Apparently police in Minneapolis are so fed up with prostitution that they're experimenting with a truly bold tactic:
Whether teenagers walking to and from South High School or young women waiting at the bus, the unwanted solicitation by "johns" has left civic leaders such as Schiff fed up and ready to take a new approach -- if the rule of law isn't a strong enough deterrent to the men looking for illegal sex, perhaps advertising their public humiliation will be.Enter a huge electronic billboard at the intersection of Interstate 35W and Lake Street, which fired up Wednesday with direction to www.johnspics.org, a city website that prominently displays photos of men convicted or charged with soliciting prostitution within the past six months. Clear Channel, which donated the billboard space, will run the signs for the next six months. Though the photos have been online since 2004, the new Web address will be easier for drivers to remember.
What do you all think about this strategy? After learning that the average age a girl gets into prostitution is 13 recently, I've felt pretty tenacious about any policy that can cut down on the power of manipulative older men. On the other hand, this seems like one step down a slippery slope of eroding civil rights and, besides, deterrents like this don't seem to actually work all that well.
Read the full article here.
Thanks to reader Jess for the heads up.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: Minneapolis Gives Johns Serious Exposure.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12456
I don't think public shaming is an effective tool. These aren't the Middle Ages. Neither prostitutes nor those who solicit them ought to be shamed. However, there is something wrong with soliciting random girls on the street for paid sex. The solution is to legalize prostitution so that both prostitute and john can be honest and open about transactions (i.e. it will be obvious who is a prostitute and who isn't), but that will never happen in my lifetime.
I don't think legalizing prostitution is going to stop dirty old men from wanting to screw 13 year old girls, but it's worth a try I guess. I have a feeling that under agers or women that weren't "pretty" or "young" enough to get a job with legal prostitution would still be working the streets. They would probably be cheaper even.
Having sex with a minor is a separate crime. It should remain a very serious offense for a grown man to have sex with a 13 year old.
Prostitution is a different question in my opinion.
I agree - instead of shaming the (mostly working class, and disproportionately African American, Somali, Mexican American and Native American) men who hire prostitutes on the street - while leaving the (mostly upper middle class or rich and disproportionately White) men who hire call girls over the phone or the internet out of public view, the Minnesota authorities should simply legalize prostitution.
Youre joking right?
I agree. If an industry is legalised - it can be regulated and held under the same scrutiny as any other business. If you regulate the sex work industry, you can do more to protect minors from being exploited and maybe sexual assault/abuse to sex workers would be taken more seriously.
Idealistically, we'd be living in a world without a desire for prostitution. But we don't, so we have to make the best of what we've got here and now, and if naming and shaming criminals was a REAL deterrent, we would have a much lesser crime rate than what we currently have.
" If an industry is legalised - it can be regulated and held under the same scrutiny as any other business"
Hasnt worked in Amsterdam or Nevada.
If prostitution were legal, how would this stop men from asking random women 'how much' for a sex job? Legalizing prostitution would only make it worse. In places where they've legalized prostitution women who are 'at risk,' (ie those with mental problems or oppressive pasts) are horribly exploited. There was a post about this a year ago (I think) in which a journalist went out to write an article about it and found women living in cells that looked more like prison cells, pimps that horribly abused and exploited them, and many who were suffering mental illness and desperately needed medication. Why would a man need to buy a woman anyways?If theres not something wrong with him, then why should he have to do it? He can fond someone to consentually and receprical sexual relations with. Its not like shes getting off or anything, she just lies there and essentially lets him 'use her body.'In this society in which womens seuality and mens use of them is often mixed up with domination and force, and women are valued only as sexual objects, legalizing prostitution would only make it worse. It would further the exploitation of women in society and make misogyny more prolific.
Another problem with this particular case is them posting pictures of people who are simply charged, and who may or may not be actually guilty. Particularly when they have photos of one person who was convicted, and 21 who were charged and have cases pending.
Convicted: sure
Charged: No. That whole trial by jury and assumed innocent thing.
I have huge issues with this trend of an accusation taking on the weight of guilt.
Yes i like it too acai berry
when young women cant be in public spaces without harassment, im less inclined to care about the privacy rights of the harassers.
It's not about privacy rights as the information's already available to the public. It's about upholding the rights of the accused in our criminal justice system. Your assumption that someone who's posted definitely is "a harasser" just goes to show how effective it is to label someone. These men have their pictures up, and they're assumed guilty whether they are found guilty or not. That's problematic for me, especially in these type of emotionally-charged situations.
I am VERY ok with public shame. It's a matter of public record when a person is convicted, then there is no reason not to broadcast it. One of the best deterrents to crime is having a close knit community. One where people are aware of one another, and one where there is a support system for those who are coming out of jail. The billboard system is only one half of the process. (Obviously I'm of the stance that we need less jail time, and more rehab time).
I think of things like hollabackny, to catch a predator, and america's most wanted. They catch criminals and do make an impact on potential criminals when they're thinking about committing a crime. I don't have any actual proof or data either way whether it works, but it's very simple: don't try to buy girls and you won't be humiliated. It's humiliating for a reason: you're doing something wrong.
I'm not so hot on heavy profiling of those who are being charged for crimes. I think the information about who's being charged should be a matter of public record, but not up there with convicted criminals, and no pictures.
I'm with you. Like some others here, I live in Minneapolis, have experienced first and second hand the MPD's unofficial "it's your fault, woman" policy, and know which route to South they're talking about. And I am much less concerned with political statements about prostitution as a viable profession than I am about the safety and quality-of-life of real women, from women at the bus stop at the wrong time to brothel slaves, not in the least because the vast majority of sex-workers will never be independent operators making 90k a year and living in Georgetown. It's fantastic that the accountability is finally being shifted, even a little bit, to those who perpetuate the nasty system.
Destra,
Your vision of society sounds pretty damned totalitarian!
Public shaming of people with "deviant" morality - what's next, blockwardens like Hitler's Germany? or the Thought Police like World War II era Japan?
I believe in freedom, and the right to be left alone, and the right to live according to my personal moral creed, rather than being dictated to by the "community standards" of busybody neighbors.
I believe in freedom, not shame.
Destra never said anything about punishing people for deviant behavior. This is punishing them for breaking a law that's been passed by a democratic society. Public shaming simply makes publicly available information more visible, thus increasing transparency.
There's nothing totalitarian about increasing the level of transparency and upholding laws that protect women, the underclass, and the young.
This is punishing them for breaking a law that's been passed by a democratic society.
No, this is punishing them for being accused of breaking a law in America. But even still, I can't believe that you think that that is a justifiable position. Your reasoning means it's okay to put anybody who has been charged with a crime on the billboard to be shamed. In a justice system that's woefully biased against the poor and is well-documented to be racially biased, do you really think that's okay? Think of the millions of harmless drug offenders (prominently poor PoC of questionable guilt) your statement would permit to be paraded out for public shaming. Think of the kind of people that would have permitted to be put up there years ago by laws passed by our democratic society. "Democratic society" isn't a magic phrase that makes all its laws morally correct, or all its lawbreakers morally wrong, and the fact that you used it to justify a totalitarian policy is objectionable.
If you genuinely think this idea will keep women safer, and that that benefit outweighs the privacy violation, the creepy moralistic elements, and the fact that it brings us a step closer and sets a precedent for doing this for other crimes, that's one thing, but your argument that its not a totalitarian measure is hollow.
Let me back this person up because they were responding to my original comment.
No, this is punishing them for being accused of breaking a law in America.
Yeah, we already addressed how we didn't like the charged men up there, only the convicted.
Your reasoning means it's okay to put anybody who has been charged with a crime on the billboard to be shamed.
Well, really only the people who committed the crime for selfish reasons. Soliciting sex is a purely selfish crime. You don't do that cause you need to feed your kid, and you don't do it in self defense.
In a justice system that's woefully biased against the poor and is well-documented to be racially biased...
Yeah, and they're still criminals even if they are unfairly profiled and targeted. Listen, just because other systems are flawed and discriminatory doesn't mean that you should avoid other programs that work. We need to instead look at the injustice being brought by law enforcement by targeting these groups, and try to stop it there, not AFTER they've been convicted.
"Democratic society" isn't a magic phrase that makes all its laws morally correct, or all its lawbreakers morally wrong, and the fact that you used it to justify a totalitarian policy is objectionable.
No, but it's the society that we have to live in, and it's the best system we've got now. If you don't like the laws we got, the best thing is that you can go out there and try to change them.
If you genuinely think this idea will keep women safer, and that that benefit outweighs the privacy violation, the creepy moralistic elements, and the fact that it brings us a step closer and sets a precedent for doing this for other crimes, that's one thing,...
Yup, I already said that this was one step in a process of reducing crime in communities.
but your argument that its not a totalitarian measure is hollow.
The first person to bring up Nazis automatically loses an argument for calling names and not having logic to back their points up. And note that I'm not saying that you brought up Nazis first--GREGORYABUTLER did.
GREGORYBUTLER is a troll. it's all too expected of him/her to argue/asl about unrelated things.
Agreed. Of course he would be for legalising prostitution! Prostitutes are just 'holes,' right? Its not like theyre people or anything. I mean who raises their hand in elementary school and says that "when I grow up I want to be a street prostitute, stand on my feet all day waiting for a creepy man to pay me money for crappy, one-dimensional sex and then be hassled by a abusive and domineering misogynist of a pimp!"
Godwin's law!
Typical comments from a misogynist who posts on feminist forums. Apparently shifting the weight of responsibility from the women to the ones who make the demand for it is the same as Hitlers Germany. Smart one Greg.
All of this information is public record, but I have a serious problem with publicizing people who are charged but not convicted. When I was a reporter, it bothered me that our newspaper did it. Of course, we never printed later "Smith, John charged with possession of marijuana, charges dropped for lack of evidence." We just printed that John had been charged in the first place, and I think that's wrong. While it's public record, it doesn't have to be broadcast so openly.
Beyond my issue with publicizing people who are charged before the legal process plays out, I'd have to review how effective it was based on recidivism rates of those convicted over the course of a couple of years to determine whether it was worthwhile.
As someone who lives in Minneapolis, this surprised me. I have a very low opinion of most of our police force. Especially the sexual assault detectives.
In fact, I have a classmate who works in some sort of liason position with the Minneapolis police, who proudly shared with my class the other week that he had learned at a meeting the other week that there is a brothel located on the edge of campus. The police know about it, but according to this fellow, have decided not to take action - because apparently then all the men who go there will rape people instead.
Now, I'm not trying to demonize sex work or say it should be driven out, but considering the problems with sex slavery in Minneapolis (Lake Street is actually a national hub, so it is fitting that they are displaying johns' pictures here) ignoring a brothel seems wrong and very insensitive to the women involved. Not to mention that their logic that brothels decrease the likelihood of sexual assaults has been shown wrong in several studies.
Sorry to mention all that, as it isn't directly related, but this article reminded me of this. Does anyone have a suggestion about an action that could be taken regarding the above? I was thinking possibly informing the media...
On the note of the pictures. I agree with Brandi. Post the pictures of those convicted, for sure. However posting pictures of those charged does not seem appropriate.
Also, on the note of Minneapolis police and sex slavery, a prime example would be the brothel bust that occurred December 2007. 25 men were operating 8 brothels using sex slaves. Many of the men were undocumented immigrants (I don't want to call them "illegal"), as were many of the women. Yet despite the fact that the men were operating from Minneapolis, the Minneapolis police refused to take part in the bust. It was carried out by federal agents and the St. Paul police. The Minneapolis police claimed that the reason they weren't getting involved was because they won't enforce immigration law...Yet the heart of the issue was not about immigration, but rather the exploitation of women.
The Minneapolis police don't go after illegal immigrants if they can possibly avoid it, because they want them as informants. The point is obviously being lost along the way if they're not going after criminals, but perhaps since the Feds were already going to do it they thought they could protect their own relationship with illegal immigrants by not participating.
As for the policy, they lost my support at "charged." Around Christmas of 2005 I picked up a hitchhiker at 2am on a cold snowy Minneapolis night. She turned out to be a hooker, and although all I did was drive her home I could easily have been charged, as anyone could at any time. To paraphrase Robert Terwilliger, isn't it customary to have the trial first?
Minneapolis, like a number of cities across the country, is a "Sanctuary City" - that is, the local police do NOT enforce immigration laws, and do not persecute immigrants.
The logic is - if they persecute immigrants, they won't cooperate with the police, and therefore law enforcement in those communities is impossible.
This isn't about sex work, it's about harassment, and I think it's fucking awesome. State sponsored hollaback, FTW
i hate hate hate it. here's why:
1. go to the website. notice a trend in whose pictures are displayed? mostly men of color. because they are most likely to be targeted by the police, and convicted.
2. this is definitely coming from a standpoint that sex work is inherently wrong. whichhhh i disagree with. sex work is a legitimate profession, it is just not legally viewed that way. so here we have consumers who are being ostracized for buying a service that they have every right to buy. if this does happen to work as a scare tactic, i think the people it would scare most would be good, kind, considerate johns from buying services from sex workers. i mean, these men were not convicted of VIOLENCE against sex workers...just for buying sexual services. so yeah, i think it is going to hurt sex workers' business (which hello...its a job and they need to make money)
3. public shaming = not a good tool to address fucked up issues that DEFINITELY exist within the realm of 'sex for money'. there is violence and sex slavery and, for some (not ALL), a desire to get out but a feeling of being 'trapped'. HOWEVER, these issues require a community response that engages those who are perpetuating violence, rather than a response that isolates them. that doesnt solve ANYTHING.
so yeah. i hate it.
On point #1, I noticed that and agree with you. I also noticed the neighborhoods these guys were from. They are (with the exception of Eden Prarie) from poorer areas, too. Interesting because, when I went to a lecture put on by a private group that targets and researches Johns, I learned that they usually caught men from the richer neighborhoods. Why aren't men from rich neighborhoods being shamed?
TRUTH. and also, what abotu all the public officials and police officers that rape and assault sex workers on the regular? i doubt we will ever see THEIR pictures on there.
ps my girlfriend totally pointed that out to me. (gotta give props where props are due)
1) Whether they were more harshly targeted than light skinned men or not, if they were convicted, it's probably because they did something wrong.
2)In this country they do NOT have every right to buy sex. It's illegal. I also have to wonder about the ethics the kind of man who would buy sex has knowing how many street prostitutes are underaged, forced into the profession, and being abused by pimps. We're not talking about privileged women who work at famous, legal brothels in Vegas here.
and the sellers of sex have no right to sell it either. were their pictures also put up? this shaming business has to end for all parties involved. maybe for those that knowingly engage in sex with minors, but other than that, it serves no purpose to shame consenting adults
No, its not really a two -way street. The men are the ones that use the women. Who wants to be a street prostitute unless thyere forced to? Or unless its out of bad circumstances such as an abusive home that they have to escape, or mental illness? In a society where women are seen as sexual objects andmanyof these women werent given the proper support in their lives (sexual abuse, neglect, verbal,physical abuse) and are in very vulnerable situations (finding yourself on the street after running from your sexually abusive step-father and needing to feed yourself)are clearly not the criminals. The patriarchal system that sets women up as sex objects to be 'bought' and exploits their circumstances is. The men that persist in creating a demand for these women are the culprits, not the desperate women they exploit.
Your privilege is showing!
Maybe you don't know anybody who's been run through the ringer by the criminal justice system.
Most "convictions" come from what amounts to legalized police extortion.
Hew's how it works
You're poor, and of color - the cops arrest you, you are too poor to hire a private lawyer or make bail, so the prosecutor makes a 'deal' with your public defender - you plead guilty (even if you are in fact innocent) and you'll only spend 6 months in jail, instead of waiting 14 months in jail for your trial.
Maybe you don't know anybody who that's happened to - but I know lots of folks who's "convictions" were thusly extracted.
Ever wondered how a mostly White country like America ended up with a prison system full of Blacks and Latinos?
That's how!
So tell me again how everybody who's been convicted is guilty?
This from the person defending his friend who exclusively caters to people who can afford $700/hr for prostitution.
I'm really disappointed by this news but heartened by some of the comments here. Heina framed the situation perfectly and as many others have echoed, these are men who simply charged with, not convicted of, solicitation. Whoever wrote the article is trying to posit these men as borderline pedophiles by emphasizing "young" and "teenaged" but we aren't provided with any actual ages of girls harassed.
If this were borne out of some community desire to make all women feel more comfortable in public spaces, I might feel mildly better about it. But this isn't about all types of street harassment; it's about shaming those looking for consensual sex. So, FrumiousB, it is most definitely about sex work. The guy who yells out "Hey Baby, nice ass" is, under this approach, not someone who deserves negative attention unless he stipulates that he wants to pay you for enjoying the view.
Even the opening story makes the proposal, while unexpected and certainly unwelcome, sound fairly mild. He was "looking to exchange money for sex," not trying to assault her, and there's no indication he said anything particularly crude. He gestured for her to come to the car and she did so. She was probably just being friendly and open to helping a neighbor, but he probably assumed her coming to his car meant she might be offering what he was looking for. This is not the type of thing I want someone's life to be ruined by.
Also, a quick reminder: there was a post on this site not too long ago decrying the same technique when the public shame-ees in question were *convicted* prostitutes: http://www.feministing.com/archives/013768.html
You can't compare this to shaming prostitutes because of the power dynamic that occurs. These men are purchasing sex, which means they are in control. The prostitutes who sell their bodies are a commodity. They have next to no control over their bodies, and usually, even the revenue.
in my line of work i've met more than a few prostitutes, one of which is now a madam and is a very good business woman. she controlled the revenue very well when she was a pro and even better now as a pimp/madam. i'm not sure why you feel they have little control over the revenue. the women are selling sex, and can just as well exert their power in that dynamic
That's an incredibly insulting comment to sex workers. Many, many prostitutes can and do screen their clients, and are not afraid to turn away men. Even those who work on the street.
uh wow. okay i think the big issue here is that there is a bit of confusion. sex workers are not selling THEMSELVES. they are selling a SERVICE that they provide. they are not a commodity. (just like plumbers provide a SERVICE of fixing your toilet - they aren't selling themselves. get it?)
your statement is so disempowering to sex workers. i read it as "oh you poor oppressed thing" rather than recognizing the power of sex workers. i also think there is an underlying assumption that people only do sex work if they are FORCED into it (either directly by violence, or because of their financial circumstances)
some of the fiercest and most powerful people i know are sex workers.
i sincerely hope that your comment was not meant how it is being perceived by me and others here. if that is the case, can you please clarify?
also i think it would be useful for people who feel confused or torn on this issue to get a perspective from sex workers (who are not as helpless as they are painted to be) here are a few links to get you started...keep in mind, ALL of these are orgs/resources that are led by sex workers:
spread magazine
http://www.spreadmagazine.org/
sex workers outreach project - chicago (thats where i live so this is what i know best)
http://redlightchicago.wordpress.com/
desiree alliance (national sex worker rights org)
http://www.desireealliance.org/
My mistake. I was thinking generally about streetwalkers, who certainly ARE exploited. It's a fine line to walk when we're talking about the sex industry and where we should stand on it as feminists. Do I think prostitution should be illegal? No, I think it should be controlled. Do I think legalizing prostitution is necessarily a step forward for women? Heh...
And who said anything about strippers?
And I did use the wrong word when I said that prostitutes sell themselves. That's a slip of semantics, not how I really feel of course.
Peace.
Sex work is so empowerful!
In the words of Twisty Faster, "Prostitution: it's gotta go."
A plumber is selling their skills, not their genitals to be used however the paying customer wants for their personal pleasure.
Do you know any actual prostitutes?
Or strippers?
Or any other kind of sex workers?
If not, then how can you make such a broad brush statement about how they run their business affairs?
Yes, there are victims of human trafficking in prostitution - just as there are in construction, and garment manufacturing, and the restaurant industry and many other businesses in this country.
But there are also independent businesspeople who sell their sexual services for a fee (often quite a substantial one - I have a friend who charges $ 700 an hour...and she only has to kick back part of that fee if she gets a customer from a madam, with her private customers, she keeps 100% of the fee for herself).
Others are employees - and, like most non union workers, their jobs range from well paid with flexible hours and good working conditions to low paid, superexploitative and abusive, depending on who they work for.
I'm sorry but this just isn't relevant to this particular conversation. The fact that upper class men can pay hundreds of dollars an hour for sex in a safe environment doesn't have anything to do with johns who cruise run-down neighborhoods and ask random people for sex. Nor does it have anything to do with the sex trafficking industry, which is nothing but human slavery in a modern age.
Sexual slavery, sexual trafficking =\= sex industry.
No-one wants slavery.
Anyone else wonder how much Greg knows so much about prostitution? I think he commonly uses it.
Yup. Everyone knows that the silly womenfolk can't make their own choices, and all straight men are really just rapists.
I agree. What person, but a desperate person agrees to get into a car (or hotel room) with a strange man and service him sexually without even having the ability to care what he looks like, smells like and has sex like? You cant even call that consentual because she's only 'consenting' to sex to feed herself, or care for her kid(s) while he's doing it out of selfish reasons. Starving or eating doesnt make for consensual circumstances.
I am not sure about the shaming technique; I just don't know. BUT this part of the article bothered me:
"Legislation is also in the works to make prostitution in a public place a gross misdemeanor."
Along with increased time for Johns is increased time for prostituted women. Note that A) there is no talk of help getting women OUT of prostitution and B) increased punishment for pimping is not mentioned. I really wish we as a nation would get serious about punishing pimping, which in my opinion, is worse than Johning.
I have a BIG problem with any shaming techniques and things like "To Catch a Predator" because it's not just the man who must deal with the fall out when something like this is so widely publicized
http://mzbitca.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/were-not-just-shaming-the-men/
Excellent post, MzBitca. I wholeheartedly agree. All you have to do is think back to kids I knew in elementary school whose parents were in trouble with the law, and see how that affected them for years afterward to know what a bad idea it is.
Another issue (that was touched on by fatima) is the effect on the people driving by every day seeing those pictures. Since most of the men charged or convicted are minorities, it's another reason for people inclined to xenophobia to think "Hey, I knew [insert minority/minorities here] were immoral/criminals, and this proves me right." Especially with the Minneapolis police force's reputation for targeting minorities and poorer neighborhoods, it's a perfect recipe for badness.
Also chiming in with those who have big problems with unconvicted men being displayed, either on the billboard or the website.
I think public shaming could be effective. Think about why people dress in certain styles- because they don't want to be shamed by everyone else for wearing something different. So, they change their style to fit the common type. When someone deviates from the norm and brought to shame, they may change. Now, I'm not saying that the guys on the site will DEFINITELY change because of the shame. But, it may help.
That was supposed to be a reply to Heina, oops.
Why should they have to change?
I would bet that a lot of these guys purchase sexual services from women because of how their personal lives work - or don't work.
In other words, I suspect that either they don't have a partner, or they have a dysfunctional sexless relationship.
So, if the only way they can get sex is to hire somebody, and it works for them, and they pay the prostitute in full and are not abusive to her, why should it be anybody else's business?
It's a little thing called PERSONAL FREEDOM, and it's a GOOD thing.
Of course, if these guys abuse the women - or rip them off by having sex and not paying, then they SHOULD be prosecuted - for assault and theft of services!
But why should sex for cash in and of itself even be illegal in the first place?
"I would bet that a lot of these guys purchase sexual services from women because of how their personal lives work - or don't work.
In other words, I suspect that either they don't have a partner, or they have a dysfunctional sexless relationship"
....and what about the women Greg? Why are they selling sex to disfunctional men?What are they, just holes to you?
Are they sure this is going to work? After all, you might be giving the prostitutes ideas about which people to approach when they need new...er, "clients". I hope this doesn't backfire.
Angela
Backlinks
Agreeing with general sentiments. Bad assumptions about sex work in the first place. Shaming isn't effective or generally a good idea. The "or charged with" is clearly problematic.
Just go to the Minneapolis Police's anti prostitution website http://www.johnspics.org
You will see 22 pictures - one convicted man, and 21 men who are just accused by the police (that is, they are INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY).
Of those men, 12 are Latino, 3 are African American, 4 are African immigrants and only 3 are White.
Am I the only one that has a problem with this blatant racial profiling?
THANK YOU! i just clicked "i like" for all of your comments thus far hahha.
I don't think there's anything wrong with buying or selling sex (it's OK to give it away, but not charge or pay for it? it's OK to charge or get paid to have sex on camera, but not off camera? WTF?), so obviously I disagree with anything that punishes people for doing so.
Also, the racial aspect that others have brought up is really disturbing.
I think our society is too focused on shame. Shame for having or not having sex, shame for having or not having money, shame for being too thin, too fat, too black, too white. It's ridiculous. I don't think we need to pile more shame onto an already shame-centric society. And I would say this even if they'd committed a crime that I actually consider wrong.
What do you mean 'giving away sex?' You seem to be coming from the point of view of a man that sees sex as something 'women give away.'Its very objectifying and posits women as possessions to give something away.
Gopher - I don't think the idea of sex as something to "give away" necessarily reifies women. As a woman, I have the ability to "give" someone the gift (and I mostly certainly do consider it such) of my sexual company. Perhaps that is because I tend, in a relationship at least, to be fairly giving. If, on the other hand, I'm trolling at a party, I'm looking to "take", to "get" laid. Sex, though certainly beautiful, is by its nature a bit transactional. You do something with or to someone, and (unless they are engaging in certain kinds of Dominance/submission play) they do something with or to you. There's nothing wrong with that. The only issue is whether what they give you can be money. I say yes. You, seemingly because of your stance on how sex is framed, as an act, say no.
As an aside, streetwalkers form the smallest group of sex workers, although they tend to stay in it for longer. Framing a discussion of prostitution as a whole solely in terms of that kind of sex work seems a touch myopic.
Something to consider:
Legally speaking, if you can public shame the Johns then you can public shame the prostitutes and you can public shame any other law-breaker.
I'm against this, against all cruel and unusual punishment, and for giving non-violent offenders a second chance.
And posting pictures of people who are only charged, is just plain ridiculous.
As someone who teaches about privacy, I will probably lead my class in a discussion on this. They will have to argue whether or not this is invasive of privacy (and whose privacy should be considered). Such public shaming, as contrasted with the relative obscurity of police reports, definitely is about privacy, in my view. It is a distinctly different level of "public." A similar approach, in other parts of the country, has been tried for DUI, shoplifting, and of course, sex offenders (variously defined); since this level of public shaming is relatively new, no reliable data exists, but its power to reduce recividism or act as a deterrent is probably low.
Does anyone know if these are ALL of the convicted and charged individuals in the past 12 months? It sure does not seem like very many--perhaps an indication of an ineffective approach to this "problem"? If these are not all of the people charged with the crime, how do police determine whose photos to post?
As someone unfamiliar with sex work, can anyone tell me the typical criminal charges involved with call girls and other higher-end sex work? I'm just wondering if it's still called "prostitution" (and, if not, perhaps that might partially explain the racial/ class biases of these photos)?
Finally, as others have said, there is a huge difference between charged and convicted. It bears repeating, over and over. The U.S. judicial system is predicated on that difference.
For the record, a similar thing was done after Prop 8 passed. Somebody released a map showing the home addresses of everybody who donated money to have the proposition passed. It can be found at eightmaps.com.
This information is all publicly available but normally hard to find. After the map was released many of the people on it were harassed and reported feeling scared.
Now... I am not a fan of Prop 8. I am also not a fan of public shaming. I admit that if I lived in California I would probably have checked my neighborhood anyways.
You might add this to your class discussion.
A ehile back I think someone published the membership details of the British Nationalist Party (I think)A fair few folks got harrassed ovver their membership (including one Wiccan who I hear got booted out of his coven) It's similar to the Prop 8 deal, though a bit removed from the John's situation
" A similar approach, in other parts of the country, has been tried for.....shoplifting"
A, "Curb Your Enthusiasm" episode revolved around this. Larry had to hold a sign up outside of a resteraunt saying that he 'steals silverware from restaurants.' He was accused of stealing after he brang back some food to his limo driver to eat while he and his wife dined at the restaurant. He forgot to bring silverware and started to bring some out to the driver when the owner caught him and called the police.
Simple. Film them on a video camera installed in the neighbourhood and catch them while they are harassing young women and making disgusting comments. Play the worst video snippets on a huge billboard with a caption like "is this your boyfriend, husband, son or father? Poor you." It will look like what it looks like. No need to call it a specific crime.
wow big brother. that sounds terrifying to me for so many reasons. chicago has security cameras on various street corners...its interesting to see what corners they have decided are 'dangerous' enough to warrant having a camera there.
i lived in lincoln park, a notoriously rich white area of chi, for four years and experienced street harassment on a DAILY basis. cpd would never have considered putting cameras there. now i live in rogers park, which is much more racially and economically diverse, and there are some cameras around but hardly any street harassment.
anyways, i dont understand how the camera method is empowering to the women who are being harassed. isnt their privacy just being horribly invaded too?
these simplistic ideas are never going to be able to solve a complex problem like harassment and sexism. but they certainly require a lot less work than say, community accountability strategies, which would be a lot more sustainable, empowering, and effective.
Innovative. I think film and video has a more profound effect than simply showing pics of the guys. How does one erroneously get accused of looking for sex anyways? I think for the most part its fairly obvious what theyre doing. The only downside is that the profound effect it may have can errode peoples reactions to it and also parents might not want their kids to see it.
I consider this like the War on Drugs; people have given up on the big problem (interdiction of multinational cartels that import drugs and/or sex slaves) and are trying to win using stupid, Constitution-eroding, PR-friendly moves that target demand (and, according to Gregory's audit, target minority demand).
I'll all for private shaming... whatever floats your boat... but I don't trust corrupt, racist, and militarized police departments to be shame-dispensers.
EXACTLY. You said it much better- all I can come up with is that the billboards are missing the actual and original point. So thanks for that!
I like how the guy on the bottom of the web page is smiling. Ha ha!
shaming does not work
If shaming didn't work, young women wouldn't have plummeting self-esteem when people make comments about their supposedly-less-than-perfect bodies. If shaming didn't work, women would keep sitting in the front of the class and putting up their hands to answer questions even when the boys called them dumb, stupid or sluts. If shaming didn't work, women today would rule the world.
I refer you to a feministing post on the same subject at http://community.feministing.com/2009/03/tell-a-story-light-a-candle.html
Here's what the blogger said about what is, essentially, shaming:
"A few weeks ago, I found Hollaback NYC. It's a blog dedicated to ending street harassment by snapping pictures of the perpetrators and posting them online. I think it's sassy and bold and I love the women who created it and participate in it."
I like it. I dont see how this can be compared to to the middle ages as what these guys are doing is wrong and many wont and dont care about the females at all, regardless of age.Its not irrational human torture. If these methods work its fine by me. Its nothing you'd read about in "Discipline and Punish." No quartering and taking flesh off the body using heated piercers.
This information is all publicly available but normally hard to find. After the map was released many of the people on it were harassed and reported feeling scared. acai berry acai berry oprah
I have no problem with it if they were to show the pictures of the men that were convicted. That being said, it seems to me, a violation of ones civil rights...to go posting the pictures of the men at "charged" stage. What happen to innocent until proven guilty? bamboo clothes