Legislators Want To Open Up Wiretap Laws To Target Sex Workers And Their Customers

from the ongoing-holy-war dept

Under the guise of fighting sex trafficking, legislators have been offering up a slew of bills that will make things much worse for plenty of people not involved in this heinous crime. Elizabeth Nolan Brown, who is the go-to expert on all sorts of government abuse done in the name of sex-trafficked children, has tallied up the current stack of legislative paperwork floating around the halls of Congress. Spoiler alert: it's a lot.

So far this year, federal lawmakers have introduced more than 30 bills related to "sex trafficking," which many in government now define to mean all prostitution. This week alone brought three new efforts. And following the familiar pattern of the drug war, these measures mostly focus on giving federal law enforcement more "tools" to find, prosecute, and punish people for actions only tangentially, if at all, connected to causing harm.

Currently, the forerunner for "worst" is one that makes a mockery of federal wiretap statutes. The laws governing government eavesdropping have been modified over the years with an eye on protecting something even more sacrosanct than someone's home: someone's private conversations. Wiretaps are only supposed to be used for felonies -- dangerous, possibly life-threatening criminal activities. They're supposed to be issued only when law enforcement has exhausted all other options and subjected to strict oversight to prevent their abuse. (Note: what's supposed to happen and what actually happens are two very different things.)

What they're not supposed to be used for is small-time stuff -- misdemeanors and other low-level, non-dangerous crimes. But that's exactly what legislators are hoping to do: expand wiretap authority to cover the consensual exchange of money for services.

One such measure would expand state and local government authority "to seek wiretap warrants in sexual exploitation and prostitution cases" (emphasis mine) and mandate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Justice conduct a "study on the long-term physical and psychological effects of the commercial sex trade." It would also give the Department of Homeland Security a mandate to develop protocols "for implementation across federal, state, and local law enforcement" on how to screen people "suspected of engaging in commercial sex acts" for the possibility that they have been trafficked. The screening process would also be applied to people suspected of working in violation of any labor regulations, including occupational licensing rules.

Combine this new authority with government officials' natural tendency to name-and-shame anyone involved with consensual sex work and you've got a whole can of wiretapped worms just waiting to be exploited for maximum public damage. Add to that the underlying assertion that sex work is some sort of illness that must be studied by the CDC and, presumably, "remedied" by even more ridiculous, harmful legislation.

And no one really wants to see the DHS getting involved in local vice cases. The DHS has already proven it knows almost nothing about securing the homeland. Asking it to dip into prostitution busts is basically asking for widespread rights violations, especially if this activity takes places in the so-called "Constitution-Free Zone," which covers areas where a large majority of the US population resides.

Also included: more federal targeting of customers and a potential to add "hate crime" sentencing enhancements to the crime of buying sex. Brown points out the bill orders the DOJ to view buying sex as a "form of gender-based violence."

And there's more, which hardly seems possible. Prostitutes could possibly be legally considered "criminal street gang members" under proposed legislation. And some bills would allow the government to start seizing personal property if fines are not paid.

The named target is sex trafficking and the supposed beneficiaries would be children, who are kidnapped and exploited all the damn time according to stats made up out of thin air. But the real targets will be the oldest profession, which includes plenty of un-exploited sex workers voluntarily providing services to paying customers. But the end result will be a spectacular amount of collateral damage -- and that's not just limited to customers having their conversations intercepted or being hit with hate crime enhancements. The proposed legislation would also wreak havoc on the internet.

Grassley's bill cobbles together a host of changes that give federal prosecuting agencies more power. Among other things, it would create a federal mandate to fight "sextortion" (without defining what this means); ask the quasi-governmental National Center for Missing and Exploited to assist the government in identifying "misleading domain names" and "misleading words or digital images on the Internet"; and more than quadruple annual appropriations for grants related to these activities.

Starting with this premise, those caught up in these supposed anti-sex trafficking efforts will find themselves in the position of proving a negative. If the government decides you're looking for child porn or exploited children (or offering either of these) but can't find images or terminology affirming this hunch, it can still go after you for being "misleading."

These bills may namecheck sex trafficking and carry the veneer of honest law enforcement work, but underneath every one of them lies the Puritanical notion that buying and selling sex is immoral and must be punished not by God, but by the government itself.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Jun 2017 @ 12:11pm

    Some life examples...

    Legislator in FL pushed for a bill to make it illegal to pork a pumpkin... gets caught porking a pumpkin on a roof.

    https://gayhomophobe.com/ has a long list of those in power who denounced the evils of homos, getting caught molesting kids, hiring escorts, being secretly gay.

    Now with this pattern in mind...
    Look at those who are denouncing sex workers, any doubts they avail themselves of the services?

    This is a moral panic law over imagined horrors.
    Legalize sex work for consenting adults, tax it, test it.
    Then focus on the REAL bad actors rather than thinking just because someone chooses sex work means they are trafficked and on drugs.

    Oh and if you are gonna push these kinds of laws while using the services, you should tip them more.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 22 Jun 2017 @ 12:28pm

      Re:

      Legislator in FL pushed for a bill to make it illegal to pork a pumpkin... gets caught porking a pumpkin on a roof.

      "Is it midnight ALREADY?"

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TKnarr (profile), 22 Jun 2017 @ 12:46pm

      Re:

      Look at those who are denouncing sex workers, any doubts they avail themselves of the services?

      Not any doubt at all. Maybe it's time for those sex workers to go to all their other important/influential clients and go "I'm going to get caught by this bill anyway, so if it passes I'm going to out all my clients publicly and negotiate for a light sentence in return for my cooperation. So you may want to make sure it gets scuttled and stays scuttled."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2017 @ 2:32pm

        Re: Re:

        Yeah that worked out so well for the DC Madam. She ended up being murdered and had it look like a suicide to prevent her from releasing the names.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bergman (profile), 22 Jun 2017 @ 3:51pm

      Re:

      Some people believe that if you make something illegal, it won't ever happen again. That if you can pass 'enough' of the 'right' laws, criminality will cease to exist.

      It never has in the past, even with legal systems and severe punishments impossible under our constitution, but they keep hoping.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Jun 2017 @ 6:23pm

        Re: Re:

        It is a human failing that has only gotten worse.

        There are people who believe if they click like or sign the online petition, the problem is fixed.

        It is a stupid mentality. We slap a label on it then it can be fixed immediately.

        Their personal bubbles don't include people screwed by these stupid laws, so they can't see the problems until it touches them... and it doesn't.

        Look at the number of people who still think that pot can make you freak out and attack people... all because hemp might have replaced cotton. No ones willing to challenge it because it must be right because they told us so.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Eldakka (profile), 22 Jun 2017 @ 11:51pm

        Re: Re:

        That if you can pass 'enough' of the 'right' laws, criminality will cease to exist.

        That makes no sense at all. Something is legal until laws are passed to make it a crime. It is the passing of laws that makes something criminal, therefore by definition, passing laws makes more criminality.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Cowardly Lion, 23 Jun 2017 @ 3:28am

      Re:

      "...any doubts they avail themselves of the services?"

      I'm more of the view that these are a bunch of overweight, balding, halitosis-riddled, derelict voyeurs who have zero charisma or personality, and even less chance of ever getting laid. This is their chance to get in on the raw, dirty, hot sweaty action. In real-time. Oh yeah, baby.

      Why pay for something if you can get it for free. On the taxpayer's dime, and with next-to-no risk.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 23 Jun 2017 @ 5:01am

      Re:

      It's not just the Puritans, TAC. The radical feminists are in on this, too. I've mentioned before how, if you swing too far right you meet the left... well here's an example of this in reverse because authoritarian is as authoritarian does.

      So yeah, they're behind the "Buying sex is gender-based violence" trope.

      While I don't personally approve of prostitution I do think we should stop trying to ban it and tax and regulate it instead. It's a demand-side issue so prohibition can't work. If we can't control it let's contain it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Jeremy2020 (profile), 23 Jun 2017 @ 5:11am

      Re:

      It's the ole "if I am strongly against it...then no one will suspect me of partaking of it!" philosophy.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    TheOtherDude, 22 Jun 2017 @ 12:29pm

    bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way

    This is what politicians do in america now, they makeup a problem (sex trafficking which is really not an issue in the US) and then they solve it. Its much easier then dealing with actual, real problems, they are hard to solve.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ShadowNinja (profile), 22 Jun 2017 @ 12:42pm

      Re: bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way

      There is some real sex trafficking in the US.

      But that said, going after prostitution is just a waste of time. Prostitution is like marijuana, it simply shouldn't be illegal, and it punishes people for moral reasons rather than them harming anyone.

      Google "Adam ruins everything prostitution" and watch the youtube video it finds.

      It explains how prostitution wasn't always illegal in the US. And how a lot of women, especially in the western US, made big money off of being prostitutes. Many of those women were responsible helping to settle the west, and became extremely influential people in their communities because of all the money they made.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 23 Jun 2017 @ 5:06am

        Re: Re: bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way

        You may find that it's because they couldn't get professional jobs (apart from teaching, etc.) because they were women. They also couldn't own property or travel unescorted by a man. Think "Saudi women's plight" in bonnets and crinolines.

        Prostitution is not and never has been a glamorous trade, it's dirty, nasty, and dangerous for most women. The only reason why so many are in it is because of the lack of economic opportunity. Put simply, it pays more than most jobs available to women.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 23 Jun 2017 @ 7:13am

          Re: Re: Re: bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way

          Prostitution is not and never has been a glamorous trade, it's dirty, nasty, and dangerous for most women.

          Is this from personal experience or an assumption from media? I'll grant that it's not exactly savoury and I can't imagine many girls thinking, "I want to grow up to be a prostitute", but how much of the "dirt" and "danger" is due to it being mostly illegal?

          Dangerous as in catch STDs? Health screening and standards could reduce that. Dangerous as in chance of violence? How much less likely does that become if you can report the crime without getting arrested yourself or being told you were asking for it? Dirty as in morally? Says who? Often the same people who get caught partaking. Dirty as in grime? Again, standards.

          Done for lack of economic opportunity? Well, there's a huge generalisation for a start, but apart from that, who are you to say a woman (or, in fact a man) shouldn't have the choice to do it over, say, a minimum wage job? I imagine that if you took away a lot of the danger and stigmata and health risks, there would be more job satisfaction for some people than stacking shelves for a living or possibly even higher paid work - I imagine that were it safe and mainstream it might be considered more fun for some people than, say, accounting.

          Oh, and sexist much? Why consider just women as prostitutes? Plenty of male prostitutes and, looking from the outside, I'd guess a larger proportion of them would fall up the "dirty and dangerous" end of the profession.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Wendy Cockcroft, 26 Jun 2017 @ 2:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way

            _Is this from personal experience or an assumption from media? I'll grant that it's not exactly savoury and I can't imagine many girls thinking, "I want to grow up to be a prostitute", but how much of the "dirt" and "danger" is due to it being mostly illegal?_

            Eh? I've read the memoirs of people in the trade. They're also very defensive about it; you'd expect people who insist it is a job like any other to be matter-of-fact about what's actually involved. So actually most of what I know about the sex trade is from conversations with people in it.

            RE: illegality, legalising it would make it better but no more "savoury."


            _Dangerous as in catch STDs? Health screening and standards could reduce that. Dangerous as in chance of violence? How much less likely does that become if you can report the crime without getting arrested yourself or being told you were asking for it? Dirty as in morally? Says who? Often the same people who get caught partaking. Dirty as in grime? Again, standards._

            Rubbers don't prevent you catching herpes and some hookers are actually complaining about the number of tests they have to take. So yeah, even standards won't protect us if they won't adhere to them themselves because testing makes them feel icky and some of the people carrying out the tests are self-righteous gits attempting to rescue them for moral reasons, etc. As I said, I've spoken to these people, that's what informs me.

            _Done for lack of economic opportunity? Well, there's a huge generalisation for a start, but apart from that, who are you to say a woman (or, in fact a man) shouldn't have the choice to do it over, say, a minimum wage job? I imagine that if you took away a lot of the danger and stigmata and health risks, there would be more job satisfaction for some people than stacking shelves for a living or possibly even higher paid work - I imagine that were it safe and mainstream it might be considered more fun for some people than, say, accounting.
            Oh, and sexist much? Why consider just women as prostitutes? Plenty of male prostitutes and, looking from the outside, I'd guess a larger proportion of them would fall up the "dirty and dangerous" end of the profession._

            Women tend to be more likely to get into the trade than men, particularly where lack of economic opportunity is a factor. That's not sexism, it's statistics. Wind your neck in; I'd rather have it legal, taxed, and regulated than not, as it is now. Making the sex trade mainstream assumes that it's not degrading and that everyone would enjoy it were it not for the stigma. Try asking women who live in red light districts what it's like to be accosted by people looking to buy sex. I'd restrict red light districts to areas away from families so those who want to be involved can go for it but leave the rest of us alone. Who are you to say I ought to tolerate some perve leering at me from the roadside asking if I'm looking for business on my way home from work? RE: male prostitutes, yes, they should have their needs considered too. I'm not moralising, I'm trying to be practical, taking social needs into consideration.

            Again, this is a demand-side issue; it needs to be contained, not ignored and punished.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2017 @ 7:01am

      Re: bad solutions for made up problems - the modern way

      Yes - this bill uses "sex trade" as an excuse to allow indiscriminate wire tapping ... and as we all know they do not like to get warrants.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2017 @ 12:32pm

    Ummmm... Do children who are being trafficked really have phones? Maybe they do, I dunno.

    Also, how will DHS or whoever is watching this know if a phone is being used for sex work? Stingray captures?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 22 Jun 2017 @ 12:37pm

    Hah!

    If the government decides you're looking for child porn or exploited children (or offering either of these) but can't find images or terminology affirming this hunch, it can still go after you for being "misleading."

    So why, Mr Cushing, are you so misleadingly excited about law makers' best efforts to let law enforcement catch up with child porn and child exploitation?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2017 @ 12:53pm

      Re: Hah!

      Are you excited that the police will be able to watch your every move so that they can catch criminals?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2017 @ 1:04pm

      Re: Hah!

      but can't find images or terminology affirming this hunch

      Because evidence matters, dumbass.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      TKnarr (profile), 22 Jun 2017 @ 1:47pm

      Re: Hah!

      Because law enforcement's going to target everything except child porn and child exploitation.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Roger Strong (profile), 22 Jun 2017 @ 3:00pm

        Re: Re: Hah!

        You have a fine sense of tradition.

        In Canada we had then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews' Bill C-30, the "Protecting Children From Internet Predators Act", which was really about adopting a wide range of measures that increased police powers, stripped away privacy rights, and increased Internet surveillance.

        Wikipedia: Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act:

        The bill did not mention children, or internet predators, other than in its title;

        Toews later got a career-ending taste of his own anti-privacy medicine and didn't seem to like it much.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2017 @ 12:43pm

    There's also a growing movement toward the "Swedish system" of prostitution laws that increasingly crimalize the male customers while decriminalizing the prostitutes themselves.

    Since most prostitution these days is through the internet (and over the telephone) rather than standing on a street corner, it makes sense that law enforcement would want to target communications. Just like the CIA's reliance on "wiretapping" radio communications of suspected terrorist organizations rather than "boots on the ground" surveillance and infiltration methods, blanket eavesdropping is the safe and lazy approach to law enforcement, and that's why it's always going to be the preferred method..

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2017 @ 12:50pm

      Re:

      Just like the CIA's reliance on "wiretapping" radio communications of suspected terrorist organizations rather than "boots on the ground" surveillance and infiltration methods, blanket eavesdropping is the safe and lazy approach to law enforcement, and that's why it's always going to be the preferred method..

      I mean, apart from the fact that if the CIA sends people in they have a good chance of being caught, tortured and executed, whereas if the police send people in they have a good chance of missing their coffee break...

      But yes, otherwise very similar situations.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2017 @ 12:48pm

    Extremist views

    You don't have to deny the existence of sex trafficking to advocate for reform of sex work laws. It's just as much a fantasy to believe that all those involved in prostitution are practicing some empowering libertarian ideal as to believe they are all immoral heathens.

    Both sides are using the real suffering of children to make cheap ideological shots, and they really shouldn't.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trafficking-arrests-idUSKBN15G5J6

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2017 @ 7:05am

      Re: Extremist views

      Where does prostitution stand in laissez faire capitalism?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Wendy Cockcroft, 23 Jun 2017 @ 7:07am

        Re: Re: Extremist views

        It depends on the capitalist; the religious authoritarian edition will stamp down hard on it with a hooker on his knee. Others say it's a viable employment option with flexible hours — the ultimate voluntary exchange.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Daniel Audy (profile), 23 Jun 2017 @ 9:20am

      Re: Extremist views

      It seems to me that decriminalizing and regulating sex work like any other industry with health risks would be the best first step in fighting trafficking. It would allow those sex workers who voluntarily chose the job to be easy to identify and no longer need the protections offered by criminal elements (since they would have the protections of the police) which should drive a cost differential (in cash and risk) between legal and trafficked prostitution driving more work into the legal sector and reducing the number of targets the police need to investigate.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PlagueSD (profile), 22 Jun 2017 @ 1:04pm

    RIP George Carlin

    I think George Carlin said it best.

    "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"

    But yeah, I see some politicians' careers in jeopardy. Unless, of course, they write an "exemption" for themselves like they do everything else.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      David, 22 Jun 2017 @ 1:08pm

      Re: RIP George Carlin

      "Selling is legal. Vote counting is legal. Why isn't selling vote counting legal?"

      I mean, it's safer to buy politicians wholesale anyway.

      What I wanted to say: syllogisms don't help with a sensible discussion. Not that you'll get any about prostitution either way but at least one side may try.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2017 @ 1:41pm

        Re: Re: RIP George Carlin

        It is? I mean, that's what electronic voting machines are, a product by a business which sells vote counting...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2017 @ 1:45pm

      Re: RIP George Carlin

      I'm curious what the chances are of a real investigation of some politician/bureaucrat where there's a recording of him/her closing a deal with a sex worker.

      A smart cop would pocket said recording for personal and/or unofficial use.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2017 @ 2:35pm

        Re: Re: RIP George Carlin

        That logic leads to a nation being run by the NSA.... Just like we have right now.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 23 Jun 2017 @ 3:58am

          Re: Re: Re: RIP George Carlin

          There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

          There is another theory which states that this has already happened. -- Douglas Adams, H2G2

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2017 @ 7:08am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: RIP George Carlin

            "Oh no, not again.

            Many people have speculated that if we knew exactly why the bowl of petunias had thought that we would know a lot more about the nature of the Universe than we do now.”

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              The Wanderer (profile), 24 Jun 2017 @ 8:02am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RIP George Carlin

              When considered in light of later events in the series, the reason seems clear enough to me; the whale and the bowl of petunias must both be previous incarnations of Agrajag, and the bowl of petunias remembers having fallen to its death from orbit around that same planet.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      ArkieGuy (profile), 23 Jun 2017 @ 6:23am

      Re: RIP George Carlin

      Politicians want to be the only people that can get paid to screw people legally. They are trying to reduce the competition.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2017 @ 1:56pm

    CDC study

    So when will the CDC be commissioned to do a study on the long term psychological harm inflicted on the populace by abusive surveillance laws? Anyone who is paying attention should already be scared of saying the "wrong" thing on a tap-able line, and this just makes that worse in every way (easier for the government to get a tap, easier for them to argue after the fact that they should have been tapping, far more "wrong" things to say if this passes than now, ...).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Peter (profile), 22 Jun 2017 @ 1:59pm

    Did they really think this through?

    Shooting yourself in the foot etcetera. Just saying ...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    ANON, 22 Jun 2017 @ 2:27pm

    When you consider...

    Bill Clinton could legally deny "having sexual relations with ... that woman" because Ken Starr (or his wife) lacked the imagination for him to add blowjobs to the list he presented to Bill of what constituted "sexual relations". Not on the list - answer is "no".

    So if someone in congress or the legislatures thinks that serious sex crimes are happening in the guise of plain Jane prostitution - or even knows enough about it to want a law - they are likely more knowledgeable than the average person about these details. Any hypocritical.

    I guess the money and goods being seized as "drug crimes proceeds" is falling off and law enforcement is pushing for a new revenue source.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2017 @ 7:11am

      Re: When you consider...

      High priced hookers are ok, it's the poor who need jail time.

      Think of the private prisons for a change - sheeesh.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    discordian_eris (profile), 22 Jun 2017 @ 6:26pm

    Patriarchal Christianity hates women, that's the root cause of almost all of this BS. From this type of bill to anti-contraceptive crap to laws in TX guarantee it has the highest infant mortality rate in the First World. Want to do the US a favor? Never vote for a Christian again.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    teknosapien (profile), 23 Jun 2017 @ 10:57am

    This should prove interesting

    How many legislators have been caught with their pants down in the past? With all things digital those pant down wont be secret for long, some one will hack and release embarrassing information.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    NaBUru38 (profile), 26 Jun 2017 @ 8:28am

    In countries like mine (Uruguay), prostitution is a regulated job. Workers pay taxes, have medical insurance, and sometimes get interviewed on television.

    There's also sex trafficking, just like there's legal and illegal fishing.

    Sex trafficking is a terrible and must be fought. But prostitution should be regualted like any other economic activity with supply and demand.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.