Reason Magazine: John Stossel- Elizabeth Nolan Brown: 'Moral Panic Over Sex Work'

Source:Reason Magazine- Referring to New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft: who was arrested for prostitution

"Police often accuse people of "sex trafficking." Usually, it’s simply prostitution.

Police often use "sex trafficking" and "prostitution" interchangeably. That's what happed in the Robert Kraft case, says Reason reporter Elizabeth Nolan Brown.

Kraft, the owner of the New England Patriots, was caught in a "sex trafficking" sting.

Law enforcment "had all of these big announcements at first saying that…these women were being forced there and they weren't allowed to leave," Brown explains to John Stossel.

But now prosecutors in the Kraft case concede that there was no trafficking.

That's usually the case when it comes to "sex trafficking" busts, says Brown: "I'd say 99% of the headlines are not true."

Brown covered a similar case in Seattle where the cops claimed to have busted a sex trafficking ring. In a press conference, King County Sheriff John Urquhart said: "These women are true victims."

But the court documents "actually paint a very, very different story," Brown points out. "No one has been charged with human trafficking in that case."

Yet politicians and the media often exaggerate the frequency of trafficking. Congresswoman Ann Wagner claims, "Right now almost 300,000 American children are at risk".

That 300,000 number is repeated constantly in the media. The number is based on a study that has been disavowed by the lead author, Richard Estes. "Many people debunked the study and say, 'This is just a total bullcrap number,'" Brown says.

She adds, "When we have these exaggerated numbers, it forces people to go into this crazy emergency moral panic mode that ends up not helping the actual problem that we have."

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason." 

Source:Reason Magazine

Just for the record: I'm not in favor of what's called sex trafficking where you have at least very vulnerable, but perhaps very attractive women who are picked up ( if not kidnapped and enslaved ) with the promise that as long as they perform sex well, they'll always be taken care of. That kind of thing is dangerous, as well as immoral, and should be illegal. But that's not what this is about anyway and I only mention that because people who advocate for keeping prostitution illegal both on the Right and Left, say that we can't have prostitution, because it leads to sex trafficking. Which is simply wrong, but that should be pointed out. 

Anyone who argues that people should be in complete control over their own bodies, would be in favor of legalizing prostitution. If you believe in men should be in complete control over their own bodies as well, you should be in favor of legalizing prostitution, with the belief and knowledge that free, educated adults are more than capable of deciding for themselves how their own bodies should be used and what should go into them. 

It's one thing to argue that women should be able to make their own medical decisions whether it comes to abortion or whatever the medical procedure might be and say that women can make these decisions for themselves and we should keep big government out of the hospitals and our bedrooms: but if you really believe big government should be out of the bedroom, then why would you be in favor of sting operations done by law enforcement and breaking into motel rooms to breakup people who are having consensual sex with each other, even if that sex was financially compensated.  

I get the belief that prostitution is a dangerous business and it violates a lot of people's moral and religious values: but should that alone to decide whether people should have to go to jail or not: wouldn't a better approach and more cost-effective approach to law enforcement that instead of arresting people that for engaging in activities that can have negative consequences, that we instead arrest people for hurting innocent people and not what they do to themselves? Which of course would be a limited government approach, but also a liberal one, because it's saying that we don't want or need big government in our bedrooms, or in this case motel rooms.

Prostitution, is not just called the oldest profession in the world, but it actually is with perhaps politics being a close second, but the reason why it is the oldest profession in the world is because people love sex to the point that they won't allow their loneliness stop them from having sex, or perhaps they don't believe they're getting enough from their girlfriend or wife, etc, whatever the reasons. And just because you outlaw something because you don't like it and it can be dangerous, doesn't mean it goes away: all you've done is make it illegal and are now responsible for enforcing your own laws and in this case that means arresting free adults simply for having consensual, but compensated sex. 

And since we know that prostitution has been around as long as humans have been living and it's never going away, wouldn't a better approach be to legalize it and then regulate it and treat it like any other adult entertainment business: require anyone who runs or manages a prostitution business to get license. Require all prostitutes and their clients to get licensed and medically cleared on a regular basis. Tax the business, workers, and clients.  Instead of locking people up simply for engaging in consensual, but compensated sex.