Why does the media feel the need to remind us of past sex offense accusations/ convictions?

Yesterday, the tragic death of NBA legend Kobe Bryant and members of his family in a helicopter crash. I'm not a fan of basketball but have at least heard of Kobe Bryant. Since he's a legend of his sport and did not die from old age but at 41, it means the media has covered Kobe's death extensively. But in doing my daily review of "sex offender" news stories, it was the last place I was expecting to see a news story about Kobe Bryant. 

The Times-Leader, a newspaper covering Northeastern PA, particularly the Wilkes-Barre area, ran a news story about the tragedy, written by Stefanie Dazio of the Associated Press. The article talks about some charity work but ends the article about an accusation made against Kobe almost 20 years ago. 

This is an ongoing problem with the media. Even in death, the media feels the need to shame anyone accused or convicted of a sex offense, even when the story is unrelated to the actual news event. 

In 2017, a number of (mostly conservative) news outlets pointed out one of the three people who died in a train derailment was on the sex offense registry. Why did the media feel the need to point that out?

Of course, live registrants often cannot catch breaks from the media, either. A few months ago, after the Washington Examiner wrote a story exposing Facebook's policy of allowing people to make death threats against registered persons, I wrote a letter to the editor about the vigilante groups proliferating on social media. I was contacted by David Freddoso, who edited my original letter to include details about my offense and requested my permission to publish the edited article. I refused. 

For some reason, the media believes we should wear this label like it is some kind of job title. Educating the public should start with these uninformed media personalities because the media is where nearly every American gets much of their information. Yet, individual reporters often do not write unbiased articles; I should know, since I've dealt with numerous media outlets over the years.  (I'm looking at you, Kyra Phillips. Worst. Interviewer. Ever.) There IS a reason why I have a special category just for reporters on the annual Shiitake Awards. 

Our voices won't be heard as long as we subject ourselves to labels, or let reporters get away with lies about "high re-offense rates" or other myths. Are you doing your part to educate the media? 

My Challenge to the Dr. Drew Show (and why most opinions about the Jared Fogle case aren't worth a five dollar footlong)

Everyone has been having a field day with the revelation that former Subway sandwich spokesman Jared Fogle is pleading guilty to both possession of child pornography AND having sex with a couple of teenage prostitutes. Of course, we've had to endure more five dollar footlong comments in the past 72 hours than in 15 years of Jared's Subway ads. 

The New York Post engaging in its usual fashion. 

But aside from the juvenile humor and the endless barrage of stories shoveling the piles of bovine excrement to mountainous proportions from folks looking to put in their two cent's worth into the conversation (such as this tripe from "Hollywood jail consultant Larry Levine"), very little is being said other than fueling the flames of ignorance and hatred among the uneducated masses. 

Of course, I'd somehow get sucked into this media circus, if only for a moment. 

After returning for an extended trip to the great state of Oregon to visit a friend/ fellow activist and enjoy some well-deserved R&R, I was finally getting back into the swing of things. (Of course, even on my "vacation," I still took calls and emails from registered citizens in need of advice as well as engaged in a couple of protests. Then again, I find public demonstrations a great stress reliever). I missed an email so I got a text from the producer from the Dr. Drew Show. The subject for my segment was Jared Fogle, of course. I wasn't really ecstatic about the subject matter but since this was to be my FOURTH appearance on Dr. Drew's HLN brouhaha, why reject the challenge and the chance for exposure for Once Fallen, right? 

Unfortunately, I experienced a bit of a technical issue no thanks to McAfee's Virus Software deciding that the best time to pester me with updates was 9:30pm, just as I'm having a live Skype interview. Because of that unexpected problem, I wasn't sure that what I said was even aired, but I was later assured my comment made it on-air. I figured (rightfully) that I'd only have one moment to say what I feel is important, that because of the stigma of being called "sex offender" is so great, there are barriers to those who recognize they need help for sexual deviancy but cannot find the help. (I must admit, because of the technical difficulties I flubbed the words but I managed to get the words out, though not as eloquently as I just typed). So it wasn't my best performance, and I'm sure they knew I was having technical issues so they never returned to me.

HOWEVER, I so wish I was able to rebut the statements that came after my statement. 

First off, I have to say, who the hell is Omarosa, and why is she a panelist? I'm willing to bet when you hear the name Omarosa you probably envision a samurai, but no, she's just a washed-up reality star best known for being a nasty piece of work on the first season of Donald Trump's old reality show "The Apprentice." This is the washed-up reality star had to say:

"I disagree. There is a lot of outlets. If you have a problem, there are doctors, psychologists, sociologist, you can go and turn yourself into the police. The problem is that people saying that they do not know, you really do. Because if you get street justice, it is a lot worse than what you are going if you turn yourself in."

Dr. Drew, THIS is why you don't get washed-up reality stars to join in on serious discussions. 

Allow me to explain why Omarosa's comment is stupid. First, no one is going to turn themselves over to the police or even talk to a shrink if they are having deviant sexual thoughts. Why would anyone put themselves through such abuse? Lets say someone has deviant thoughts but has not acted on them and is disturbed by them. Say this man goes to a shrink to get help. Say this man has a wife and kids. This man tells the shrink about these issues. What do you THINK will happen to this poor guy? This man will be reported to the police (Geez, has ANYONE ever heard of CAPTA, aka "mandatory reporting of child abuse" signed into law by Richard "I'm not a Crook" Nixon?). He will be investigated and his name is dragged through the mud. Ultimately, even if it has been determined that the man never acted on these feelings, he will be labeled, shamed, and threatened by people in society. Who in their right minds would rat themselves out KNOWING this is the end result?

Dr. Drew himself wasn't any better. In fact, in my four times on the show, I have yet to see him get a factoid about sex offender right. I'm being a little harsh on my gracious host and all, but his attitude on the show was too dismissive. "Go to Sex Addicts anonymous, S.A. Go there now," the doctor says. I support these Anonymous groups and all, but SA and related Anonymous groups tend to deal primarily with sexual addictions of a general nature. It is hard to imagine that guys who "merely" cheat on their wives or spend time watching adult transvestite midget bondage porn will be willing to share space with a guy baring his soul about an attraction to children. Yes, there ARE online groups like "Virtuous Pedophiles" or "B4U-Act," but they are not as easy to find as you may think. Also, these groups have been attacked by online vigilante thugs like Perverted Justice and Anonymous and at times, members of such groups have been outed and personally attacked. 

I could rip Drew over calling 17 year olds "children," but that's a rant for a different day. However, I will say that in some states, having sex with a 17 year old is legal. 

This stereotype is getting too old. I think
it is time we retire it. 

The truth is, we've been so adept at treating the sex offender as "monsters" that we've enabled those with sexual deviancy engage in cognitive dissonance. "Monsters" are old men wearing wrinkly trenchcoats with pockets full of candy and puppies luring kids into rusty vans. Thus, when Uncle Mike or Father John or kindly Mr. Smith are accused of sex crimes, those who know them can't believe. Why, they're nice guys! Jared Fogle had such a great story and a million-dollar charity helping kids get skinny! But now that he's outed as a sex offender, people are saying they "knew it all along," "he looked creepy," and the like. No, folks, you DIDN'T know, so sit down and grab a tall glass of "Shut The Hell Up." 

Thank God the Washington Post had the decency to write a bastion of reason in this sea of incompetence!  (I strongly advise you to CLICK HERE AND READ IT!) Admittedly, they proved my points a bit better than I did on the Dr. Drew show. It does point out that our trained response to sex offenders is actually impeding our understanding of them. Calling all sex offenders "monsters" certainly does a great disservice to the discussion. No amount of TV panel discussions with D-Listers, entertaining as they are, will amount to the price of a Subway sandwich. 

If Dr. Drew (or any other TV show) wants to have a REAL discussion about sex crime prevention, there are few things you need to do. First, replace Omarosa with a bona fide expert like Fred Berlin, Karl Hanson, Emily Horowitz, Jill Levenson, Richard Tewksbury, Lisa Sample, Eric S. Janus, or the researcher with arguably the coolest-sounding name in the research business, Crysanthi Leon. Of course, Once Fallen should be in it. If you want the other side to be represented, then being on some celebrity advocate like John Walsh, Mark Lunsford, or even Ron Book and his airheaded daughter Lauren to the show. Lets pit folks with more than a passing interest in the topic against each other. Sure, I'd still be arguing with idiots, but I'd take Walsh over Omarosa any day. At least we'll stay on topic. And most of all, that show will be as informative as it is entertaining.

So to the "New" Dr. Drew show, I just pitched my idea for you. You've had me on four times now, so I know you can make this happen. It might even be your best show ever! Maybe. 

Even in small scale operations, law enforcement loves to inflate numbers

I love how Law Enforcement loves to inflate numbers to make it sound like they are doing more than they are actually doing, or that they need to justify the vast waste of our resources on our Predator Panic obsession.

One of the newest prevailing myths is that the Super Bowl is now a yearly magnet for roughly 100,000 "sex traffickers," or what we used to like to refer to as "prostitution." You see, we no longer refer to prostitutes as prostitutes, but "sex trafficking victims." Now granted, a small number of Americans are forced into doing really bad things, like forced prostitution. Many more do so for reasons such as supporting a habit or because it is fast and easy money. That 100,000 number is ridiculous, by the way, since the biggest Super Bowl in history had about 105,000 or so official attendees. That would be about one prostitute for damn near every Super Bowl attendee. But I digress.

I wanted to point out a couple of glaring issues and nagging questions with this "news article" regarding "sex trafficking" arrests from this year's Super Bowl. Now, I must address a caveat. I have already stated that forced sexual slavery is a bad thing. I'm merely taking note of the over-inflated stats surrounding this newest myth.

http://www.lifenews.com/2014/02/07/16-teens-rescued-from-sex-trafficking-in-super-bowl-sting/

16 Teens Rescued From Sex Trafficking in Super Bowl Sting
by Rachael Denhollander | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 2/7/14 11:34 AM

It’s the ugly side of the Super Bowl – the reality that America’s most popular sporting event is also likely America’s biggest day for sexual slavery. The day that sells the most tickets and the most coveted ad spaces is also the day that results in the most sales of little girls and women, at prices inflated to match the expense of the event. In a cruel outplay of the economic reality of “supply and demand,” it is not only local pimps who make a big profit – women and girls from all over the country are often brought in to the destination city to ensure that travelers for the big game have enough “side entertainment” available.

So now the "Super Bowl" is the "biggest day" for "sexual slavery." I find that hard to believe, given the headline stated a whopping 16 teens were "rescued." Compared to other large scale operations the police love to brag about, this seems like a relatively small number of fish for such a wide net.

As awareness of this evil phenomenon has grown, law enforcement officials and private organizations have been stepping up efforts to bring the activity to a halt, with Sunday’s event seeing perhaps the most intense and organized movement to date. In the six months leading up to the Super Bowl, the FBI partnered with both state and local law enforcement officials, more than 50 agencies in all, to create a coordinated effort not only in New Jersey, but throughout other states where pimps and their victims may be traveling from or through to supply the host city with enough “workers” to meet the demands of the big day.

Take note. OVER FIFTY law enforcement agencies took part in this massive operation in New Jersey, where this year's Super Bowl was played, as well as states other states where prostitutes and their handlers may be traveling from. Which states, I wonder? Note the six months of planning for this.

The operation included training hotel staff and other employees working in venues focused on hospitality or travel assistance to recognize warning signs of human trafficking and respond appropriately. The coordinated effort is the result of the FBI’s  “Innocence Lost” initiative, a program established in 2003 in conjunction with the Department of Justice and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, for the purpose of combating the trafficking and sale of minors.

I'd love to know what the NCMEC actually does besides make millions for John Walsh and Ernie Allen. I guess now is the time to PROVIDE THE LINK to the "Innocence Lost." So in 10 years, they are averaging about "270 rescues" annually. It is interesting these are very small numbers given the constant claims of "100,000 to 300,000 are children are sex slaves in the US." Also, how much does this operation cost taxpayers, given the number of agencies involved?

It is an effort that made a critical impact for dozens of women and children this weekend, as the FBI announced yesterday that it rescued more than 50 women forced into prostitution, as well as 16 minors being sold into sexual slavery. Six of the minors were recovered in New Jersey, while the others were recovered in surrounding states from pimps known to traffic victims across state lines, some of whom claimed to have traveled specifically to provide sexual services during Super Bowl events. In addition, 45 pimps were arrested in the coordinated operation.

This is where the story gets interesting. So actually, only six minors were actually recovered in NJ at this time? Also, were 50+ women actually "forced" into prostitution? Or were some smart enough to play along with that assumption? Of course, where are the other 99,934 sex trafficking victims being sold at the Super Bowl? Are they in hiding?

Of the children recovered, some were as young as 13, and none older than 17. Many were runaways who had been lured by pimps seeking desperate children, while some others were children who had been reported missing by their families, and still others were foreign nationals.

Interesting how the ages are mentioned here. "No one older than 17." That's because anyone ages 18+ aren't considered minors. Also, it is hard to justify using the word "many" when referring to 16 people.

But the biggest disconnect is found not on this article, but the "Innocence Lost project" page. Notice the look of the "child" in the graphic:

To me, the child in the graphic looks like a child, not a teenager. This graphic is a powerful propaganda tool. It implies a literal sale of children, not teenagers, some of whom apparently weren't forced into the sex trade. Even the writer of this article reluctantly mentions that some were teens "reported missing" or "foreign nationals." It is interesting because they are distinct categories from the category of those "lured by pimps." I guess it is easier to allow people to assume force when indeed some chose this profession. I'm not saying it is right for teens to chose the sex trade, I'm merely saying lets talk about the subject honestly, and cut out the propaganda.

It will be a long road for the women and children recovered, however. Brainwashing, brutal beatings, and threats of harm to family members are the normal living environment for victims of human trafficking, making it difficult to truly escape and heal. Many victims return to their captors out of fear or guilt, or as a result of Stockholm Syndrome.

Clemmie Greenlee, a victim of human trafficking who has dedicated her life to reaching other women in her situation, explains, “There’s no such thing as we want to go back to these guys, we do not feel that no one — not even the law — can protect us, and we do not want to die. … You can say you’re going to save us, you can say we don’t have to worry about the pimps no more. We already know what power they have shown us. So either you come back to them, or you find out two days later they either got your grandmother or they just broke your little baby’s arm.” In some ways, getting the women out is the easy part – helping them rebuild shattered lives is a much longer, much more difficult process.

Not all prostitutes have "pimps." Some are really bad people. However, this part of the article is a classical appeal to emotion. The implication is that ALL sex trade workers are this way. It may be more common in "street level" prostitution, but not so much with the "escort" level. Many women work independently, or their lovers act as protectors. Granted, drug abuse tends to be a primary motivator for prostitution for many people, and drugs make people do crazy things. It can also be like what is described here, but it isn't universal.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

Yet every effort must begin somewhere.  Perhaps this weekend, for nearly 70 women and children, the first steps to healing and freedom have begun.

I'm not sure what the pro-life argument has to do with the article.

For those who suspect trafficking, contact your local police or the Department of Homeland Security at 1.866.347.2423. The National Human Trafficking Resource Center also staffs a toll-free 24-hour hotline at 888-373-7888.

I guess Homeland Security needs a job since they don't do anything else but sit around and look menacing.

It is interesting to note the semantics employed in this newest awareness campaign, with a very sexist connotation. Prostitutes are almost universally portrayed as "victims" of the sex trade, while "pimps" and, almost as frequently, "Johns" are almost universally portrayed as abusive men who are forcing women into sex. Some do, yes. But not all women are victims. Many choose the profession willingly. Not all men are abusive.

It is common to feel the need to portray the worst case scenarios to raise awareness of a serious but very rare issue. Unfortunately the rhetoric clouds truth and rational approaches to the issue at hand. Sex trafficking is the next great Predator Panic, and it can have a negative influence over already bad sex offender laws.