There’s No Way FOSTA Isn’t a First Amendment Violation, Says Lawsuit
DSW Challenges Constitutionality of Federal Law That Criminalizes Free Speech
September 15, 2022
Decriminalize Sex Work (DSW), joined by eleven other organizations working to ensure the health, safety, wellbeing, and human rights of sex workers and survivors of trafficking, filed a new Amicus brief supporting the appellants in a federal case challenging the criminalization of protected speech. The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers and Fight Online Sex Trafficking Acts (SESTA/FOSTA), which became law in 2018, damage the longstanding “safe harbor” rule provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects freedom of speech on the internet. Individuals depend on this freedom to work, socialize, and exchange ideas online.
Woodhull Freedom Foundation et al. v. United States argues that SESTA/FOSTA is an unconstitutional violation of the First and Fifth Amendments. The case, filed in 2018, has again reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. DSW’s Amicus brief details the historical and political contexts that have bred misguided anti-trafficking policies and laws built on the conflation of sex work and trafficking. The law’s failure to differentiate between the two has injured sex workers and survivors. “Both qualitative and quantitative evidence show that SESTA/FOSTA has caused immense harm to already marginalized and vulnerable communities, without advancing its purpose to combat trafficking. It must be repealed,” said Rebecca Cleary, DSW staff attorney, and attorney for Amici Curiae.
The brief also discusses the recently reintroduced SAFE SEX Workers Study Act (SSWSA), a bill proposed in U.S. Congress to study the harmful effects of SESTA/FOSTA. The introduction of this legislation demonstrates that lawmakers recognize the damage caused by SESTA/FOSTA, including many legislators who initially voted in favor of that bill. Amici also detail the ways in which SESTA/FOSTA’s restrictions on free speech limit advocacy efforts to advance the SSWSA, a critical and unconstitutional impediment to the democratic process.
Proponents of the law argue that fighting human trafficking, a heinous and violent crime, is worth broad internet censorship. However, the law, as written, fails to punish traffickers. Three years after it was enacted, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that it was an abject failure. Free speech, internet rights advocates, and law enforcement officials have protested the law. Instead of combating trafficking, SESTA/FOSTA:
* Endangers trafficking survivors and sex workers
* Impedes law enforcement’s efforts to find victims and prosecute traffickers
* Censors free speech on the internet and endangers the livelihoods of informal service sector workers
The brief concludes, “SESTA/FOSTA is the shining example of what happens when policymakers conflate sex work and human trafficking: trafficking numbers remain the same, victims get left behind, and those facing the greatest consequences are not traffickers but already marginalized communities.” Amici curiae include DSW, The Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Center, Freedom Network, Brooklyn Defender Services, The Erotic Laborers Alliance of New England, Old Pros, National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, New York Transgender Advocacy Group, Free Speech Coalition, Sex Workers Outreach Project Brooklyn, Gays and Lesbians Living in a Transgender Society (GLITS), and St. James Infirmary.
Elizabeth Nolan Brown covers the developments in the case, including DSW’s amicus brief in Reason here: There’s No Way FOSTA Isn’t a First Amendment Violation, Says Lawsuit.

DSW Newsletter #40 (September 2022)
DSW Challenges Constitutionality of Federal Law That Criminalizes Free Speech

8 Reasons There’s Nothing Equal About the Equality Model

Red Umbrella Campaign

DSW Welcomes New Communications Manager

International Survey: Sex Work and Unwanted Contact

DSW Newsletter Archive
Amicus Brief
September 13, 2022:
Decriminalize Sex Work (DSW), joined by eleven other organizations working to ensure the health, safety, wellbeing, and human rights of sex workers and survivors of trafficking, filed a new Amicus brief supporting the appellants in a federal case challenging SESTA/FOSTA and its criminalization of protected speech.
Vermont city repeals prostitution ordinance
Council repeals prostitution ordinance
Montpelier, VT Repeals Prostitution Ordinance
August 24, 2022
Montpelier has become the second city in Vermont to repeal its antiquated prostitution ordinance in the past year. Last summer, the Burlington City Council voted to repeal that city’s prostitution ordinance and voters subsequently chose to strike discriminatory and archaic language on sex work from the city charter.
Montpelier’s Police Review Committee recommended that the ordinance be repealed as its stigmatizing and discriminatory language was harmful to both consensual adult sex workers and individuals experiencing exploitation. They suggested that law enforcement should concentrate on combating human trafficking, instead of on prohibiting consensual acts between adults. The committee also noted that most municipalities in Vermont do not have ordinances banning prostitution and that repealing the language would bring Montpelier in line with the rest of the state. Though bills proposing to decriminalize prostitution were introduced during the past two legislative sessions, they did not advance and prostitution remains criminalized at the state level.
The Montpelier City Council held two public hearings on the proposal to repeal the ordinance before unanimously voting in favor of striking it. Both hearings were well attended and individuals in favor of and against repealing the ordinance testified passionately. Members of The Ishtar Collective, Vermont’s only organization run by and for sex workers and survivors of exploitation or trafficking, asked the City Council and their neighbors to recognize them as equals deserving of dignity. They said the immensely dehumanizing language of the ordinance, which did nothing to support the health and wellbeing of residents, perpetuated stigma around sex work, and made them feel unwelcome in the place they call home. Henri Bynx, co-founder of The Ishtar Collective, reminded council members and others in attendance that sex workers are vital and integral members of the community.
Opponents of the repeal were mostly from out of state. Morally opposed to consensual adult sex work, they urged the council to keep or replace the ordinance with even more punitive language. Their attempts at fear mongering — and admonishments that repealing the ordinance would lead to individuals having sex in public and an increase in trafficking, particularly of minors — perpetuated dangerous and misguided tropes around sex work. Dr. Stephany Powell, with the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, said, “You are inviting more crime into your area, and you are also allowing the ability of sex workers to roam freely in your community. … I’m telling you: you don’t want that.” J. Leigh Oshiro-Brantly, a sex worker who co-founded The Ishtar Collective with Bynx, responded to Powell’s derogatory remarks during their statement. “We’re already ‘roaming’ and that … metaphor of roaming like cattle is really part of that dehumanizing language. This is the stigma we’re talking about,” Oshiro-Brantly said. “I’ve heard things (tonight) like ‘demeaning,’ ‘immoral,’ ‘just plain wrong.’ All of these things are moral judgments that no person has a right to make for any other person’s life.”
Just prior to their vote, council members, including Mayor Anne Watson, reminded everyone in attendance that they are committed to ending exploitation and trafficking in all labor sectors. They then voted unanimously to repeal the discriminatory language, affirming that sex workers are deserving of their dignity, humanity, and bodily autonomy.

A sign at the August 24 Montpelier City Council Meeting. Courtesy of The Ishtar Collective.
DSW Newsletter #39 (August 2022)
Operation Cross Country: The FBI’s Annual Anti-Trafficking Performance

Montpelier, VT Repeals Prostitution Ordinance

Possessing Condoms Shouldn’t Be a Crime

DSW Staff Attend Key Conferences Around the World

DSW Newsletter Archive
Jury Awards $1.7 Million to Ex-Porn Actress Who Sued Oregon Community College | Rolling Stone
Former Sex Worker Prevails in Discrimination Lawsuit
July 9, 2022
Nicole Gilliland was awarded $1.7 million in damages after a jury found that she had in fact been discriminated against by Southwestern Oregon Community College (SWOCC) because of her past work in pornographic films. Gililland filed suit against SWOCC, in Coos Bay, Oregon, for both breach of contract and for violating Title IX, which prohibits schools that receive federal funding from discriminating on the basis of sex. Though the judge in her case concurred that Gilliland had a Title IX claim based on some of the comments made to her by professors, the jury rejected it; however, they did find that SWOCC had breached its tuition contract with Gilliland by violating its discrimination and unlawful harassment policies, among others.
In December of 2021, U.S. Magistrate Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai ruled in Gilliland’s favor, marking the first time that Title IX has been invoked by a student to fight discrimination based on a history of doing sex work. Judge Kasuubhai found that the evidence Gilliland presented to prove discrimination was directly connected to her work history. Judge Kasubhai also found that the actions of the professors constituted sex discrimination as they made comments that advanced a stereotype of the kind of woman “appropriate for the nursing profession” and deemed Gilliland unfit.
It began with a single professor. While Gilliland was recovering from illness, Professor Melissa Sperry gave Gilliland additional work that had not been assigned to other students. Three days later when Gilliland turned it in, Sperry refused to grade it. Later, Sperry lowered Gilliland’s grades on tests she had taken late as a result of her illness. When Gilliland questioned this, Sperry replied: “unclassy women shouldn’t be nurses, Nicole.” Sperry then changed passing grades on assignments Gilliland had previously turned in, causing her to fail, and alleged that Gilliland had plagiarized them. At a hearing on the plagiarism accusation, the head of the nursing program testified that Gilliland was an angry person and unsafe around her patients. Hospital staff immediately disputed those claims.
Gilliland was confused at first. She had been on the Dean’s List before beginning to fail her classes inexplicably and had received rave reviews from the nurse overseeing her practicum placement. Suddenly, it all clicked for her. Gilliland realized that her grades were low not because she was underperforming in school, but because of her history as an adult-film performer. It became clear to Gilliland that she wasn’t going to pass the semester.
Other students refused to speak to her on campus because they feared similar treatment from professors.
In an interview with Vice, a classmate of Gilliland’s said that she was not surprised that she faced discrimination as a result of her history in porn. “The instructors decided that she was not right for the program and singled her out — the first step was the bogus assignment, then they landed on plagiarism. It was a total shit show. SWOCC’s nursing school has a reputation for having bullies.” Other students at SWOCC reported similar patterns of discrimination based on their accents or because of their age. But they were always able to graduate. However, in Gilliland’s case, the stigma around being a sex worker was too great for SWOCC.
Gilliland’s lawsuit is based on a claim not only of individual discrimination, but also that SWOCC engaged in a pattern of behavior that targets and excludes female students. While it is difficult to determine the exact demographics of people doing sex work, statistics tend to report that a majority are women. Sixty-six percent of prostitution arrests in the United States in 2014 were of women. Derek Demeri, a 2020 graduate of Rutgers Law School, authored an article in Rutgers University Law Review outlining how and why discrimination against sex workers violates Title IX. Now, the federal court’s ruling confirms it. “It’s not just about Title IX — getting a court to recognize that discrimination against sex workers is sex discrimination could bring a sweeping movement across the country,” Demeri said of Gililland’s lawsuit in a 2020 Vice interview.
The road to victory has not been easy for Gilliland. Treatment by her professors and the school administration drove her to a suicide attempt in 2019, which caused her to lose custody of her children. Her younger daughter was sent to live with the very family members who had told the Coos County community about her history with sex work. She was then fired from her food service job because of her “legal troubles” and kicked out of her apartment for “stirring up trouble” with the lawsuit. “At first I thought, ‘how in the hell do you think you’ll get away with this?’” Gililland told Vice. “But now I see that they really could. We have one whore taking on all of these noble people.”
After submitting for a psychological evaluation and acquiring 12 letters of character support from friends and acquaintances, Gilliland regained custody of her children. After bouncing between a homeless shelter and a shed, she was put in touch with Alex Andrews, long-time sex worker rights advocate who started a GoFundMe for the family and found them a new place to live.
Despite all the setbacks, Gilliland bravely pushed forward with her lawsuit. “Gililland is using her privilege to achieve good for everyone else,” says Andrews. “That is a remarkable thing to do. … There are a lot of people doing sex work who can’t be out about it because the consequences they would face are way too great.”
Her experience in the legal system inspired Gilliland to change careers. She now plans to attend law school to continue fighting against discrimination. As intended, her fight is sure to empower sex workers and other marginalized individuals who experience similar rejection and stigmatization to fight back. Going forward, Gilliland will not shy away from her history with sex work but own it proudly. Hiding, she says, only “empowered people who shouldn't have had power over me.”

Nicole Gililland is pictured with her daughters. (WWeek, 2019)
DSW Newsletter #38 (July 2022)
Former Sex Worker Prevails in Discrimination Lawsuit

Sex Workers’ Freedom Impacts Us All

Disability Pride Month

LinkedIn Profile Goes Viral After Woman Lists Sex Work as Professional Experience

DSW Newsletter Archive
A Long Overdue Bill Repealing the “Walking While Trans Ban” Heads to Gov. Newsom’s Desk
June 20, 2022
Nine months after passing the legislature, a bill that would repeal a provision of California law that prohibits “loitering in public for the purpose of engaging in prostitution” is in Governor Newsom’s hands. He can veto or sign the bill into law — or let it become law without his signature. DSW was proud to collaborate with a broad coalition of groups and individuals to repeal New York State’s “Walking While Trans Ban” in February 2021. We applaud California advocates for their hard-fought victory in the state legislature and urge Gov. Newsom to sign the bill into law to bring a measure of relief to individuals who have been marginalized and persecuted for far too long.
The repeal of “loitering laws” now known as “Walking While Trans Bans” is long overdue in California and across the nation. “Loitering for the Purpose of Prostitution” (LPP) is a tool for discrimination rather than community safety. Loitering laws give police permission to profile, harass, and arrest individuals for non-criminal activities. As with stop-and-frisk and other loitering charges, individuals are not arrested for what they are doing, but for who they are. LPP is a violation or misdemeanor in multiple states and municipalities across the U.S. Statutes often define the charge generally as wandering, remaining, or spending time in a public space with the intention of committing a prostitution offense or promoting prostitution.
LPP is a discriminatory statute used by law enforcement to profile and harass individuals based on their race, gender, and/or stereotypes of what a prostitute looks like. Laws that prosecute intent — rather than action — allow law enforcement to enforce violations at their discretion, threatening equal protection under the law. As “stop-and-frisk” policies have been used to profile Black and Latinx individuals, LPP gives law enforcement an avenue to exercise disproportionately discriminatory profiling of transgender and cisgender women of color.
The history of the criminalization of LPP is one of discrimination and discretion used to target and control low-income women. The Chamberlain-Kahn Act of 1918, also known as the American Plan, implemented a public health program with the stated goal of combatting the spread of sexually transmitted infections amongst soldiers in the United States during World War I. In this “Forgotten War on Women,” the Chamberlain-Kahn Act allowed for the arrest and imprisonment of any woman who could be “reasonably suspected” of having a sexually transmitted infection (STI). A disproportionate number of those arrested were working-class women and women of color who were viewed as “a threat to soldiers’ moral hygiene.”
Under the American Plan, transgender and cisgender women were arrested and given invasive exams on the basis of poverty, racial profiling, rumors of prostitution, their dress being perceived as “morally questionable,” or simply walking alone in the wrong place at the wrong time. These exams were used as a pretense to convict women of prostitution and send them away for “rehabilitation.” The Chamberlain-Kahn Act continued to be enforced through the 1970s.
LPP laws and loitering statutes in general have been used to target people of color, transgender individuals, and those with previous convictions for occupying public spaces. Defendants across the country are overwhelmingly women, both transgender and cisgender. The specific focus on transgender women, and the impact of these laws, has been well documented. The Sylvia Rivera Law Project, based in New York City, found that 80% of its clients who identified as transgender women of color had experienced police harassment or false arrest based on suspicion of prostitution, often resulting in a conviction.
Like other laws that contribute to profiling for low-level offenses, LPP contributes to the revolving door of involvement in the criminal justice system. Individuals arrested once for a specific crime are then targeted over and over again as a result of their record.
Contact with the criminal legal system traps individuals in a cycle of fines, jail, and court dates that can be difficult to escape. In cases where there is no victim, individuals should not be saddled with the burden of a record that prevents them from accessing housing, employment, and other opportunities.
Watch and share our short video on LPP here.

DSW Newsletter #37 (June 2022)
Burlington’s Vote To Strike Language on Sex Work From City Charter Becomes Law

DSW Research and Project Manager Testifies at Legislative Study Commission

A Long Overdue Bill Repealing the “Walking While Trans Ban” Heads to Gov. Newsom’s Desk

DSW Staff Commemorates Pride
