5 Years After Backpage
Plus: "What is BDSM?", banning TikTok, storks and the state, and more…
Five years ago this month, the feds seized Backpage.com, the classified ads website that became infamous—and amply demonized—for being popular among sex workers. I recently talked to Backpage co-founders Michael Lacey and James Larkin, current and former sex workers, and civil liberties advocates about what the prosecution and the platform's closure have meant.
You can read the full thing here. An excerpt:
The seizure of Backpage helped "activate" Kaytlin Bailey toward sex worker advocacy. "To know so many people who used this service to keep themselves safe, to schedule and screen their clients, and to have the government narrative be that these, like, evil sex traffickers are kidnapping and shipping children…has been absolutely bananas," says Bailey, a comedian, former sex worker, and the founder and executive director of the nonprofit Old Pros. "The fact that we have really really smart people who have fallen for this idea that we can end child sexual exploitation by removing websites on the internet—it continues to blow my mind."
Thinking about Backpage's shutdown fills sex worker advocate Phoenix Calida with "anger and sadness." It was "not only a place to advertise. It was a place to find community, learn, and find safety," says Calida. "If I didn't have Backpage to advertise or screen, I probably would be dead by now."
"While the effects of the demolition of Backpage were awful for sex workers, I think the most devastating effects are those which will proceed from the terrible precedents the persecution set," says sex worker and author Maggie McNeill. "By wantonly destroying an internet business which had not only broken no laws, but which had also prevailed time and again against predatory lawsuits based in a rather bizarre legal theory of vicarious liability, the government has demonstrated that it cannot and will not be constrained by Section 230, the First Amendment, or even the venerable principle of presumption of innocence."
Backpage co-founder James Larkin says the past five years have taught him that "if the government decides to point its finger at you, there's really no question that they're going to try to ruin you"—and that "given the system and the way it's set up," chances are high that it'll succeed.
"What is BDSM?" my mother asked me.
She had recently finished going through a few-months backlog of my Reason articles. Her question has initially been "what is DMCA?" The acronym was in an article of mine, she insisted, and yet we didn't explain it.
"DMCA is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act," I responded immediately, because I am a huge dork. "But I'm sure I haven't written anything about that recently. And we would've written out what it meant on first reference."
"Maybe that wasn't it. Let me look," she said, beginning to page through Reason's February 2022 issue. "Ahh, here it is. You use it twice. BDSM. What does BDSM mean?"
Ahh, what an infinitely more embarrassing question to be asked by one's mother than a question about copyright law!
Luckily, my (very Catholic) mother is used to me writing about issues surrounding sex and seemed relatively unphased when I stammered out something ineloquent that definitely invoked 50 Shades of Gray.
And as far as 'references to BDSM that one's mother reads' go, this one really wasn't particularly awkward. It came as part of this review of several books, including Christine Emba's Rethinking Sex, Amia Srinivasan's The Right to Sex, and The Pornography Wars: The Past, Present, and Future of America's Obscene Obsession, by Kelsy Burke. Ahem:
Emba rightly rejects the idea that we "call on the coercive power of the state to address all the problems of sex." But she still wants to reshape sexual norms in a way that moves past "what we're allowed to do" (i.e., have sex as long as consent is given) "and toward what would be good." And what would be good, in her vision, excludes a good deal of activity that people consensually engage in, such as BDSM. A "craving to dominate," she writes, "is generally less healthy than a desire to express affection." Again, she sets up a binary between good sex, which is affectionate and should be socially encouraged, and bad sex, which is a bit kinky and should not. But any kinkster could tell you that rough sex doesn't preclude affection, and that plenty of BDSM sexual relationships take place between loving individuals.
I had the opportunity to debate Emba about sex and pornography at Claremont McKenna College in February. It was that all-too-rare debate matchup where you feel your sparring partner is not just smart and nuanced in their thinking but actually arguing in good faith, too — which is all to say that while I had a number of qualms about Emba's book, I respect her work and was happy that we could disagree amiably.
Speaking of sex and debates… I'll be debating Louise Perry, author of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, next week at Providence College. (Perry's book is also the subject of our second Feminists for Liberty Book Club, which launches in May.)
'Tis apparently now my lot in life, to go around arguing in defense of sex.
But not just sex! Sometimes I get to go around arguing for free speech, too. Like earlier this month, at Yale, where I debated the question…
Should the U.S. Ban TikTok?
The debate, organized by the Buckley Institute, pit me on the 'don't ban TikTok" side against Clare Morell, a senior policy analyst with the Ethics and Public Center. You can watch it on YouTube.
Morell, too, was lovely in person, despite our differences of opinion. After the debate, we bonded over both being the mothers of toddler boys.
Parenting—the great equalizer! Which brings me to…
Storks Don't Take Orders From the State
… this preview of Reason's June issue, featuring a cover story by me on falling fertility rates and the failure of pro-natalist policies:
I'll be sharing that and a couple more parenting-related pieces here soon.
For the record, I am doing my very small part to raise the 2023 fertility rate. Baby number two is due in September.
Feminists for Liberty News
We've had an active past few months with Feminists for Liberty. In February, we hosted a panel titled "Libertarians: Pro-Choice on Everything… Except Abortion?" In March and April, we've been holding our first book club, on Joan Kennedy Taylor's Reclaiming the Mainstream, and we're hosting a (virtual) panel this upcoming Sunday on Taylor's work and how the feminist battles of the ’90s still resonate in 2023. And, as I mentioned above, we’re starting our next book club—on The Case Against the Sexual Revolution—in early May.
Miscellaneous Links
A few more links to pieces I’ve published recently:
Could the RESTRICT Act Criminalize the Use of VPNs? — The TikTok ban bill is insanely far-reaching and could have a huge range of deleterious effects.
Utah Law Gives Parents Full Access to Teens' Social Media — Utah teens can no longer use social media platforms without explicit parental approval, and social media platforms must also provide a way for parents to access their kids' accounts.
States Try to Reform Prostitution Laws—for Better and Worse — New bills in 6 states showcase some right and wrong ways to help sex workers.
Rape Rates Go Down as Countries Legalize Prostitution, Rise With Sex Work Prohibition — Liberalizing prostitution laws "leads to a significant decrease in rape rates," according to a study published in The Journal of Law and Economics, "while prohibiting it leads to a significant increase."
Advocates Pressured an Ohio Town To Reverse Ban on 'Aiding and Abetting' Abortions — It's one small victory for free speech and due process, but similar battles continue to play out elsewhere.
Be Skeptical of the New Artificial Sweetener Scare — Does the artificial sweetener erythritol cause heart attacks and strokes?
Review: The Progressive Backlash Against Influencer Moms — Momfluenced bemoans unrealistic expectations set on American mothers but then establishes new ones.
Kamala Harris Is a Flop — The underwhelming vice presidency of an unpopular former prosecutor has created a succession problem for the Democrats.