“性交易”是认知暴力

IF 1.2 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Anti-Trafficking Review Pub Date : 2019-04-29 DOI:10.14197/ATR.2012191211
Ben Chapman-Schmidt
{"title":"“性交易”是认知暴力","authors":"Ben Chapman-Schmidt","doi":"10.14197/ATR.2012191211","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While the American Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 (FOSTA) has been heavily criticised by researchers and activists for the harm it inflicts on sex workers, many of these critics nevertheless agree with the Act’s goal of fighting sex trafficking online. This paper, however, argues that in American legal discourse, ‘sex trafficking’ refers not to human trafficking for sexual exploitation, but rather to all forms of sex work. As such, the law’s punitive treatment of sex workers needs to be understood as the law’s purpose, rather than an unfortunate side effect. This paper also demonstrates how the discourse of ‘sex trafficking’ is itself a form of epistemic violence that silences sex workers and leaves them vulnerable to abuse, with FOSTA serving to broaden the scope of this violence. The paper concludes by highlighting ways journalists and academic researchers can avoid becoming complicit in this violence.","PeriodicalId":43972,"journal":{"name":"Anti-Trafficking Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Sex Trafficking’ as Epistemic Violence\",\"authors\":\"Ben Chapman-Schmidt\",\"doi\":\"10.14197/ATR.2012191211\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While the American Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 (FOSTA) has been heavily criticised by researchers and activists for the harm it inflicts on sex workers, many of these critics nevertheless agree with the Act’s goal of fighting sex trafficking online. This paper, however, argues that in American legal discourse, ‘sex trafficking’ refers not to human trafficking for sexual exploitation, but rather to all forms of sex work. As such, the law’s punitive treatment of sex workers needs to be understood as the law’s purpose, rather than an unfortunate side effect. This paper also demonstrates how the discourse of ‘sex trafficking’ is itself a form of epistemic violence that silences sex workers and leaves them vulnerable to abuse, with FOSTA serving to broaden the scope of this violence. The paper concludes by highlighting ways journalists and academic researchers can avoid becoming complicit in this violence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43972,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anti-Trafficking Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anti-Trafficking Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14197/ATR.2012191211\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anti-Trafficking Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14197/ATR.2012191211","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

尽管《2017年美国允许各州和受害者打击网络性交易法案》(FOSTA)因其对性工作者造成的伤害而受到研究人员和活动人士的严厉批评,但许多批评者都同意该法案打击网络性交易的目标。然而,本文认为,在美国的法律话语中,“性贩运”不是指以性剥削为目的的人口贩运,而是指所有形式的性工作。因此,法律对性工作者的惩罚性待遇需要被理解为法律的目的,而不是一个不幸的副作用。本文还展示了“性交易”的话语本身是一种认知暴力的形式,它使性工作者沉默,使她们容易受到虐待,而FOSTA则扩大了这种暴力的范围。论文最后强调了记者和学术研究人员可以避免成为这种暴力的同谋的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
‘Sex Trafficking’ as Epistemic Violence
While the American Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 (FOSTA) has been heavily criticised by researchers and activists for the harm it inflicts on sex workers, many of these critics nevertheless agree with the Act’s goal of fighting sex trafficking online. This paper, however, argues that in American legal discourse, ‘sex trafficking’ refers not to human trafficking for sexual exploitation, but rather to all forms of sex work. As such, the law’s punitive treatment of sex workers needs to be understood as the law’s purpose, rather than an unfortunate side effect. This paper also demonstrates how the discourse of ‘sex trafficking’ is itself a form of epistemic violence that silences sex workers and leaves them vulnerable to abuse, with FOSTA serving to broaden the scope of this violence. The paper concludes by highlighting ways journalists and academic researchers can avoid becoming complicit in this violence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Anti-Trafficking Review
Anti-Trafficking Review CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊最新文献
Providing Services to Women in Situations of Prostitution and Human Trafficking during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Spain, Italy, and Portugal ‘Now More Than Ever, Survivors Need Us’: Essential labouring and increased precarity during COVID-19 Negotiating Multiple Risks: Health, safety, and well-being among internal migrant sex workers in Brazil during COVID-19 Key Stakeholder Perspectives on the Potential Impact of COVID-19 on Human Trafficking for the Purpose of Labour Exploitation Are They Victims of COVID-19? The livelihood and quandaries of sex workers in the New Kuchingoro camp for internally displaced people in Abuja, Nigeria
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1