Earn it

October 18th, 2022 · · Articles No comments - Tags:

A guest post by Zee Xaymaca

The SWERFS are at it again, folks. 2022 has brought the latest in the onslaught against online privacy and sex workers’ rights. By now we know the drill; an innocuously named bill with heinous content is pushed through by the anti-sex work lobby under the guise of trafficking prevention. This season’s flavor of government overreach is back to a classic: interactive internet services and concerns about child welfare, in particular fears about “child pornography” or child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) . Enter the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2022 or the EARN IT Act of 2022.

If the term ‘Interactive Technologies’ has you scratching your head a bit, that was intentional. The definition of these services is distressingly broad. What they are talking about is the Internet. An interactive technology is any technology that allows multiple people to connect to a single server. This includes both private and public communications; from web searches to messaging platforms. Any system that allows access to the Internet Even in libraries.

The EARN-IT Act sets the internet up as the domain of a new National Commission on Online Child Sexual Exploitation Prevention. This Commission forms the crux of the bill. The EARN-IT Act provides for the creation of a 19-person commission that is expected to prescribe best practices for Interactive Internet Technologies in curtailing dissemination of CSAM. The commission consists of “(i) The Attorney General or his or her representative. (ii) The Secretary of Homeland Security or his or her representative. (iii) The Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission or his or her representative. 
The remaining 16 positions on the Commission are filled by various senate leaders and together must include persons with law enforcement experience, have prosecutorial experience, have experience with internet technologies and lived experience with trafficking, among other criteria.”

Conspicuously missing from this line-up are ‘people who have experience navigating the provision of online sexual products and services’, legal or otherwise. One may be inclined to think that sex workers’ wealth of experience in navigating the internet discreetly and safely would be a hot commodity in the bid to balance the right to privacy enshrined in the constitution and the mandate to root out abuse in online spaces… But I digress.

Armed with a broad mandate and broader reach, the EARN-IT act prescribes some changes off the bat in the form of amendments to previously passed legislation. This is where the mechanisms of the commission become clear. The legislation includes 14 mandates and several additional revisions to prior legislation, and some so troubling they bear explication here.

The commission is tasked with coordinating voluntary initiatives offered among and to providers of interactive computer services relating to identifying, categorizing, and reporting online child sexual exploitation. For sex workers and related communities this is chilling. This means that the commission is allowed to coordinate with our service providers to hand over our online activity to the federal government. Increased surveillance has yet to yield results in curtailing sexual abuse material. However it has proven chillingly effective as a means of policing the actions of private citizens acting within their rights. The onerous website verification standards arising from anti-trafficking legislation is a concrete example of the harm done by crusaders making unsubstantiated claims of widespread trafficking that demands this particular response.  While there is no evidence that requiring sex workers to provide national ID before working online has any effect on the trafficking it is aimed at, it is clear that it squeezes vulnerable sex workers, (POC, undocumented, disabled or otherwise unable to meet excessive requirements) out of the market. This essentially forced disclosure makes advertising online a precarious balance between maintaining anonymity which is necessary for legal and physical safety, and access to their income stream. This is an authorization for a massive data drag net, arguably to find evidence of child sexual abuse. Yet, there are no prescriptions for what to do with the rest of that non-evidence material. It does not address the matter of privacy for those surveilled nor the victims they claim to search for.

In addition to a public-private sector partnership, the commission is allowed to deputize non-profits. “NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children)  may provide hash values or similar technical identifiers associated with visual depictions provided in a CyberTipline report or submission to the child victim identification program… to a non-profit entity for the sole and exclusive purpose of preventing and curtailing the online sexual exploitation of children.” Put in simple terms, submissions to the cyber sexual abuse tipline, a federal database, will be made available to nonprofits that are looking to ‘curtail trafficking’. 

The glaring issue here is that these “tips” do not need to be substantiated before individuals have their information and sexual material distributed to non-profits that have no clear regulations as to how the organizations operate or utilize them. However, the question still lingers, “Is distributing identifying information and documentation about victims at the most vulnerable times of their lives to non-government interested parties the best we can do to protect them?” It is especially troubling since the dissemination of this information to non-profits gives little guidance as to operational standards for organizations that would be involved.

The call for “training content moderators”–without any assurance that such training would not be alarmist, transphobic, misogynist, xenophobic and racist–conjures images of the censorship we already experience on social media with regard to erotic or sexual content. We do, after all, live in a country that does not even provide comprehensive sexuality education to young people in schools. There is a strong push to de-eroticize internet spaces that is bolstered by this additional set of policing measures. Since it is evident in current censorship practices, it is safe to assume that these measures will further marginalize persons with low access to public discourse. 

Sex workers are sure to be caught in the drag net of the search for child sexual abuse. Our information will be made available to the federal government and organizations we may never have even heard of. Our content will be judged and shared by persons whose access we did not consent to. Finally, our content, especially content by Black persons and POC, will be weaponized by these government and private/nonprofit sector agencies to further the victim narrative of sex work and its conflation with trafficking.

These provisions are troubling even without the USA’s lurch toward puritanical conservatism. The collaboration between online platforms and the federal government is a looming threat to the “free expression” that once seemed to resonate with US ideals. There is no clear provision for how this information is used or held and by whom. The more information the government has on sex workers, the bigger targets we become and the more susceptible we are to legislative anti-sex work crusades. Make no mistake, sex workers just happen to be among the most profoundly affected by policies like SESTA/FOSTA and EARN-IT, but it concerns all of us. Our data is being weaponized against us in a plan for our erasure if we are considered a “security risk” or even just “different”.

Currently, the best practices in targeting and handling ‘evidence’ of CSAM and trafficking are intended to be suggestions. However, that is cold comfort, seeing as though long held rights and freedoms are being taken away at a rapid rate. The establishment of this commission heralds binding legal measures. Sex workers have warned everyone of the implications of such sweeping regulations. Sex workers have been the example of the uneven hand of censorship that targets those who are already marginalized. Society must take heed.

Resources:

S.3538 – EARN IT Act of 2022, full legislative history is located here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/3538/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22earn+it+act%22%2C%22earn%22%2C%22it%22%2C%22act%22%5D%7D&r=3&s=1

A downloadable PDF of S.3538

Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act that defines “interactive technologies”: http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:47%20section:230%20edition:prelim)

Call for letters of support for GiGi Thomas

August 14th, 2022 · · Campaigns No comments - Tags:

GiGi Thomas, longtime advocate for human rights for all people and specifically trans people and sex workers, needs our help. GiGi may have the opportunity soon for the judge to reconsider and reduce her sentence. When the judge sentenced GiGi she was influenced by the outpouring of letters in support of GiGi, so we want to show our support for GiGi again. While unfortunately we do not have an exact timeline, we are gathering letters now which we will present to the judge when the time is right.

Please send a scanned PDF of your letter with you signature to freegigi22 @ gmail.com. 

If you don’t want to write a letter yourself, let us know and we can share the sign-on letter we are composing, which you could join.

Here are some tips for writing a letter:

[Note: If you know GiGi personally, please include such details as how long you’ve known her, any positive details about her and her contributions in the community, and anything you know about her struggles, trauma, and strength.]

  1. Dear Judge Cotton
  2. Mention that you’re writing about GiGi Marie Thomas, whose sentence is up for reconsideration.
  3. Identify yourself and your role(s)/involvement in the community (e.g. profession, volunteer work, LGBTQ community member, how long you’ve lived in area, etc.)
  4. Mention that you heard about GiGi’s case from the her community of supporters.
  5. Optional talking points **please make your remarks as specific and unique from your perspective as possible**
    1. Information on how you know trauma-informed mental health care care is important or about the great need for competent professionals to serve trans women of color, prevent violence, and help keep trans women safe.
    2. Details about GiGi professionally.
    3. Request that the judge to consider the incredible positive impact GiGi has had in the community.
    4. Describe how her work relates to your experiences.
  6. Request that the judge reduce GiGi’s sentence and support the provision of trauma-informed care.

“I’m advocating behind bars for transgender rights, keeping myself grounded in spirituality, and lifting up the spirits of others behind bars by giving them peer counseling, or even just a word of advice. I’m getting involved in programs to keep myself motivated.”

-GiGi Thomas

GiGi Thomas is a Black transgender woman who has worked for more than 15 years supporting people in need in the D.C.-Baltimore area. She served as a client consultant with the sex-worker rights and human services organization HIPS and completed a Masters in Social Work from Howard University. Over the years, GiGi helped thousands of community members find shelter and sustenance, reunited families, cared for the injured, and spoke out about injustice especially regarding the treatment of the trans community. Gigi’s peers describe her as “one of those people who just gives and gives with all they have,” and an “amazing woman” with “a heart of gold.

Since 2015, GiGi has been incarcerated and in 2017 she was sentenced to many years in prison, but the judge was moved by the number of letters she received in support of GiGi and said that GiGi should ask for a reconsideration to shorten her sentence at some point in the future. GiGi has now made the request and we are gathering letters in support of shortening her sentence. Like so many people in prison, GiGi is herself a survivor of violence and discrimination.

Read about a snapshot of GiGi’s work here: https://www.metroweekly.com/2007/01/community-growth/.

Other ways to support GiGi

You can also write to GiGi as she loves receiving letters, although she is not always able to respond. The requirements and prohibitions for mail are located here: https://news.maryland.gov/dpscs/inmate-mail-services/.

GiGi Marie Thomas, 456712-1562143

Roxbury Correctional Institute – Hagerstown (RCI)

18701 Roxbury Rd.

Hagerstown, MD 21746

You can also deposit money in GiGi’s account, which she can use to buy supplies for letter writing, food, and other necessities. We recommend using the online option as physical money orders sent to the lockbox do not always seems to reach her. More information here: https://news.maryland.gov/dpscs/inmate-trust-fund-services/. On the Access Corrections website, you will need to enter the state (Maryland), agency (Maryland Department of Corrections) and either her first and last name or her SID # which is 1562143.

Seeking direct support

June 23rd, 2022 · · Fundraiser No comments

Send your tax deductible donation via ActBlue. We can also receive donations to CashApp $btriplep. Checks still work! And Amazon too.

In June 2022 we received a donation from a funder and we were able to assist eleven people with urgent needs for transportation, food, medications and rent. Most people looking for mutual aid are in the US but we were also able to help a referral from our partner group in Uganda. When needed, we connected people to other services across the US that we know and trust. We will connect, when appropriate, community members to social events such as the upcoming writers’ showcase.

All the funds have been expended. Erika did a fantastic job. She is an outstanding leader bringing experience of organizing with and providing services to Black trans people and sex workers in the District of Columbia and now across the United States. If you want to donate directly to this fund then we would love your tax deductible donation via ActBlue. We can also receive donations to CashApp $btriplep.

Gililland v. Southern Orange County Community College

June 13th, 2022 · · Articles No comments

By Lindsey Lanier and Zee Xaymaca, 13 June 2022

NOTE: This article references an American legal case which makes frequent use of the term “woman” as a proxy for the broader group described as “sex workers.” We understand not all sex workers are women (and assert that the two are not interchangeable categories) and highlight that in the discussion below. The reason that “discrimination against sex workers” is contextualized as “discrimination against women” is because the laws upon which this case was decided require “sex-based discrimination” and therefore a connection between sex work and womanhood. 

Does a woman have a right to be free from sex discrimination— in this case, discrimination based on gendered expectations—in work and education? How about if she is/was a sex worker? The courts have had little to say in regard to these questions until recently. In 2021, the case of Gililland v. Southern Orange County Community College forced Oregon’s courts to weigh in on the matter.

In 2017, nursing student Nicole Gililland complained that administrators in her nursing program at Southern Orange County Community College were discriminating against her. After staff members at the nursing program found out about Gililland’s past as a porn actor, they targeted her by grading her academic work more harshly than other students, marking her assignments late, and falsely accusing her of plagiarism. One faculty member referred to Gililland, stating that it takes a “classy woman” to be a nurse, and gestured towards Gililland continuing, “unclassy women shouldn’t be nurses.” When the nursing program expelled Gililland for the failing grades she had received, Gililland initiated her lawsuit against Southern Orange County Community College.

Gililland argued that faculty at the college treated her differently from other students because of her history of sex work, and due to the linkage between sex work and gender stereotypes. Feminized labor like sex work is heavily associated with traditional notions of a woman’s purity and “class” (ie being an appropriate and correct kind of woman). Notions of  “proper” womanhood are used to determine what should be accessible to people based on their adherence to these stereotypes. Not least of these is the expectation that women should lead an overtly non-sexual existence. Sex workers directly challenge this imposition.

Women who engage in sex work must contend with this attempt to deny them access to resources because they break with these common traditions of femininity.  Their careers challenge the patriarchal assertion that women who sell sexual labor are made inferior and undeserving by their work. The professor’s statement suggesting that Gililland was “unclassy”, combined with administrative harassment in the form of unjustified failing grades, constitute an attempt to deny her the right all Americans have to access education.

Sex working women face this form of sex discrimination in their interactions with social service and medical institutions as well. For example, doctors, prejudiced by knowledge of a patient’s sex work, may make assumptions about the patient that influence the direction of care and treatment. Furthermore, because sex work is not recognized as a legal form of work, some social goods like unemployment insurance or disability payments are out of reach for sex workers.

On December 3rd, 2021 a federal court magistrate judge for the district of Oregon held (during summary judgment) that discrimination against sex workers qualifies as sex discrimination under Title IX of US federal civil rights law. Title IX States that “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The interpretation of Title IX varies in US courtrooms. Standards for enforcement are created on a case-by-case basis. Over time, the rulings in these cases create a body of jurisprudence that acts as a guideline for how future cases are assessed.

It is important to note that this judgment is not yet the law of the land. This particular ruling is not binding on lower courts (or courts at the same level). It is possible, and perhaps likely, that lower courts will respect the precedent set by Gililland, but this is not a given. 

Regardless of its value as a precedent, this ruling is a positive step toward protecting sex workers’ access to public resources. A government body acknowledging that sex workers face sex discrimination is a relatively new contribution to the argument sex workers have long been trying to make; that sex workers must have legal protection against the effects of stigma and prejudice.

The ruling may be interpreted as a tentative step toward legislation that formally includes discrimination against sex workers in the definition of sex discrimination. Such legislation would prevent harassment of sex workers in professional settings. This means it would be illegal to penalize a person for having engaged in sex work. It would be illegal to deny services to a person for that reason as well.

These measures will not override the stigma against sex work that is ingrained in our societies, but it will push forward the journey to legal recognition of sex work as a profession.

For further information on these issues check out this column in the Star Ledger “Improving the lives of sex workers mean anti-discrimination laws must follow” and “Who Needs Legislators? Discrimination Against Sex Workers Is Sex Discrimination Under Title VII” in Rutgers Law Review, Vol. 72 2020. Both of these pieces are written by Derek Demeri, a co-founder of New Jersey Red Umbrella Alliance.