CARNAL NATION

 I could not be more dismayed to see this here. Wanting to protect free speech and propagating that free speech are two different things. Why in God's name was it necessary to include a screengrab (with targeted sex worker's picture) and link to this blog? The issue could have been addressed without doing so. I understand anti-choicers have a right to preach their hate and violence, but I'm not going to forward around links to their webpages where they offer money to anyone willing to stalk an abortion provider. Seriously bad call, CN. 

Republican politicians are elected public servants. SEE THE DIFFERENCE? Equally defensible my ass.

"It's not clear if the two are related"?????

I can't stop being amazed at how clarity eludes so many people. One of life's little mysteries, I guess.

This is a hastily written, poorly researched, irresponsible article. There is a difference between free speech which is legal, and blackmail and extortion which are NOT.

The woman in the screen grab is a real person who has a bounty on her head and you are perpetuating this, not educating us on the first amendment.

Your position on this could not be more wrong. This is not by any stretch of the imagination a free speech issue. Hate speech is not protected. Threats are not protected speech. What the person or persons behind the blog in question are doing is a deliberate attempt to terrorize sex workers. They (and let's be honest here, there is an obvious, direct connection to the "Alexa" persona) are engaging in real, quantifiable attacks on sex workers, and encouraging others to do so. Why are they doing it? Because their intended targets are sex workers.
I have seen others try to equate the "damage" done to "Alexa" by all of this. This is patently ridiculous. "Alexa" is a fictional character, a figment of someone's imagination. It's tantamount to feeling sorry for the Grinch or Willy Wonka or Hamlet, Ophelia, Jean Valjean or Superman. "She" does not exist. The women being targeted by her and her co-conspirators DO exist. They are real women, real sex workers and are now in real danger. And you are perpetuating that.
It is the height of irresponsibility to not only support them and defend them but in posting (yet again) the link to their reprehensible extortion attempt, you are joining the ranks of their co-conspirators.
To compare this to Larry Flynt offering a reward for information on indiscretions by public elected officials is to show how little you understand the situation, and how little you understand the law. These are not public figures. They hold no public office. They are not charged with a public trust. You have fallen for the indefensible position espoused by these extortionists that what they are doing is on par with police releasing the names of those arrested for a crime.
But they are not the police. And their targets have not been arrested or charged. Ironically, if they were, they would have to right to face their accusers.
Your stated positions here are despicable. More so since your publication purports to be an advocate for sex workers.

First, Kimberlee Cline, the Porn Star who is the current target of Expose a Ho has 50+ face pictures on her site and has made BDSM porn movies (NSFW).  We're not outing somebody or reposting private images.

Next regarding politicians. As I said in the article (emphasis added) "if Larry Flynt can offer a bounty for cheating Republican politicians it's equally defensible for somebody to pay for information on sex workers. Neither is a morally defensible position but morals are personal and free speech transcends personal morals." Both examples involve money for potentially damaging private information, both are morally wrong.

Further, nobody is extorting anybody that I can see, the facts are that somebody wants to waste money trying to find out the id's of sex workers.   If in doing so they then try and get money for not disclosing the information they obtain that would be a crime but that hasn't happened. The same people being critical of this are happily endorsing somebody trying to pay money for the id of the idiot blogger. Pot meet Kettle.

Lastly "Some Guy" wrote "Your stated positions here are despicable. More so since your publication purports to be an advocate for sex workers." Leaving aside the despicable (you are entitled to your opinion) I do want to clarify the position of CarnalNation. We are not advocates for anybody.  We believe that everybody has the right to control their own body and make their own choices about how they give and receive consensual pleasure. That include the right to charge money for giving pleasure to others and the right to disclose or not disclose their choices.

In summary once we start trying to organize a mob to silence people who say things we don't like we all rapidly loose our freedom of speech.

Thank you John Pettitt for further endangering my personal safety.

I dont show my face, i am not an adult performer, I guess I dont count? You are assisting in my terrorising, stalking and outing by giving my stalker a platform. Your argument of free speech is a red herring. There were but a couple pages of "exposeaho" hashtags and @ replies over several days... UNTIL you wrote and tweeted this article @ replying my stalker after it was complete. Now there are over 9 pages and they are steadily growing and the hits to MY website are increasing in an alarming number as a direct result if this "article"

Id also like to add that i am being stalked because i consented to grant an interview to Carnal Nation, way to be responsible and accountable for your part in all this. Looks to me like you want to be in the center of the action and are trying to capitalize on a situation to get your views and revenue up and in the process. You are adding to real live problems for 2 real live people and helping to put them in grave danger, one of which is me. But again... i don't count right?

Its beyond irresponsible and its certainly not journalism as you didn't do any research on your story. I know this because you never contacted me, one of the subjects with a bounty on her head.

I'm sorry i ever thought this blog was reputable enough to grant an interview too.

Jenny DeMilo
Stalked Sex Worker

There is a difference between individual people's twitter comments and publishing these remarks on this website. I would have thought that a site like Carnal Nation would hold itself to a higher standard than this.
Regardless of it's legality, which I can't speak to, the intention of the EAH site is to be hateful and ugly, and to make the women in question feel unsafe. I'm sad to see you granted it attention and approval like this. It's very difficult not to see this post as being mean-spirited.

This is a complete misstep. How many of your regular contributors have done sex work? I would much rather have a) have had a piece from them on this issue, or b) have you included their experience and perspective with this piece. This website is built, in substantial part, on the free (and skillful) writing of sex workers. This post is a complete disrespect to their contributions.

The safety of a woman who has sacrificed a significant degree of safety already by being as out as she is about her advocacy is at stake. The attention you drew to this campaign against her is far more injurious than any messages of support we, her allies, offered her.

While I appreciate fully your desire to uphold the laws supporting freedom of speech, I'd like to point out what I feel may not have been considered in your article:

Nobody has the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater...it has the potential of causing loss of life. So does what the expose a ho person (or people) are doing; they're offering money for personal, private information about sex workers which they're clear that they will send to neighbors, employers, co-workers, and governmental officials. Do you really think that the neighbors will just say "Oh, no big deal", and let it go? How about previous clients that are afraid that their identities might be disclosed? The possibility of physical, social, and economic harm is the GOAL of their disclosure of information; that steps outside of freedom of speech and into potential criminal activity.

I hope that the sex workers that are being targeted are kept safe from harm, and that their privacy is maintained. They haven't presented themselves as paragons of virtue (like the Repulicans that Flynt targeted), they simply present themselves as who they are - intelligent woman who happen to also be sex workers. They don't deserve this treatment, regardless of the "legality" of it.

What a coward this person is. I just tried to posting a response on the Expose A Ho blog and of course they need to approve it. If they do then I will be impressed but most likely they will not. This is an issue that I think that is totally stupid to be focusing on as opposed to focusing on more important areas like right for sex workers. Other than various issues I have with the person who has created this blog my main area of complaint is that this person has not stepped up to say this is what I believe in and why. Instead they hide in that shadows making statements and trying to hurt people without any consideration. If the person truly believed in what they are doing then they should stand by their convictions and publically say who they are. When I tried posting on the blog (which then had to be approved) I mentioned to them and said that I admire people who stand by their beliefs even if I do not agree with them, but I cannot admire a coward. So Expose A Ho, why not expose yourself. As this article mentions Larry Flint put a bounty on politicians, but beyond that Larry Flint does not hide what he believes in and he puts himself out there.

It seems to me that there are two different issues here:

1) Outing sexworkers

I think it's worth pointing out that Larry Flynt outing cheating "family values" politicians, or for that matter, the folks who out closeted gay politicians who vote for homophobic laws are doing something different than EAH. In those situations, the primary goal is to challenge people who combine hypocrisy and political power to enforce rules that they don't live by themselves. Outing politicians who try to regulate our sex lives while breaking the very standards that they promote challenges the sexual hypocrisy that threatens everyone. Neither Flynt (to my knowledge) nor the producers of "Outrage" are indiscriminately outing people they disagree with- they're outing people whose hypocrisy affects sexual communities and sexual diversity. That makes it a morally defensible position.

On the other hand, sexworkers use aliases to protect themselves from discrimination, violence, rape, and murder. That is a very different situation than trying to maintain a political persona in order to further a career. In addition, sexworkers' aliases aren't putting anyone else at risk in the way that hypocritical politicians do. Whether EAH is Alexa or not, it seems quite clear that this is about vengeance- otherwise, why would Jenny and Kimberlee be the only targets? While these two situations are both part of the issue of outing people, in every other way, they are worlds apart and it muddies the water when you draw a comparison that isn't really valid.

2) Free Speech

John- I agree with you that unpopular speech needs to be protected. I also think that CN is an amazing resource for communities of erotic affiliation and sex-positive folks. You need to find the balance between making room for diversity of opinion and supporting the people who contribute to your website and your community.

I don't think that CN has a responsibility to make space for any and all speech. Being sex-positive doesn't mean that you can't set boundaries. In addition to the somewhat thorny issue of hate-speech, what if someone wants a CN blog to talk about something totally unrelated to sex? If I wanted my CN blog to focus on cooking, I think you'd be perfectly justified in telling me to find somewhere else to go, simply because this isn't the place for it. And just because someone gets kicked off Blogger or Wordpress doesn't mean they can't find an outlet for their writing. It costs me about $10/month to run Wordpress on my own website and nobody can tell me that I've violated their TOS.

I fully support your desire to protect unpopular speech. And I don't think that means that you can't have boundaries. I think that you'll model sex-positivity more fully if you make your boundaries and your decisions around maintaining them visible to the people who read your site.

This is not a matter of free speech to me. This is a matter of the safety of a wonderful woman and a friend of mine. Kimberlee is not simply being reviewed, critiqued, disagreed with, made fun of, or debated. All fair game, I absolutely agree. But here an obviously very mean, vindictive person is attempting to attack and terrorize her in the real world. Imagine the KKK was offering $250 for the addresses of moslems they didn't like and then slandering them. Or offering $250 for abortion doctors addresses and calling them murderers. Being a sex worker makes a woman especially vulnerable-- I know because I've had to deal with the aftermath of serial killer after serial killer who murders whores for over three decades. I was a whore for 20 years. Fortunately Kimberly has friends who will fight to the death to defend and protect her, as she is a wonderful person, and a great asset to the community. I myself have been a person who has been hotly debated, verbally attacked, censored, ad nausium for being a sex worker. I have never been afraid. When i was attacked on the radio for being jewish I was not the least bit bothered. But I have never had someone offering to pay for my personal home address and private phone number. That's so stalkery. The tone of the letter this hateful person wrote COULD scare the shit out of me if i let it. But I won't let it. Because then this mean person wins. The "man" who is doing this to Kimberlee must be so scared, hurt, lonely, wounded and needy, I can only feel very sorry for him. He must have suffered horribly as a child. Still we need to protect one of our own living treasures by being very concerned for her safety and well being.

Dear Carnal Nation,

The comparison between the blogger who is responsible for the blog "expose a ho" (eah) and Larry Flynt is a false one on many fronts. First of all there is no comparison between wealthy republican politicians who live their lives in the public spotlight, are elected officials who are not only expected to live by the law but also create the laws. These people basically run this country and often pose as upholders of family values- and sex workers who have to work outside the law and are punished if caught-even if in the service of republican hypocrites ( and democrat ones for that matter). Also comparing this person, who will not divulge his identity on his pathetic little blog to Larry Flynt who has taken a bullet for his heroic work around free speech is again a false comparison. Flynt does his work in the public light and does not hide his identity while tearing that of others down. eah is a coward who is not divulging their own identity or at least not via their pathetic blog. There used to be something called editorial quality and by publishing an article under the guise of defending free speech by using this person who obviously hates sex workers on your website you have condoned eah by virtue of giving them press. Certainly anyone can write what they want but that doesn't make it worthy of being promoted. I just hope no one ends up getting hurt because the main difference between what Flynt did and the eah coward is doing is to expose two different types of citizens who have two very different means of access to protection. Guess who is more vulnerable??? You have published just another lesson in why generous, kind, talented, compassionate, hard working, independent women should stay at home and provide sex for free. This whole thing is really a very disturbing and not really very egalitarian way to end the year. I hope you do better in the next.

I'm truly dismayed by this article. This is endangering people unnecessarily for no purpose other than to make a point about free speech. It is easy for you to be cavalier with your free speech rights when it is someone else that is going to pay an unnecessary price for them. There was no need for this and no point to doing it. Using the pic of the sex worker being victimized in this...... Irresponsible and arrogant. I find your position that this piece is somehow necessary for the purpose of free speech to be incredibly elitist, egocentric and recklessly indifferent. You have the right to your free speech and you have proven that. You don't have the right to trust. Especially when you have shown an obvious disrespect for the rights to safety and privacy of others. This doesn't read as a defense of unpopular free speech needing protection. Truly abysmal.

What I'd like to see come from this is that Kimberlee feels so much love and support that it makes her feel safe and appreciated for years to come. That a client now steps forward and pays for the rest of Kimberlee's college fees because he/she realizes how brilliant she is. That Kimberlee takes our angers and fears and transmutes them into wonderful positive things for herself, including lots of money$$$. That she becomes wonderfully famous, and gets all she has ever dreamed. Oprah calls to promote her book.That this is a story that will help make clear the dangers sex workers face due to the bad laws, whorephobia and mysogyny and that it enlightens many individuals. Congratulations Kimberlee, for being heroic and doing important activism that you do that shakes people up. Enjoy the wild ride. Try to think of this as part of the fun. And Carnal Nation writer, I just hope you can take in some of the things that are written here. We all have more to learn. Two steps forward, one step back. Three steps forward. A special new years eve blessing to all the whores in the world. And hey, we ALL have a little whore in all of us.

In 1996, a former colleague, Kristen Crowley, was raped and killed by two Marines in Peobody, MA. She was tied to a tree, raped and the murderers crushed her skull with a 35 pound rock.

How does this relate to freedom of speech and irresponsibility?

Kristen Crowley was getting gas at a Mobil Mart and entered the Mobil Mart the same time the two Marines were in there. The Mobil Mart cashier told the men his big information. That Kristen was a part time stripper. The 2 men followed her and raped and killed her. There were threats of retaliation against the the two murders in court when the murderers were sentenced. Which apparently prompted the cashier to make a public statement to the media because people had questioned why he told the two strangers she was a stripper. While the cashier wasn't responsible legally for her death. He made a point of expressing his first amendment rights to free speech also as part of pointing out his lack of responsibility.

Yes it was certainly his right under the first amendment. He is correct. He did not ask the men to kill her. I'm pretty certain he was probably horrified at what they did. But he had his first amendment right. His right and his irresponsible usage of that right lead to her tragic death. Thus there is something called being responsible with one's rights.

Thus John, I would advocate that you contact Kristen Crowley and discuss your absolute first amendment rights with her. Oh wait, you can't because someone else exercised their rights gratuitously and she isn't alive...............

I no longer feel comfortable as a contributer to this site.

I have enjoyed Carnal Nation up to this point, and wish everyone posting and contributing safety in the new year.

Sadie Lune

I’m a UK sex worker, so live under a far less dangerous legal system than my colleagues in the US. Nevertheless, my safety is put at risk by laws that criminalise us when we work together and sex workers are regularly targeted both for hate crime and rational decisions to target a vulnerable group. I know many people who experience harassment and threat as a result of people knowing they are sex workers, and so I am extremely careful of my privacy.

To offer for sale the personal information of past or current sex workers to anyone who wishes to pay is to place them in danger. It could be the IRS purchasing that information; it could be Gary Ridgway. Offering such information a platform is not “protecting free speech”, it’s placing sex workers in danger.

I am disappointed and disgusted to see CarnalNation calling this an issue of free speech when people's lives are clearly being endangered. I support the women being targeted and hope they stay safe.

You can mark me down as one lost reader who will be sharing my sentiments with others.

Am I to understand from the comments I am reading, that the 'Alexa' of RPD is fictional? As in, the events in that blog are from someone's fertile imagination and never happened?