I read on S.M. Berg’s blog that Robyn Few, Norma Jean Almadovar, and Margo St. James were convicted on pimping charges. Is this correct? If not, it’s slander. Robyn’s conviction was for conspiracy to commit prostitution across state lines, and the word “pimping” does not appear in this charge. Here is a link to the blog I’m referring to: http://www.genderberg.com/phpNuke/modules.php?name=FAQ&myfaq=yes&id_cat=2&categories=Prostitution+FAQf#16 .
Filed under: Activism, Prohibition |
Bound, Not Gagged 
IANAL, but I believe at the very least it’s libel rather than slander.
I was going to comment further, then realised you were in a different country with significantly different libel laws, so other than that minor correction I can’t help on the details. Ho hum.
I consulted my lawyer about this issue during K.
It’s called pimp bating. LOL
It’s being used on this other site right, http://toomuchtosayformyself.wordpress.com/2009/01/09/the-great-iusw-con/
now to discredit the IUSW and it’s members who are working really hard to stop the UK from passing ‘the crime bill” > http://tiny.cc/QzCYB> that would among other things, ban our right to engage agents and support staff.
At specific issue is the idea that one person controls another, which is a crazy idea to those of us who actually work in the sex industry. The idea of control is one of the reasons we don’t want legalization.
The pimp bating tactic is only effective when our own side uses it as a means to not be solidarity with our side.
Basically, they can say whatever they want.
So we’ll just do what we do which is to organize labor style and continue to be at the center of the economy that matters to us.
Too bad we can’t get Sam Berg up on über-pimping charges.
But no doubt Sammy can say “über-pimp” is libel. But for her to sue sex worker activists would be to draw attention to the fact that they exist.
I’m not a legal expert, but I could not find any evidence that either of the women Sam accused of being convicted of pimping actually were convicted of this. Sam is clearly using this to discredit these women as sex workers’ rights activists and if it’s false, then it’s slanderous. Here is the quote from Sam’s blog:
” Some leading ‘pro-sex work’ advocates of legalized prostitution such as Robyn Few, Norma Jean Almodovar and Margo St. James have been convicted on pimping charges though they continue to present themselves as common prostitutes and not bigger players in organizing crimes against prostituted women.”
Slander refers to publically making claims that are both false and detrimental to people’s reputations. I think that for it to legally be slander, it would have to meet both of these criteria rather than just one. I can’t sue because I’m not one of the people she mentioned, but if the claims are false, then the women mentioned would have a legitimate case.
Having been down this road, the answer that was given to me by many legal types was slander/libel are tough to prove and even tougher to get legal assistance from unless someone can prove damages caused by the slander/libel. And whether Sam Berg or anyone else involved in the slander/libel has anything significant enough to seize in the event of a legal victory.
That being said, if someone is legally literate or has a legally qualified friend/ally willing to do the work pro bono for the sake of the cause being just rather than for monetary compensation. Than legal action or even the threat of it and subsequent cost to defend against it can often initiate removal of inaccurate libelous/slanderous statements. I believe given this is written it is a libel case and is slander if spoken.
From personal experience, I can say that this can have the opposite effect than hoped with many of the prohibitionist types. Many of them seem to feed on anything they feel is oppression. While I abhor their malicious lies, I am also aware many of them would love to be sued to feed from the energy of being threatened and in their minds oppressed by their monolithic pro porn enemies. Reality often times has little bearing to their sense of empowerment that they gain from feeling and being able to claim to the world they are being attacked for being lone voices in the wilderness and other shit like that.
I guess the question to ask yourself if taking on this kind of fight with them is whether or not it’s truly worth your energy and effort. Because the sense they get from feeling persecuted by you is going to feed their emotional needs win or lose.
However, in the case of Sam Berg, history has also shown that she isn’t strong on being willing to back up her statements face to face. History has also shown that she either sees constructs where she is in danger where there aren’t any or uses those perceived constructs as excuses to not face those that she has harmed. Her fiasco with the no show at the William and Mary College debate thing comes to mind because she claimed being afraid for her safety from Renegade Evolution.
“Paid Prostitutes”?
lol your redundancy
Sam Berg is an idiot. She’s not worth the time or the ink on the paper. Thanks for the support.