Doogan Tours SoCal to Drum Up Support for Sex Worker Freedom

LOS ANGELES—Maxine Dougan, founder of the Erotic Service Providers Legal, Education and Research Project (ESPLERP), a community-based coalition advancing sexual privacy rights through legal advocacy, was in Southern California yesterday making personal and media contacts in an effort to get the word out about the lawsuit that ESPLERP filed last week, seeking to overturn the prostitution laws in the Ninth Circuit. "This is actually a federal campaign," Doogan explained. "The reason we filed in federal court is because we want any ruling that we get to be able to cover the broadest amount of people as possible, so this will cover everybody in the Ninth Circuit at least, so besides California, that goes all the way from Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Hawaii, Nevada and Arizona. So this is the best way to go, to have this ruling affect the most amount of people as possible. "Certainly California has a Constitution with a really strong privacy provision, and that's been used to fight the mandatory overregulation of condoms situation, which is good, but we wanted to try to get as many people as possible under this ruling, which is why we decided to file in federal court," she continued. "It's a constitutional issue, and our strength is at the federal level right now because the local level is just so overwhelmed and inundated with all this anti-trafficking panic scare stuff, and it obviously scared people like GoFundMe from being able to support a constitutional legal challenge." Indeed; ESPLERP's most recent attempt at fundraising around its federal complaint was dealt a severe blow late last week when GoFundMe informed Doogan that due to "changes in our terms of use," it was canceling ESPLERP's new campaign, even though the campaign that ESPLERP began last April seeking $30,000 to hire an attorney to file its current lawsuit had been a huge success. "When GoFundMe sent me that email about having changed its terms of use, that sounded very suspicious to me," Doogan said. "I tried to ask for specifics and didn't get any response. So they took down my site and deleted my whole account, so you can't even see the last $30,000 that we raised. It was amazing to me that they would even take it down, because they had just sent us a check for the last donation of $200 that someone had donated in January on our old campaign. So even though we had reached that goal back in June of last year, someone was till able to donate as of January on that campaign, and we were able to get that money. "You know, everybody was really excited to contribute through GoFundMe," she noted. "All the emails that I received from people who were sending in $20, $30, $50, even $5, were really excited about the campaign. Everybody ought to make a contribution to this effort; it's really important to do that, because everybody's going to benefit from having an expanded definition of sexual privacy." But for Doogan, there are larger issues than simply legalizing privately-negotiated sex acts performed in private. "Our concern all along has been that these various financial institutions have discriminated against different parts of the sex industry," she explained, "and so I really implore the legal sector of the sex industry—the adult film performers, the exotic dancers—to take up the issue of demanding some meaningful and widespread anti-discrimination legislation on their behalf, because I think that's the low-hanging fruit for the sex industry workers, especially the legal sector, that they could really get. Besides that, it would make a big impact on a bunch of people's lives if the legislature were to outlaw discrimination, specifically on housing, education, employment, child custody and access to financial institutions. So I really implore the legal side of the sex industry to take that on and establish that ground for themselves and us, because we're going to be legal in a minute." With the loss of the GoFundMe campaign, Doogan spent several days searching for a replacement crowdfunding site, and seems to have found one in Tilt.com. "We already applied to Tilt.com; somebody had already done some research and thought that Tilt had been the least discriminatory towards our population, and so we applied for there as well," she said. "But it takes three to five business days to get those accounts rolling, and we hope that when we do, that we can count on the media and the public to help get that word out there." And to be sure, the points made in the complaint, which was drafted by prominent First Amendment attorneys H. Louis Sirkin and D. Gill Sperlein, are nearly irrefutable. In its "History" section, beginning at paragraph 17, the plaintiffs (which, besides ESPLERP, include four California-based sex workers identified only by their initials and, in one case, as "John Doe") note, "for much of our nation’s history, the commercial exchange of private sexual activity—at least where its solicitation and consummation was conducted discreetly and not on the public streets—was widely accepted, was not illegal, and was, in fact, integral to our development." That is, it was, until "groups concerned with social morality ... crusaded against prostitution," although prostitution and solicitation were not even outlawed in the state until 1961. Indeed, the lawsuit quotes the actual author of the anti-prostitution law, one Prof. Arthur H. Sherry, who did "not offer any rationale for section 647(b) [the anti-prostitution statute], unlike the section’s other subdivisions, beyond remarking that 'the pimp, the panderer, and the prostitute cannot be permitted to flaunt their services at large.'" Of course, "flaunt[ing] their services at large" hardly applies to many modern-day sex workers, who solicit business through online and newspaper ads, websites, dating services and the like. But beyond that, the complaint notes, "The rights of adults to engage in consensual, private sexual activity (even for compensation) is a fundamental liberty interest. That right is one that is, objectively speaking, deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition and one that is implicit in the concept of ordered liberty... There is not even a legitimate governmental interest which could possibly justify California’s prostitution laws. The government has no interest in regulating such activities so long as the activities occur in private amongst consenting adults in furtherance of their liberty interest in their own sexual behavior. Furthermore, the fact that the governing majority in a state has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting its practice." The complaint goes on to note that Penal Code Section 647 impacts sex workers' free speech rights under the First Amendment, as well as their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights to "follow any of the ordinary callings of life; to live and work where one will; and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be necessary and essential to carrying out these pursuits." A copy of the complaint can be found here. "If this case does go to trial, it will be very much, I imagine, like the case that challenged the 'Yes on Prop 8' in 2008, which defined marriage strictly between opposite-sex people," Doogan opined. "That case used the justification of, 'How is it going to affect the children?' So that's kind of what we expect in terms of the opposition to use, to drag out the children, when this is so obviously an adult conversation; it's already within the adult purview." Moreover, since the defendants in the case are all either district attorneys or the state's attorney general, it's difficult to imagine what their defense will be, especially in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, where even gay rights critic Justice Antonin Scalia stated in his dissent, "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding." And thanks to the Supreme Court's more recent decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, it's difficult to see what person or organization could attempt to intervene in the suit to defend the law, since their standing to do so would require that person or organization to have suffered "a personal and tangible harm" from the existence of legalized sex work—and not just because they may have contracted an STD from a prostitute. But what Doogan is most concerned with at the moment is organizing to support the lawsuit. "The idea of organizing the erotic service providers is on an industrial level," she said. "People are all over the place, either doing webcam in their own home—we were at one of the casinos out in Palm Springs last night having dinner, and you could easily see the women who were advertising their services just by walking around there, as well they should be able to do that. We're everywhere, and we have to have access to that equal protection, and the only way we're going to get it is to fight for it, and to fight for it in solidarity about that. They're not going to just give it to us." Doogan is also lending support to a lawsuit that she believes is about to be filed by Lambda Legal, the nation's oldest and largest legal organization working for the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, and people with HIV/AIDS. That suit will target Section 647(f) of the penal law. "Under 647, there is a criminalization of people who have been arrested for prostitution and convicted, because when you're convicted of prostitution, you have to turn over a blood sample right away in that court, and if you are found to be positive, it will be logged in the court record, and if you're arrested again for prostitution, you will be charged under that 647(f) statute as a felon, even if you use condoms," Doogan explained. "So there's a group that has been trying to organize to get the state legislature to repeal that statute, and they can't get any sponsorship for it. So you know what? If you can't get sponsorship at the legislative level for that kind of repeal—because we're not even talking about giving anybody HIV; it's just that if you have HIV-positive status, you can be charged as a felon, so it's not a fight that they want. The state legislature doesn't want to address the unconstitutional laws that they've passed; they don't want to address these laws that are against public health." Apprently, there are several groups around the state seeking repeal of some or all of Section 647, including one Facebook group, My Favorite Abolitionist, and at least one Google Group. There's also a group in Alaska, Community United for Safety & Protection, which posts information here. What Doogan would like to do is ally herself and her organization with other activist groups, but they're not easy to find. "There are other groups, but I don't really work with them because they're not into direct action," she said. "Part of our organizing plan is to get letters of support from a bunch of different groups; all the HIV groups, union groups, even adult industry groups if they're willing to actually work to get these laws overturned." Doogan is encouraging any adult entertainment industry members and groups to support ESPLERP by donating to the Tilt.com crowdfunding page once it's up and functioning, and to keep in touch by clicking here or here, and by following ESPLERP on Twitter here. Pictured: Maxine Doogan (left) and supporter "V."