are not consenting, it is human trafficking.
Reason can't get their mind around that because Reason can't admit that there is anything wrong with fucking kids. Jesus fucking Christ, in what universe is saying "children can't consent to being hookers" expanding the definition of anything?
The person trafficking them is the pimp and the piece of shit paying for it. They are all equally guilty and should hang for it. Seriously, is there anyone on earth lower than someone who is paying to screw a child?
Yes, some murdering a child.
You don’t know what the word trafficking means.
You don't know what the word "consent" means. You actually do, but you are just dishonest and want to justify buying sex from minors. Hey, it is not like you are murdering them, right?
How so?
FIFY
If they can't, then they can't consent to being a prostitute. If they are not consenting, it is human trafficking.
Says he's not expanding the definition of anything, proceeds to immediately expand the definition of the very thing he's accused of expanding the definition of.
As See.More has shown you, what you have defined is rape. Rape is not the same thing as human trafficking, and there is no benefit to pretending that they are the same thing.
You saying "having sex without consent is the exact same crime as being kidnapped and forced to work in a sweat shop" is you expanding the definition of "human trafficking."
See?
Reason can't get their mind around that because Reason can't admit that there is anything wrong with fucking kids.
When in doubt, accuse your interlocutor of the most heinous crime you can imagine. That's the way you show that you're very confident in your position.
The person trafficking them is the pimp and the piece of shit paying for it.
Take a deep breath and recall that my question was "Is a minor working as a prostitute who doesn't have a pimp being trafficked? By whom?"
What see.more said monkey boy.
What is going on inside your head, and have you considered seeking professional help? No one outside of your twisted mind is arguing that sexually exploiting minors is anything other than bad. But not everyone exploiting minors is "trafficking" them in any reasonable sense of the word. Disgusting as their behavior is, try describing it correctly. And if a minor doesn't work for a pimp, then just who the hell is "trafficking" them? Are you buying the government line that they're somehow guilty of trafficking themselves? Because that's just batshit insane.
Ok I stand corrected from my above comment; more like "how DARE YOU question my histrionic sense of virtue!"
No one is saying bad things do not happen; but most child abuse is committed by a person well known to the child and their family, and not be predators lurking around every airport counter.
Read the very next sentence, you disingenuous shitfister.
"That's certainly a bad situation, and one that policymakers should work to prevent"
No one outside the echo chamber between your ears thinks "uncommon" means the same thing as "myth". The fact that such terrible crimes are rare makes me happy, and if we can make them even rarer that would make me even happier.
Most child human trafficking over the past four years was done by the Biden administration.
Who needs facts when you can just make shit up?
Does anyone even pay attention to these? I certainly don't.
No, no one does. It still offense reason's delicate sensibilities because how dare anyone claim that child prostitution is a bad thing. That is just fascist or something.
The whole thing feels like an absurd nothingburger.
The poster has phone numbers on it. Some money was spent somewhere to hook up those phones and have someone man them. Phones hooked up and person sitting there, nobody will call a number they don't know about; so...
If you're really opposed to the issue; oppose false arrests. Oppose the hooking up of phones. Oppose someone manning those phones "in case of sex trafficking emergency". All of those cost more than the posters and I actually agree that if they are needed, they should get folded in right alongside luggage theft and bomb threats.
If you only get the posters taken down and replaced with some equally absurd "6 feet of separation to slow the spread" poster, while the same person is still manning the same phones, you haven't fixed a goddamned thing.
And yet here you are, feeling an irresistible urge to shout out how much you don't care. When I don't care about things, I ignore them. You should try it.
"That guy isn't being trafficked by anyone," says Emily Horowitz, a sociologist and author
So uh... you picked up the Sociology textbook, read it cover to cover, and when someone holds up a poster of a "guy" your thought is "They're trying to convince me he's a sex trafficking victim."?
Now, I'm not endorsing whatever regulation or social myths they've dreamed up but they're airport security, you're a sociologist. Professionally, this is a bigger fuck up on your part than theirs.
Or did they need to put up a picture of a "Maryland father" wearing knuckle tats and a wife beater to make things more clear to your highly-attuned-sociologist intellect?
He doesn;t need to Wear a wife-beater, he needs a shirt with his wife-beating police report on it.
Repeating lies doesn't make them true.
I might put more faith in "tats" that didn't look like they were 'shopped by a 6yo. When you have to make shit up to support your case, then maybe you don't have a good case.
I think that the fact that this article focuses on sex trafficking (even though the poster isn't solely about that) illustrates another problem in the hyping of "human trafficking". Human trafficking can include things ranging from people who voluntarily pay to have themselves trafficked to a place they can't get to legally, which certainly causes problems, but isn't in general modern day slavery or forcing anyone into any particular work (though I'm sure such situations exist and that people are exploited in such situations) to people forced into prostitution, which is undeniably a terrible crime that is effectively slavery. Even just slightly more nuance in how these issues are publicly addressed and labeled would be a great improvement, I think.
though I'm sure such situations exist and that people are exploited in such situations
100%. One of the contractors I used to work with was actually jailed because she was importing Chinese guys in shipping containers (she was Chinese herself) and keeping them in warehouses and forcing them to work on construction projects for a pittance under threat of sending them back to China if they complained.
Oddly enough, I shit you not, her defense attorney was Willie Brown.
It's hard to get real numbers on such things, but it's always struck me that this is likely mostly what "human trafficking" actually is. It doesn't seem like there is any shortage of prostitutes anywhere that would make importing them by force a great business model.
It doesn't seem like there is any shortage of prostitutes anywhere that would make importing them by force a great business model.
It is still a great business model because slavery is always a paying proposition. If my hookers are forced into it, I don't have to pay them and I can undercut hookers who are doing it by choice.
Also, there is always a shortage of child hookers. So, importing them as slaves fills a real demand. There is a lot of sex trafficking that happens out there and Reason is lying when they claim there isn't. Yes, there are a lot of hookers who are doing it willingly. That doesn't mean there are not a lot of others who are not.
It is still a great business model because slavery is always a paying proposition. If my hookers are forced into it, I don't have to pay them and I can undercut hookers who are doing it by choice.
Tell me you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about without coming out and saying you haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
Tell me that you have lost the argument without telling me that you have lost the argument. Sorry but "when you don't have to pay your workers you make a lot of money" is not exactly a controversial proposition.
What exactly is your point here? That no one could ever be forced to be a hooker? That pimps wouldn't do that out of kindness or something? It is one thing not to have a response to the point. Maybe it was a good one. But to not have one and then try and act like the person who just made a valid point is the one who is clueless is frankly pathetic.
So, how about you try again.
Sorry but "when you don't have to pay your workers you make a lot of money" is not exactly a controversial proposition.
No? Then why isn't the global market dominated by slavery-based economies?
What exactly is your point here? That no one could ever be forced to be a hooker?
What you're losing your shit about here is the suggestion that not everyone who is a hooker is being trafficked. You're the one making the grand universal claim. Stop pretending otherwise.
“It doesn't seem like there is any shortage of prostitutes anywhere that would make importing them by force a great business model.”
I’m afraid to ask how you know.
I don't know. That was Square Circle's point. It wasn't a valid one anyway. Slavery is always a profitable business model if you can get away with it.
You should try using quotes or italics or something. Your posts are incoherent enough without misunderstanding when you’re quoting someone.
And for my part, I've lived in the SF Bay Area for 32 years, 15 of those in Oakland. One sees things.
Yeah, because pimps who can't import their hos are famous for fair pay and top notch working conditions. Amazing how some people always respond to be called on dumb shit by doubling down.
Human trafficking is real, no matter what the coyote and prostitution apologists at Reason might claim. It’s a brutal and ancient crime, dating back to the Paleolithic era, and remains a disturbing aspect of human nature.
Is it as widespread today as some special interest groups suggest? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t real, ongoing, and deeply harmful.
What Reason has been doing lately on this topic is reminiscent of the way Democrats once opposed the emancipation movement—downplaying the harm, deflecting attention, and defending the indefensible.
What Reason has been doing lately on this topic is reminiscent of the way Democrats once opposed the emancipation movement—downplaying the harm, deflecting attention, and defending the indefensible.
Meh - I think they just pivoted alongside law enforcement when the drug war started winding down and we needed a new social crisis to justify all the law enforcement spending. My main complaint about reason is this tendency to be a bit lazy about just taking "The Libertarian Position," which in this case would be a public-choice style "law enforcement is hyping human trafficking to avoid the inevitable cuts that are coming as we end the drug war" and "government message campaigns pretty much invariably send the wrong message and distract people from actual issues." I doubt there's anything more sinister going on than that.
Yes, it's a real problem and a terrible thing when properly defined. Which is why it's important to call out when it is exaggerated or mischaracterized and when voluntary associations (by adults) are lumped in with it.
>>I've also recently seen a similar ad featuring a young woman of color.
a person not of color looks like Griffin?
Wouldn't it be hilarious if the guy pictured was, pointedly, a white Afrikaner?
Some #NeverTrump desk pogue is generating subliminal anti-Trump immigration propaganda and the Sociologist is all, "Why do you hate sex trafficking?"
They may be ginning up unnecessary fear and panic.
That, of course, is the real purpose.
At some point, you have to wonder why certain people so urgently need to convince us that child trafficking doesn't actually happen.
At some point, you have to consider why the state so urgently needs to convince us that abduction and sex trafficking of middle class white kids is a real thing.
Distract us from them actually sex trafficking kids that aren’t.
That's plausible, but I suspect generating fear is a goal in itself.
Maybe they remember the shit show that was the Satanic Panic in the 80's, particularly the day-care sex abuse hysteria? Or they remember the Salem Witch Trials? Or, just, any of the other overblown moral panics?
Yeah - once you have a few of these under your belt, you get a little more skeptical of the Latest Thing That's Destroying Everything.
You mean Sharknado Warmunism? "Ban gas right this minute or climate sharks will rain down on your heads!" Or Freeze and Surrender, "cause if putch comes to The Button, everyone, not just commies, will envy the Grateful Dead." Always the future tense, with never a mention of past hysterics falsified by fact.
"You mean Sharknado Warmunism?"
Brave says:
There is no concept or term known as "Sharknado Warmunism." It seems there might be a mix-up in the query. "Sharknado" refers to a series of made-for-television science fiction comedy disaster films, starting with the 2013 film of the same name, which features a tornado filled with sharks. The term "Warmunism" is not defined in the provided context or generally recognized. If you meant to ask about a different topic, please clarify your query.
(In Samuel L. Jackson voice)
CAN I GET A MOTHERFUCKING ACID DRENCHED MIND TO ENGLISH TRANSLATOR MOTHERFUCKER!
The Bear Patrol is alive and well it seems.
A bus stop near me had a advertising poster saying
The man with me is not my father, he is my trafficker.
It seems designed to prevent men from having children, or to never be with them in public.
Lenore has posted several stories of men being hassled for appearing in public with a child.
""It is literally the opposite of stranger danger," says Bailey."
Yes. But stranger danger rhymes. Think of how much people's lives have changed due to the random fact of two words rhyming.
Mom's Boyfriend is the most dangerous non-relative in the lives of American children.
Human traffickers in the crude sense of "people literally kidnapping someone and tryint to resell them" obviously exists.
Like terrorist exist.
And COVID-19 exist.
But to say "overblowing the danger of terrorism has cost people vast fortunes, various liberties, and some - thier lives", is not to be admiring terrorism or defending it. And to say "COVID panic has cost thousands their liberties, fortunes, sometimes their lives", is not "defending contagious viruses".
It's the same with human trafficking.
The entering wedge for this nonsense came with Sino-American prohibitionists pushing Europe into a World War to keep the world safe for gin and cigarettes. The Versailles Treaty put officious League bigots in charge of "execution of agreements with regard to the traffic in women and children, and the traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs.” This package-dealing to make drugs seem worse than gin is where MAGA republicans got their habit of disparaging all who debunk their agenda as “crackheads and pedophiles."
The sex trafficking of minors is an uncommon occurrence in the United States.
Wrong.
WRONG.
Lenore - you seriously should be ashamed of yourself. Same with ENB. Your obsession with minimizing this overt cruelty to children sickens everyone who reads it. Your delusional pretending that it isn't as widespread and prevalent as it ACTUALLY IS destroys any reason why anyone should ever take you seriously on ANYTHING. And no, don't think you're winning any friends by trying to compartmentalize it either.
See, when you say "the sex trafficking of minors is an uncommon occurrence in the United States" - what you're doing is going hyper-literal in order argue that because it's physically not happening as much in America as it is other nations, that therefore "sex trafficking of minors is uncommon" here.
But it's not. Because here's what you're overtly and intentionally ignoring:
Fighting Child Exploitation isn't ONLY about stopping the trafficking. It's also about STOPPING THE CONSUMPTION. Because the consumption IS sex trafficking (and so is prostitution, LIZ.). Every single one of those red dots is someone participating in sex trafficking. And they're in America. It's participating in it, it's encouraging it, it's causing it.
It is NOT uncommon. It is, in fact, FAR too common. And yea, let's not gloss over the fact that it's ESPECIALLY common in blue cities and among the perverted sicko rainbow people.
And if Shawn and Tim aren't your cup of tea because you're a left-wing retard, here's your guys at MSNBC.
Or just go straight to the source.
You disgustingly downplaying this is part of the reason it happens, Lenore. The f is wrong with you.
Placing posters of young people at airports probably won't do much to stop the underlying causes of human trafficking. They may be ginning up unnecessary fear and panic.
Who cares. What's the worst thing that can happen with a nation of people being made hyper-aware of underage trafficking? Why is demanding and increasing vigilance against it a bad thing?
Honestly, update the sign and have three guys - one wearing Pride merch, one covered in the gang tats that get you a free trip to ElSalv, and one Muslim - staring at Brooks Brothers Bro here with a predatory look in their eyes.
Because THAT'S an even MORE effective poster.
Don't just show the mock-up victim. Show the enemies as well.
This article has certainly brought out some crazies, who seem to be very very committed to the notion of widespread abuse and exploitation of minors, and don't bother them with number or facts to the contrary. This has to be the case and something must be done about it!
There are no contrary facts. What there are is claims that 15 year olds who become prostitutes are doing so willingly and therefore are not being trafficked. You are the one claiming that it is just fine and not human trafficking if a runaway 15 year old kid becomes a hooker, but it is everyone else who is "crazy"
Fuck off. Thanks for showing why everyone hates Libertarians.
"What there are is claims that 15 year olds who become prostitutes are doing so willingly and therefore are not being trafficked. "
No the claim is that US governments (State and Federal) have been trying to find large scale trafficking and given their failure to find significant numbers of children being trafficked there doesn't seem to be be a major problem. That's not to say that it never happens it just doesn't look like there is an "epidemic" of child sex trafficking in the US. I.e. it doesn't look like the UK.
"Note: Though the young man looks an awful lot like my editor, Robby Soave, he swears he is not moonlighting as a sex-trafficking victim impersonator."
Well he would say that.
"Consider the case of an underage teenager on the run who might agree to sleep with someone in exchange for a place to live. That's certainly a bad situation, and one that policymakers should work to prevent"
This also is totally false! There is one and only one "sex crime" and criminalizing it is highly questionable as an effective preventive measure. Once the age of consent for sexual intercourse is established legally, it may be justifiable to outlaw sex with minors. Rape is not a sex crime - it's assault and battery and there is no need to carve out anything different because the assault is sexual. The whole narrative of "she got drunk at a party so she could not legally give consent to sex" is fraught with prosecutorial problems and abuse and society should be very careful about criminalizing it. Kidnapping is already a crime regardless of the purpose of the kidnappers and regardless of how prevalent or rare "trafficking" may be, or how organized the criminals are.