Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 225 posts

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#81

Post by z0r »

jdavis703 wrote: post #74
kartan wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "my body, my choice" "consenting adults" -- all that goes out the window when it's sex for cash? it makes no sense. This is true, only if individuals have a good education, job opportunities, a broad enough safety net, etc. Otherwise, you are just pushing abused women or women with no resources to submit to sexual servitude. When you have a high correlation between prostitution and poverty, you are just realizing t…

By that reasoning all dangerous jobs should be off limits to poor people. Young people shouldn't be able to register for military service (especially during wars when "bonuses" are high). Poor people shouldn't be allowed to work as garbage collectors (garbage collectors have a higher fatality rate than law enforcement). The list could go on...

There are degrees of exploitation and levels of compulsion throughout all society. This doesn't mean that people have to be either okay with all exploitation and compulsion or none at all.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#82

Post by sudosteph »

dwighttk wrote: post #15
whack wrote: post #12

It's really sad to hear about sex workers fearing for their very lives, let alone their livelihood. These are some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of society. Their lives could be so much better if we moved towards Netherlands/German-style legalization. Instead, we seem to be going in the opposite direction. I wonder who exactly the opponents of sex-legalization are trying to "protect". Trafficking v…

>Trafficking victims? They will be vastly better served by a well regulated workplace. why?

I don't know why you got downvoted for questioning this line, I think the original commenter needed more support for that claim.

Statistics I can found show that human trafficking rates actually increase when legalization happens, since demand increases: https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-...

I might argue though that the countries who have legalized it so far are not taking enough steps to regulate it safely though. If Netherlands and the like can fix their system to actually reduce trafficking while allowing sex work, then this claim could be made one day. But there isn't research available that I could find which supports that this is the case in any legalized country today.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#83

Post by shkkmo »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

I think the missing discussion is that some bad law exists, but that SESTA/FOSTA is not that bad law: Websites should not be immune to prosecution for intentionally facilitating criminal activity. Section 230 is a bad thing and it going away is a good thing. Headlines I've seen like "sex workers are the canary in the coal mine for free speech" are not really accurate, because this is about activity which is and has b…

> Websites should not be immune to prosecution for intentionally facilitating criminal activity.

They are not immune from that and Section 230 doesn't make them immune to that.

What section 230 means is that "implementing any moderation or filtering of user content does not automatically make you an editor and thus liable for all content on your site".

Without section 230, Dang cannot do moderation on HN without HN becoming liable for EVERYTHING that is posted to the site. Facebook, Google and Twitter will be economically forced to stop filtering abhorrent content to avoid massive legal liabilities.

The missing discussion is that people need to stop jumping into the discussion without understanding the historical and legal context of section 230.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#84

Post by on_and_off »

dwighttk wrote: post #15
whack wrote: post #12

It's really sad to hear about sex workers fearing for their very lives, let alone their livelihood. These are some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of society. Their lives could be so much better if we moved towards Netherlands/German-style legalization. Instead, we seem to be going in the opposite direction. I wonder who exactly the opponents of sex-legalization are trying to "protect". Trafficking v…

>Trafficking victims? They will be vastly better served by a well regulated workplace. why?

Let's say is a regulated profession where you register to the state, have a certificate, get tested, the client can pay with their phone/credit-card.

Sounds like it would be way harder to exploit trafficking victims in that environment than in one where prostitution stays in the shadows.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#85

Post by yters »

djsumdog wrote: post #63
ihsw2 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prostitution trivializes sex by converting it to an activity fueled by capitalist incentives, forcing women to transfer control to her client rather than keeping it in her individual control. It is definitely different in that consent is removed by economic force rather than physical force.

Why do we take sex so seriously? What's wrong with trivializing it? We don't make a big deal about kissing, or playing golf? Animals often fuck without consent (although most other mammals have mating sessions that last less than 15 seconds). There is a really interesting dynamic in humans where we have either evolved or socially constructed (or both) this very strong sense of importance (and also shame) around sex.…

Sex is where new people come from. Once a society loses this perspective it dies.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#86

Post by blhack »

lists wrote: post #51
DanBC wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does your comment fit with children being drugged and forced into prostitution? And then adults being drugged and forced into prostitution? And then adults feeding a drug addiction? At which point of this ladder do you start to say "no, this is where we need to make it illegal"?

> How does your comment fit with children being drugged and forced into prostitution? That's already illegal. You've just made discovering it harder. > And then adults being drugged and forced into prostitution? Also already illegal. You've made discovering it harder. > And then adults feeding a drug addiction? That's actually none of your business. > At which point of this ladder do you start to say "no, this is whe…

>That's already illegal.

Maybe we should just make one singular law that says "be nice".

Hey, I bet you could make a religion out of that!

/s

Saying there is already a law that covers something is disconnected from reality, or at least disconnected form language and the way that humans communicate.

For instance: "drugging people is illegal". You haven't defined "drugging" or "people" in that case. Is it drugging a person when a school nurse gives a child a acetaminophen? You're definitely changing both their physical and psychological state, and are in some way establishing a relationship of dependence.

This is why we have more than one law, and why we don't base our laws on religion.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#87

Post by orthecreedence »

BrainInAJar wrote: post #24
ihsw2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prostitution is abhorrent to the women's rights movement -- it is another tool of oppression. Women are having sex with men whom they otherwise wouldn't have sex with -- we should be removing the need for sex work rather than accommodating it. Sex "for survival," child prostitution, sex trafficking -- none of these go away when the stigma and illegality are removed and if anything it gets worse because clients just a…

> we should be removing the need for sex work rather than accommodating it. What would that look like, exactly?

I think this is the most important question. I've seen a lot of comments saying various things are bad. I have not seen any suggest alternatives.

It seems like the people who think prostitution is bad want it to just go away, favoring words like should/shouldn't. I want to know a solution to prostitution that takes into account human nature and markets.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#88

Post by oh_sigh »

skookumchuck wrote: post #32
dilap wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's also just an absurd restriction from a perspective that values individual liberty. "my body, my choice" "consenting adults" -- all that goes out the window when it's sex for cash? it makes no sense.

Governmental attempts to suppress "immoral" but natural human behavior has been tried for thousands of years and has never worked. I.e. attempts to stop: * drinking * gambling * prostitution * drugs * adultery * homosexuality * lending money * black markets

It obviously hasn't stopped these problems from ever happening, but do you have evidence that the policies are not effective at all?

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#89

Post by nfoz »

skookumchuck wrote: post #32
dilap wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's also just an absurd restriction from a perspective that values individual liberty. "my body, my choice" "consenting adults" -- all that goes out the window when it's sex for cash? it makes no sense.

Governmental attempts to suppress "immoral" but natural human behavior has been tried for thousands of years and has never worked. I.e. attempts to stop: * drinking * gambling * prostitution * drugs * adultery * homosexuality * lending money * black markets

"has never worked"? Sounds like you're setting a hard metric. I'm pretty sure that changing laws does have some influence on the social norms and culture around some of these items, and their level of consumption. The propents of some of these rules might call it a success even if it just changes behaviours or attitudes about them.

Re: Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die'

#90

Post by wallace_f »

nfoz wrote: post #80
cornholio wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, people faced with economic hardships that are choosing prostitution do so at the expense of some other choice that, to them, is even more horrible - otherwise they wouldn't do it. It's hard to argue that prostitution is always a damaging choice that should always be forbidden like selling your organs, selling yourself into slavery, highly dangerous drugs etc. This is why I think the economic constr…

I think the law will always encapsulate some idea of morality. You've already suggested some places where US law restricts contracts that might seem to be between consenting adults. It's a moral choice for the law to restrict you from "selling your organs, selling yourself into slavery, highly dangerous drugs etc." I think there's good reason for the law to be protective, because merely allowing some contracts to be…

>merely allowing some contracts to be valid, will allow large power-discrepancies to effectively force people into them.

I think this ie consistent with my original point: society should not allow exploitation of people who are simply trying to survive.

Post reply on HN