ACSOL’s Conference Calls

Conference Call Recordings Online
Dial-in number: 1-712-770-8055, Conference Code: 983459

Monthly Meetings: Jan 16 Recording Uplaoded Details / Recordings

Emotional Support Group Meetings

General News

The War on Sex Trafficking Is the New War on Drugs

“Sex Trafficking of Americans: The Girls Next Door.” – “Sex-trafficking sweep nets arrests near Phoenix truck stops.” – “Man becomes 1st jailed under new human trafficking law.”

Conduct a Google news search for the word trafficking in 2015 and you’ll find pages of stories about the commercial sex trade, in which hundreds of thousands of U.S. women and children are supposedly trapped by coercion or force. Full Article

Join the discussion

  1. Bad Law

    I am opposed to any form of victimization. But I am concerned by the direction this is heading. This “war on trafficking” is being used to further the restrictions on registered citizens. I see it in the “International Megan’s Law” initiative. The Federal government suggests that States require the registration of international travel 21 days in advance. That information is passed to the destination country via Interpol. Then the registered citizen will likely be turned away based on the warning received from our government. Florida has already implemented this in their registration laws. What research is this based upon? The simple assumption that people on the registry would only leave this country to break laws? It also worries me that legislation has been proposed to limit registered citizens to a one-year passport. This slow erosion of constitutional rights can’t be allowed to continue.

  2. Q

    “The War on Sex Trafficking Is the New War on Drugs?!?!?!??!!?” WTF kinda stupid is this? The “war on drugs” has been a dismal failure for years; and now the flag waving wingnuts think they can do the same (huge fail) for sex trafficking?

    BTW; in case nobody has noticed they now call a pimp a “sex trafficker. This is nothing more than applying political correctness to the latest favored cause. They just change the name of something to something it’s not ( like calling a pimp a “sex trafficker”) and thew dumbed down masses are clamoring to jump on the bandwagon by providing acceptance and approval.

    Hmm…wonder how many George and Sharon Runners are going to build a career on this?

  3. David

    The article makes the point that it is not just the religious zealots on the right or the victim-feminists on the left who are behind this illiberal movement, it is both, acting in concert.

    This is refreshing since, for a long time, and depending on ones political persuasion, the argument was forever tiresomely made that it was “the other side” who was responsible for the neo-puritanism and as if one of the two agendas did not exist.

    From a libertarian perspective, however, I have always seen them as having much in common: authoritarian, freedom-averse and deadly.

    Also, a great call-out to NCMEC in the piece. How is it that that quasi-governmental organization continues to exist – is ALLOWED to exist – more than thirty years after it was built on the foundation of lies that were the ‘millions of kidnapped and murdered children’ and ‘babies sacrificed on Satanic altars’?

    One unrelated recommendation: how about renaming the “Adam Walsh Act” the “John Walsh Power & Career Advancement Act”? I feel that that horrible law does a terrible injustice to the late Adam Walsh, a true victim, who had nothing to say in how his name would be shamelessly exploited by his father in a mission to destroy liberty.

    • Timmr

      Blaming far right Christians or far left feminists for this moral panic does not seem to be based on reality. How, exactly did these Christians and feminists form a pact to convince 80% of the California voters to approve Prop. 35, I wonder. This article provides a lot of evidence to debunk the claims of proponents of the sex trafficking laws, but I would like to see them do more to get at the roots of the drug panic and its response of over incarceration, and its new form in the sex offenders panic. I just don’t buy into the idea that it is all those Christians or all those feminists or that it is the evil government that is responsible for the moral panic. It is more like a modern cultural norm whose origins are complex.

  4. Two States east

    Thank you David for pointing out the unholy alliance between “victim” feminists and neo puritans ! What has me laughing til I need stitches is now the one is knifing the other in the back screaming to defund planned parenthood !!

  5. Never Quit

    Excellent and illuminating analysis of relevant information. Everyone should read this. The article identifies the ultimate goal of these fanatical groupings: Total and complete imposition of their brand of morality upon the entire nation. These fanatics (evangelical and born-again Christians, feminists and other misguided extremists) believe any type of behavior of a sexual nature that is currently legal but does not comport with their sense of morality is a sin, and an attack on God and country. Their goal is to criminalize all such offending behaviors. For activities such as viewing (currently) legal adult pornography, they seek to pass laws that make all pornography illegal, and imprison anyone who dares to view sex-related materials. They seek to banish the immoral offender from society for life, or at least impose consequences for their behaviors that will deprive them of any semblance of personal dignity, self-respect, and any means to attain happiness in their lifetime. Stigmatize them, isolate them, make them social pariahs. (Not punishment indeed). The fanatics care not how much it costs as this is a religious war for them. A veritable “crusade”. They are doing the Lord’s work. And they see all sex offenders as God’s enemy. Onward Christian soldier…Jesus, and Janice, help us.

    Keep the faith, push back, educate and never ever quit.

  6. anonymously

    Timmr said “Blaming far right Christians or far left feminists for this moral panic does not seem to be based on reality. How, exactly did these Christians and feminists form a pact to convince 80% of the California voters to approve Prop. 35, I wonder. ”

    The opposition to prop 35 was marginalized by Kelly’s paid media blitz of ads hyping the 2 myths of sex trafficking, (other than there being a nexus to registrants, which is the biggest myth, but of course Kelly wouldn’t mention this because he used sex trafficking as a smokescreen for his undoubted real interest in Prop 35, the non-publicized-in-his-ads part of Prop 35 that sought to obliterate the 1st Amendment rights of American citizens ) , that of average entry age of prostitution being 12/13 and 300,000 domestic children in sex trafficking. Also, in addition to Christian Rightwingers and radical Feminists, there is law enforcement, pro-law enforcement politicians, and private prison industry pushing for harsher laws to incarcerate more people for more things for as long as possible. Kelly probably donates to a lot of those groups, such as the ones who supported SB 448. In turn, prison guards fund Crime Victims United, who push for these laws. Tough on crime pro-law enforcement politicians make a whole news story out of repeating the 2 myths. The media, whether paid to do it or if they are a tough-on-crime network ( they all are, but some worse than others, such as Fox ), they would do it on their own, are known to fool people into thinking any tough on crime measure is a good idea. With the exception of Prop 47, which is flawed for not excluding registrants, the media have manipulated people into supporting every tough on crime proposal like 3 strikes and the War on Drugs legislation and not supporting repealing of these ill-conceived laws.

Leave a Reply

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  • Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  • Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  • Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  • Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  • Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  • We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  • We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  • Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  • Please do not post in all Caps.
  • If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  • We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  • We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  • Please choose a user name that does not contain links to other web sites
  • Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *