Rad Geek People's Daily

official state media for a secessionist republic of one

Ending State violence against women in prostitution in San Francisco

Here's a pretty old post from the blog archives of Geekery Today; it was written about 15 years ago, in 2008, on the World Wide Web.

Last year, a dangerous California street gang rolled up on 1,583 women and abducted them off the streets of San Francisco, tied them up, and held them against their will for days or weeks at a time. Some were robbed of money and then let go. Others were held in specially-constructed dungeons for as long as half a year before they were allowed to see the light of day again.

There has been little notice of this massive wave of violence against women in the malestream media, and little outcry, even though this same gang is still active, and is on track to abduct a similar number of women this year. Part of the reason for the neglect of this story is the fact that the 1,583 women were women in prostitution, or suspected of being in prostitution and all too many people (by which I mainly mean men, and by which I mainly mean pols, lawyers and cops) figure that assaults and disappearances are just business as usual for women in the sex trade, something that can be stamped N.H.I. and shrugged off with a blink.

The other part of the reason is that the street gang’s colors are blue, and they all carry badges, and they call these abductions arrests, the imprisonment pretrial detention or a sentence, and, even though the women they target and grab off the street through force or intimidation are just doing a job for willing customers, and threatening or attacking exactly no-one, these gangsters can count on the biggest racket of all — the protection racket known as the State — to get their back, to claim their violence is justified because it is carried out under color of The Law (as if that were somehow immune to question or challenge), and to put out well-paid mouthpieces who will insist, with a completely straight face, that when women in prostitution are being forcibly hauled off, arrested, cited, fined, jailed, and generally subjected to an attempt to forcibly destroy their livelihood, the people (mostly men) who are doing all this are actually doing it for the women’s own good.

In fact these rationalizations are no better than — really, no different from — the rationalizations that every abusive man in the world uses to pass off their controlling behavior and violence against their women as if they were expressions of love. The male-dominated State is nothing more than an abusive sociopath writ large — one that can attack women by the thousands or by the millions, and one with armies and dungeons and trillions of dollars at its disposal.

As I said last December 17th:

Any serious commitment to freedom for, and an end to violence against, women, means a serious commitment to ending violence against women who work in the sex industry. All of it. Immediately. Now and forever.

And that means any kind of violence, whether rape, or assault, or robbery, or abduction, or confinement against her will, or murder. No matter who does it. Even if it is done by a john who imagines that paying for sex means he owns a woman's body. Even it is done by a cop or a prosecutor who calls the violence of an assault, restraint, and involuntary confinement an arrest or a sentence under the color of The Law. The Law has no more right to hurt or shove around a woman than anyone else does.

— GT 2007-12-17: December 17th is the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers

This November, eligible voters in San Francisco have an opportunity to call for peace on this front of the city government’s war against women:

San Francisco would become the first major U.S. city to decriminalize prostitution if voters next month approve Proposition K, a measure that forbids local authorities from investigating, arresting or prosecuting anyone for selling sex.

The ballot question technically would not legalize prostitution, since state law still prohibits it, but the measure would eliminate the power of local law enforcement officials to go after prostitutes.

Proponents say the measure will free up $11 million the police spend each year arresting prostitutes and allow them to form collectives.

It will allow workers to organize for our rights and for our safety, said Patricia West, 22, who said she has been selling sex for about a year by placing ads on the Internet. She moved to San Francisco in May from Texas to work on Proposition K.

Even in tolerant San Francisco, where the sadomasochism fair draws thousands of tourists and a pornographic video company is housed in a former armory, the measure faces an uphill battle, with much of the political establishment opposing it.

Some form of prostitution is legal in two states. Brothels are allowed in rural counties in Nevada. And Rhode Island permits the sale of sex behind closed doors between consenting adults, but it prohibits street prostitution and brothels.

. . .

Police made 1,583 prostitution arrests in 2007 and expect to make a similar number this year. But the district attorney’s office says most defendants are fined, placed in diversion programs or both. Fewer than 5 percent get prosecuted for solicitation, which is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail.

Proposition K has been endorsed by the local Democratic Party. But the mayor, the district attorney, the police department and much of the business community oppose the idea. They contend that it would increase street prostitution, allow pimps the run of neighborhoods and hamper the fight against sex trafficking, which would remain illegal because it involves forcing people into the sex trade.

. . .

If the proposal passes, we wouldn’t be able to investigate prostitution, and it’s going to be pretty difficult for us to locate these folks who are victims of trafficking otherwise, said Capt. Al Pardini, head of the police department’s vice unit. It’s pretty rare that we get a call that says, I’m a victim of human trafficking or I suspect human trafficking in my neighborhood.

— Associated Press, CNN (2008-10-21): San Francisco may become safe for prostitutes

While I certainly agree that coerced sex trafficking is an evil that needs to be seriously addressed, government officials and government cops like Captain Al Pardini, who claim to be concerned about the welfare of women forced into prostitution, refuse to talk about ways to address the systemic issues that stop trafficked women from being able to come forward and speak out or seek help about what’s been done to them (like, the State’s violence against undocumented immigrants and the threat of deportation; like, the police’s refusal to take women in prostitution seriously or treat them like human beings), and instead they apparently feel perfectly comfortable insisting that their difficulties in investigating sexual slavery somehow justify laws that grant police the power to force any woman suspected of being in prostitution off the street and into police detention, under police scrutiny, to imprison her, to force her to pay punitive fines, to conduct arbitrary police raids to go on fishing expeditions for trafficked women (e.g., at Asian massage parlors) based on nothing other than racial profiling, and so forth, and so on, all in the name of facilitating the police’s attempts to investigate a different crime that affects some subset of the women being rousted up, shoved around, arrested, questioned, fined, imprisoned, and so on, and all in order to be able to force trafficked women into the protection of the criminal law, with or without their consent. This amounts to nothing more than an argument for ensuring that the State maintains and exercises plenary police state powers over all women suspected of being sex workers, for no reason other than the alleged necessity of protecting some women in the sex industry from violence, while ignoring the many crimes that women in prostitution are never able to report to the police for fear of being arrested, and while ignoring the immense violence against all women in the sex industry that is committed by cops themselves, as part and parcel of this policy of arrest and detention. Nobody would ever accept this argument if it were directed against a class of people whose basic human rights malestream society is more accustomed to granting. (E.g., We need to be able to investigate the enslavement of migrant farmworkers; let’s outlaw farming! We need to be able to investigate medical malpractice; let’s give the cops the power to arrest any doctor and charge them with a misdemeanor!) It is only when it comes to people who powerful men regard as official non-persons that these kind of arguments get made — whether they are made against the safety and freedom of women in prostitution, or against the safety and freedom of immigrants without government papers or unauthorized drug dealers, in parallel arguments for government border laws and drug prohibition. That’s despicable, and it’s baffling to reason. If you have the chance, I’d strongly encourage you to vote Yes on Prop. K, and No on police state tactics and government violence against women.

I should say that, while I’ve given up completely on electoral politics as a primary vehicle for political change, measures like Prop. K — or Question 1 and Question 2 in Massachusetts, or State Question 2 in Nevada — are a good demonstration of why, if you’re going to put in for electoral politics, voter initiatives and direct votes on referendum questions offer a much better vehicle for doing it than throwing in for the personal political prospects of some favored (or least-worst) candidate for the elective oligarchy that is so fatuously described as our democracy. Proposition K will have a hard time passing — a similar initiative was defeated in Berkeley recently by a 2-to-1 margin — but the mere fact that completely decriminalizing prostitution in a major U.S. city has entered into the political debate, that it is being considered for passage (or. mutatis mutandis, repealing the income tax in one of the highest-tax states in the U.S., or decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, or banning all eminent domain seizures for transfer to private developers in a state with one of the most intensely state-capitalist economies in the U.S.) is an achievement in itself, compared to the way in which representative politics completely smothers all serious politics, by choking off any and all political issues outside of the established bipartisan government consensus on the acceptable range of debate. Voting libertarians take note: if you’re going to spend your time on this stuff, there’s not much hope for making a difference this way, but there’s some, and that’s better than I can say for personality politics and representative elective oligarchy.

See also:

34 replies to Ending State violence against women in prostitution in San Francisco Use a feed to Follow replies to this article · TrackBack URI

  1. "Nick Manley" - The Eternally Confused "Deviant"

    I’ve decided to write a philosophic study of the courtesan. I want to discern the philosophic principles that have guided prostitutes and courtesans throughout history. My contribution to what I like to call The Philosophy of Prostitution will be to make an attempt to identify the virtues that a courtesan can acquire to achieve eudamonia. I’ve been thinking of it as a Artistotlian-Randian project, but I admit I could use to read more Aristotle. An ex-friend/lover of mine once told me that she didn’t think Rand got Aristotle. I always saw Rand and Aristotle as kindred spirits in important ways, but I could use to read more for a better understanding.

    Charles, you’re welcome to contribute to this project. You’ve written on what you see as the degradation of current sex worker culture from a feminist perspective. I also invite others who wish to assist me to write to me at chessanarch@gmail.com.

    And three cheers for Prop K! It would make any research for the book easier ( :

  2. Anon73

    I have to confess I’m a little uncomfortable with the mixed metaphors here. If the State is the family per se writ large, and bullying writ large, and abusive psychopathic husbands writ large, or street gangs writ large, etc, then it seems hard to see how they could all be accurate.

  3. smally

    Anon73, all of those can be found simultaneously in, say, the Mafia.

  4. Rad Geek


    Well, as you like, but I think only two of those were used in this post: the description of police as a street gang and the description of the male-dominated State as an abusive sociopath writ large. For what it’s worth, though, when I call cops gangsters I don’t mean that as metaphor; I mean it literally. (Similarly when I describe the State as a protection racket.) So the only metaphor here is the metaphorical description of the male-dominated State as an abusive sociopath writ large. If you think that some salient element of that metaphor conflicts with the claim that the State is literally a protection racket and that government cops are literally a street gang, then I’d be happy to think about it and reconsider the metaphor.

    Concerning the other descriptions, which I didn’t use in this post: I don’t think that the State is accurately described (either metaphorically or literally) as the family per se writ large. There are lots of different kinds of families, some wonderful, some nasty, and most mixed; and while the relationship between the State and its subjects resembles the relationship among family members in some kinds of family in some respects, it certainly doesn’t much resemble all of them. (Certainly it doesn’t much resemble the relations among people in the family that I was fortunate enough to grow up in.)

    I don’t know whether or not the State could accurately be described as bullying writ large. I do know that a lot of agents of the State (especially the hired muscle, like cops and soldiers, and the front line of bureaucrats and professional busybodies), do often act literally as bullies towards those who are temporarily under their power. Whether that makes it accurate to say that the State as a whole acts like a really big bully, well, I don’t know. Probably depends on the situation.

  5. Keith Preston

    This is an excellent essay-one of the very best on this subject I’ve seen in many years. I did a fair amount of research and investigation into this issue when I was a journalist for an alternative news magazine some years ago.

    I realize some who visit this blog do not like many of my other political views, but we’re on the same page one hundred percent on this issue.

  6. Vicky

    Violence against prostitutes? Prostitution IS violence!!!!

  7. Keith Preston

    “Violence against prostitutes Prostitution IS violence!!!!”

    Oh, one of those…

  8. Anon73

    How about “Violence against tax protestors? Tax evasion IS violence!”

  9. Keith Preston


    Let’s take it a step further:

    “Violence against draft resisters? Draft resistance IS violence!!”

  10. Anon73

    How about this one:

    “Violence against dissenters? Free speech IS Violence!”

  11. Marja

    I would assume that someone who believes that prostitution is violence would consider it violence against prostitutes, not violence by prostitutes against other parties.

    In this case, laws targeting prostitutes make as little sense as laws targeting battered women.

  12. Rad Geek


    O.K., O.K., we get the joke. But I would be more interested in hearing how Vicky intends what she says to be taken, before people pile on more.


    Could you explain more detail what you mean when you say that prostitution is violence? Who is committing the violence, and who is the victim of the violence?

    I know many anti-prostitution feminists who would make a statement like prostitution is violence, intending to refer to the systemic violence and exploitation inflicted on women in prostitution by pimps, johns, cops, and the legal apparatus. Is that what you’re referring to? Or did you mean to say something else?

  13. Eric Ogunbase

    I’ve always said that prostitution could be monitored by a department in the same way that insurance agents are.

    A licensing process, as well as disease testing that must occur on a regular basis. States could have another form of revenue, and women who wanted to service in that manner could do so in a safer manner.

    Since the “t” on my keyboard isn’t working well, I’m not going to take the time to diagram it like I have in my mind.

  14. Soviet Onion

    A licensing process, as well as disease testing that must occur on a regular basis.

    So in other words, if you’re a woman that wants to have sex in a particular context or for a particular purpose, the price for doing so will be forced invasion of your body and privacy (ie rape) by some body of blowhard regulatory “experts”.

  15. Soviet Onion

    (cont. because I clicked too soon . . .)

    I’m all for making testing available to people who need it, but here, as with sex itself, I’m pro-choice.

  16. Anon73

    Well S.O., even in a fully free system where there is no such forced regulation by “blowhard experts” the natural market outcome would surely involve some disease testing mechanism. It’s somewhat naive to claim otherwise.

    It always struck me as weird that some people have this idea that a free society will (or should) resemble that alternate timeline from “Back to the Future”, i.e. nonstop sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll. :)

  17. Keith Preston


    State-regulated prositution in the form of disease-testing, licensing, etc. may seem innocuous enough, but it’s a bad idea. In systems where that has been done, this information is used as a database with which to harass prositutes in matters such as child custody, employment, healthcare, bank loans, associates who live off her earnings, etc.

    Some of this covered in Vern and Bonnie Bullough’s very good book on the history of prostitution.

    The difference between a prostitute and an insurance agent is that there is no particular social taboo against insurance agents (though perhaps there should be-LOL!). An insurance agent’s kids aren’t going to get taken away from him for being an insurance agent. His wife isn’t going to be arrested as a pimp for living off his earnings. His background as an insurance agent is going to be considered the equivalent of a sex offender or convicted felong. Prositutes are on the very bottom social layers, therefore privacy and anonymity, if desired, become paramount.

  18. Keith Preston


    “It always struck me as weird that some people have this idea that a free society will (or should) resemble that alternate timeline from “Back to the Future”, i.e. nonstop sex, drugs, and rock !!!@@e2;20ac;2dc;n roll. :)”

    Well, I call myself an “anarcho-pluralist”, meaning I generally favor a decentralized, no-state or minimal-state system where people with different value systems can simply “do their own thing” by creating separatist enclaves for themselves. I see no reason why this couldn’t include “sex, drugs, and rock n’ roll” enclaves modeled after,say, the Red Light districts of some European or Asian cities just as it could include very religious, family-oriented enclaves.

  19. Anon73

    Prositutes are on the very bottom social layers, therefore privacy and anonymity, if desired, become paramount.

    I wasn’t aware of the history, although I’m assuming this is state directed licensing you mean? I also wasn’t trying to say whether it’s a good or bad idea overall – simply that consumers would likely demand it.

    It’s possible there are some solutions to the objections you raise. Women could avoid being prostitutes in hostile areas, or alternatively enclaves could form where prostitution is admired. Or if technology progressed enough it might be possible to test someone for a variety of STDs on the spot with portable equipment, etc.

  20. "Nick Manley" - The Curious "Deviant"

    Soviet Onion made the fundamental conceptual point here.

    State mandated std testing is a grossly coercive violation of a woman’s body. Our decisions are always made in a specific context. We must be free to act on our rational judgment in our particular contexts.

    “Well S.O., even in a fully free system where there is no such forced regulation by “blowhard experts” the natural market outcome would surely involve some disease testing mechanism. It’s somewhat naive to claim otherwise.

    It always struck me as weird that some people have this idea that a free society will (or should) resemble that alternate timeline from “Back to the Future”, i.e. nonstop sex, drugs, and rock !!!@@e2;20ac;2dc;n roll. :)”

    Any market outcome will reflect the values of politically free people that make up the marketplace. The important question to ask ourselves is: what kind of sexual values inspire us? What kind of workplaces do we want?

    A free society approximating Benjamin Tucker’s ideal would probably see more independent escorts then one approximating a patriarch’s ideal. We have to defend the rights of the individual inside and outside the brothels. It’s possible that brothels would have unjust policies with respect to staying disease free that reflect a culture of subjugation for women qua women. It’s also possible to imagine worker cooperative brothel arrangements. Maybe; we can conceive of a humane meritocratic one based on more traditional notions of specialization of knowledge and division of labor — i.e. somebody who is good at madam skills does madam work with the consent-consensus of the rest. This is an undiluted Randian ideal of respect for the rationally productive. It’s why Rand was able to claim there was no conflict of interests in a truly rational capitalistic society — her conception of capitalism is bound up with her respect for rationality.

    None of this will be possible until we liberate the world for eroticism. Let the prostitute flourish everywhere. That’s my motto.

  21. Keith Preston

    Well, what I was talking about are the state-regulated or licensed systems that have existing in some European countries. In some of these, prostiutes have had to be registered with the state (like physicians, for instance). Consequently, their status as prostitutes becomes a matter of public record, and is used against them in other settings. It’s kind of like a situation where, say, heroin use was legal, but still grounds for disadvantaging a parent in a child custody case, or removing a child from the home, even if no abuse or neglect is found.

    Even where full-blown decriminalization has taken place, like in Holland, there is social discrimination against prostitutes in the sense of, for example, prostitution as grounds for rejection for a bank loan.

    If an individual prostitution business, like a privately owned brothel house, wanted to test their own workers for disease as simply a sound business practice, that might be okay so long as privacy issues were recognized and respected.

  22. Rad Geek

    Well S.O., even in a fully free system where there is no such forced regulation by “blowhard experts” the natural market outcome would surely involve some disease testing mechanism.

    I think it’s interesting that it is always suggested that women in prostitution be subjected to periodic medical poking and prodding, whether this means being forced to do so by a government-mandated regulatory regime under legalization licensure schemes, or whether it means being required to do so by their pimps through some contractual means, in the name of customer service or whatever. It is, as far as I can tell, basically never suggested that johns ought to be made or at least expected to undergo STI testing and certify themselves as recently having tested as clean, before they go out to buy a fuck, even though that would achieve the same result just as well. I wonder why that is.

· November 2008 ·

  1. Keith Preston

    “It is, as far as I can tell, basically never suggested that johns ought to be made or at least expected to undergo STI testing and certify themselves as recently having tested as clean, before they go out to buy a fuck, even though that would achieve the same result just as well. I wonder why that is.”

    A very good point. The presumption is that the prostitute has a much greater number of sexual partners than the customer, which is not necessarily the case. Men who visit prostitutes are not necessarily sad sacks who can’t get it for free, which is a common stereotype. Plus, there are some “johns” who’ve been with hundreds, or more, prostitutes (or other sexual partners).

    Also, it’s not just a male-female thing. Women also use the services of male prostitutes (duh?). Right now, sex tourism by affluent Western European women seeking male “companions” in African countries is becoming more common. There’s also the issue of gay male prostitution, which involves the complication that gay men are at a higher statistical risk for HIV.

    I actually think private brothels that actually tested their workers would be rare. An analogy might be to strip clubs. I know a number of strip club owners. One is a woman who won’t hire workers who don’t have a stable address, can’t provide a references, or pass a drug test. But the others are all guys who are drug addicts, drug dealers, involved with organized crime, or who see their business as a means of access to lots of sexual partners for themselves. I know one who has a number of STDs himself. Some of these businesses are actual covers for prostition anyway, and they’ll hire any junkie or crackhead that can make them some money. If they owned legal brothels, I’m sure they wouldn’t bother with disease/drug testing. Some of them also own restaurants, and they could care less about health, fire or building codes.

    For years, I worked for a Greek family that owned a number of restaurants and strip joints. Once, when I was managing one of their restaurants, the health inspector did a surprise visit and cited us for 111 violations. Another time, I was managing one of the clubs and the health inspector showed up and gave us 65 violations.

  2. "Nick Manley" - The Curious "Deviant"


    You nailed it.

    In a society of free individuals who think for themselves, the “burden” of staying clean from unwanted diseases is not a woman’s duty.

  3. Marja

    I remember asking the same question.

    There tend to be fewer prostitutes than clients – regardless of the habits of individual johns or janes – so it’s easier to test all the prostitutes than all their clients.

    However, it may be more effective to test clients. e.g. prostitutes could charge more for clients who have older STD test records, or refuse service entirely.

    You can probably imagine more detailed systems including watermarked test records, prostitutes stamping records before sex (so other prostitutes know if their client has had professional encounters since his/her last test). Then unscrupulous clients might pay extra for prostitutes to leave the stamps unchecked, and another part might do the same to see which prostitutes take the extra money and …

    Of course, this doesn’t address the risks of noncommercial sex.

  4. Marja

    Okay, that was garbled. Unscrupulous clients might pay extra for prostitutes to leave the tests unstamped, and other parties might do the same to see which prostitutes take the extra money and …

  5. Anon73

    I’m sure there was some figure like Proudhon who said we can’t articulate exactly what a free society will be like since the one we have is so mired in statism; I sort of get the feeling we’re arguing over how many angels (prostitutes?) can dance on the head of a pin. As Marja notes, given the right conditions perhaps both prostitutes AND johns will be tested in a free society.

  6. Anon73

    By the way, apparently prostitution was somewhat well-tolerated in many ancient civilizations, and in Europe until the rise of STDs in the 16th century:


    One relevant passage is this:

    In the 19th century, legalized prostitution became a public controversy as France and then the United Kingdom passed the Contagious Diseases Acts, legislation mandating pelvic examinations for suspected prostitutes. This legislation applied not only to the United Kingdom and France, but also to their overseas colonies… A similar situation did in fact exist in the Russian Empire; prostitutes operating out of government-sanctioned brothels were given yellow internal passports signifying their status and were subjected to weekly physical exams.

  7. "Nick Manley" - The Curious "Deviant"

    Proudhon is a real irony. He’s the godfather of classical anarchism.

    This is his famous declaration:

    “Another famous quote was his “dialogue with a Philistine” in What is Property?:

    “Why, how can you ask such a question? You are a republican.”

    “A republican! Yes; but that word specifies nothing. Res publica; that is, the public thing. Now, whoever is interested in public affairs – no matter under what form of government – may call himself a republican. Even kings are republicans.”

    “Well! You are a democrat?”


    “What! “you would have a monarchy?”


    ” A Constitutionalist?”

    “God forbid.”

    “Then you are an aristocrat?”

    “Not at all!”

    “You want a mixed form of government?”

    “Even less.”

    “Then what are you?”

    “I am an anarchist.”

    “Oh! I understand you; you speak satirically. This is a hit at the government.”

    “By no means. I have just given you my serious and well-considered profession of faith. Although a firm friend of order, I am (in the full force of the term) an anarchist. Listen to me.”


    This is the first time that anyone declared themselves a serious political anarchist.

    The irony is that the same guy who said the above is also a traditionalist moralist Christian patriarch.

    Here are quotes that will make any anarcha-feminist cry scoundrel:

    “Between man and woman may exist love, passion, the bond of habit, whatever you like; there is not true society. Man and woman are not companions. The difference of sex gives rise between them to a separation of the same nature as that which the difference of race places between animals. Thus, far from applauding what is now called the emancipation of woman, I should be much more inclined, were it necessary to go to this extremity, to put woman in seclusion.”

    “This signifies that woman, by nature and by destination, is neither associate, nor citizen, nor public functionary.”

    Read more at: http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/hericour.html

    Shawn Wilbur says some of Proudhon is still untranslated here: http://libertarian-labyrinth.blogspot.com/2006/11/jenny-dhericourt-contra-proudhon.html

    I am studying French in college right now. I’ve not been the best student, because of my depression, but I am pulling myself together in pursuit of beauty again. It’ll be cool to read Proudhon in the original French.

  8. Discussed at www.beingamberrhea.com

    Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » Covering Prop K:

    […] Rad Geek: “Ending State violence against women in prostitution in San Francisco”: While I certainly agree that coerced sex trafficking is an evil that needs to be seriously […]

  9. pg

    State-run prostitution only makes the state the pimp. Test the johns, arrest the johns and pimps, enforce the existing laws against rape and assault (even if it’s a prostitute “no human involved” that is raped or assaulted), and help the prostitutes that want out get out.

  10. Discussed at radgeek.com

    Rad Geek People’s Daily 2008-11-10 – On sound and fury:

    […] crew to confine themselves to offering help to those who are looking for help, rather than having a dangerous street gang grab people off the street for their own particular […]

· December 2008 ·

  1. Discussed at radgeek.com

    Rad Geek People’s Daily 2008-12-11 – In which I court public opinion:

    […] GT 2008-10-24: Ending State violence against women in San Francisco […]

— 2012 —

  1. Discussed at radgeek.com

    Rad Geek People's Daily 2012-12-17 – December 17th is the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers:

    […] GT 2008-10-24: Ending State violence against women in prostitution in San Francisco […]

Post a reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.
You can register for an account and sign in to verify your identity and avoid spam traps.

Use Markdown syntax for formatting. *emphasis* = emphasis, **strong** = strong, [link](http://xyz.com) = link,
> block quote to quote blocks of text.

This form is for public comments. Consult About: Comments for policies and copyright details.

Anticopyright. This was written in 2008 by Rad Geek. Feel free to reprint if you like it. This machine kills intellectual monopolists.