Robert,
I'm disappointed to say that I found your article very biased. "Prostitution has long LURKED in San Francisco's health clubs, parlors and even private homes???" Completely missing is the perspective of the 41% of San Franciscans who voted last November to DECRIMINALIZE prostitution. I suspect even that already large number doesn't tell the whole truth, and that those of us who want it decriminalized are in fact the majority -- as we all know, older and more conservative people are more likely to vote than young sex workers, and many massage parlors employ immigrant workers who may not legally be able to vote.
The Chronicle's editorials on this topic have been terrible, and it appears that the paper's editorial stance is affecting its news coverage as well. That news coverage is sadly lacking. We want to see:
• Sex workers and sex work advocacy organizations like the Sex Workers Outreach Project and Erotic Service Providers Union quoted and mentioned in stories about prostitution, as well as groups who defend the rights of sex workers and our clients, like the Libertarian Party, the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, etc.
• San Francisco's long, proud history of prostitution acknowledged, honored, and discussed as part of the conversation on this issue. For instance the facts that most of the first women to settle this town were sex workers, that there used to be a weekly prostitutes parade down Market Street, that many of the alleys south of Market are named for former madames, etc.
• People informed that the Board of Supervisors task force on prostitution which investigated and reported on the issue in 1996 recommended decriminalization but the Board has failed to follow through.
• The amount of money that is being spent arresting and prosecuting people for prostitution and related offenses thoroughly documented and reported.
• Statistics and information on how many people have actually been charged with sex trafficking, which is the new bogey-man being used by opponents of prostitution to scare the public.
• Investigations of whether alleged victims of trafficking are claiming that status to avoid being prosecuted or deported themselves, or in order to secure government or other assistance available to victims.
• The opportunity costs of going after prostitution to be addressed -- how many police officers, prosecutors, and other government employees are being diverted from investigating and prosecuting crimes like murder, rape and robbery, or doing other work that will improve the quality of life in San Francisco in less controversial ways that are not opposed by nearly half if not more of our city's population.
• The press to stop automatically portraying law enforcement as the protagonists in stories about prostitution and massage parlors, as you do in this story, e.g. "The city has been hampered by a lack of legal resources, only one massage inspector for 150 establishments and a long history of ambivalence toward prostitution."
The reality is that our fair city is being HAMPERED by the INTOLERANCE of some people, including elected officials and law enforcement who have a VESTED FINANCIAL INTEREST in perpetuating that intolerance, toward what other people choose to CONSENSUALLY do with their own time, money, and bodies!!!
Your response letting me know what you will do to improve the fairness of the Chronicle's coverage of this topic is requested!
Sincerely,
((( starchild )))
Outreach Director, Libertarian Party of San Francisco
sex worker, former candidate for public office, and political dissident
You wrote: