PA Anti-Trafficking Bill to Reveal Strippers' Real Names, Addresses

HARRISBURG, Pa.—Pennsylvania, the birthplace of AVN, is not exactly the most welcoming venue for anything having to do with sex, and a bill that's currently before the state's House of Representatives makes that antagonism even more clear. HB 262, sponsored by Rep. Matt Baker and co-sponsored by more than 60 House members, would amend the state's existing adult business regulations supposedly to target sex trafficking, though the bill is far more intrusive than it possibly needs to be. For one thing, the new bill adds eight legislative "justifications" for the bill, including the claims that "many persons, particularly women and even minors, have been exploited by being forced to work in adult-oriented establishments or in adult entertainment against their will at risk of violence or deportation," and that "adult-oriented establishments are associated with a wide variety of harmful secondary effects, such as illicit sexual activities, criminal activities and negative impacts on surrounding property values, including the businesses and residential areas adjacent to the establishments." And yet, according to the bill, "It is not the intent of the General Assembly in enacting this legislation to deny to any person rights of speech protected by the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Pennsylvania, or both, nor is it the intent of the General Assembly to impose by this chapter any additional limitations or restrictions on the contents of any communicative materials, including sexually oriented films,  performances, videotapes, books and other materials.  It is also not the intent of the General Assembly to restrict persons from voluntarily seeking employment in adult-oriented establishments." Ri-i-i-ght! But, of course, the bill absolutely limits and restricts sexual speech. For one thing, if passed, HB 262 would redefine a lapdance as a "commercial sex act" if a dancer received a tip from the patron; would do away with "independent contractors" and make all dancers employees; redefine some massage therapists as "escorts"; and define "lewd exhibition of the genitals or nudity if the nudity is depicted for purposes of sexual stimulation or gratification" as a "sexual activity." The bill would require that all adult-oriented business owners to fill out a form disclosing everyone who has an "influential interest" in the business, and whether those with an "influential interest" have also had influential interests in other businesses that have been declared to be "public nuisances." The owners must also supply a floor plan of the establishment. But all that pales in comparison to the new restrictions to be placed on strip clubs. For one thing, alcohol—even BYOB—will be banned from any club premises, as will full nudity, and all dancers must remain at least six feet from all customers, and must perform on a stage at least two feet high. Also, any property owner or resident who lives within a half-mile of the adult business can sue to have the business closed if that person believes that the club or its dancers or patrons have violated any of the terms of AB 262. Moreover, any dancer or other employee claims to have been a "victim of sex trafficking as a result of employment with an adult-oriented establishment may bring an action for appropriate relief, including actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorney fees and costs, against the adult-oriented establishment." But where things get even more sticky is in Sec. 5503(g), which requires the business to report to the state every time "(1) the adult-oriented establishment hires or terminates an employee; or (2)  an employee has voluntarily ceased employment at the adult-oriented establishment for more than 30 days, whether or not the employee intends to maintain employment at the adult-oriented establishment." And remember, all dancers are now employees. But perhaps the portion of the bill that's caused the most consternation among dancers is the requirement that each of them personally register with the state. "A person may not be employed in an adult-oriented establishment," Sec. 5503.1(a) of the bill reads, "unless the person registers by submitting a registration form to the department in accordance with subsection (b) to enable the department to determine whether or not the person is prohibited from employment in an adult-oriented establishment under this chapter." What that means is that each dancer will be required to give Pennsylvania's State Department her full name (including alisases and stage names); her home address and phone number; her age, date and place of birth; her height, weight, hair and eye color; her places of employment, as well as each business's address and telephone number; a list of whatever "crimes" the dancer may have committed, as well as the nature of the offense, and when and where it was committed; and our favorite, "[a] statement of whether or not the person has been a victim of sex trafficking." They also have to provide a photo ID and pay a $50 "registration fee." The "real name" and "place of employment" requirements have been particularly criticized by dancers, since most don't use their real names when dancing, and many hold down "day jobs" where their employers don't know they strip at night—and the women might be fired if it came out that they do. "I was a high school teacher and would dance on the weekends, and was sort of forced out of my job because some male teachers saw me in a strip club," said Lindsay Roth, who dances at the Penthouse Club and also works as an advocate with the Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP) and with Project SAFE, which provides direct services for people engaged in street prostitution. "I felt so frustrated by the hypocrisy—male teachers could go to a strip club, but I was deemed an unworthy educator for working in one." Of course, the Department can revoke a dancer's registration if the person has committed any one of more than a dozen "specified criminal activities," including "stalking," "open lewdness," "prostitution and related offenses," "drug possession"—or if she has "produce[d], present[ed] or direct[ed] any obscene performance or participate[d] in a portion thereof that is obscene or that contributes to its obscenity." The bill is largely a product of the Pennsylvania Family Institute (PFI), which describes itself as a "conservative Christian organization." "We've been working on the bill for quite some time with Rep. Baker," said Brandon McGinley, PFI's director of strategic initiatives, who helped draft the legislation. "We tell ourselves polite fictions about these places, and they allow us not to believe that terrible things are happening. ... What is often misconstrued as prudishness is, in fact, a clear-eyed look at a very physically and sexually dangerous situation. We knew we'd get a lot of 'Oh, the Family Institute people just hate strip clubs,' or whatever. And it's been frustrating that the reaction has largely focused on the liberty of men to patronize strip clubs and not the liberty of women to not be trafficked." Needless to say, human trafficking has been a major concern of the Association of Club Executives (ACE) over the years, and executive board member Michael Ocello, an Illinois police officer and co-founder of Club Operators Against Sex Trafficking told Philly.com that "considering that there are 35,000 adult-entertainment clubs and hundreds of thousands of employees nationally, human-trafficking cases have been extremely rare." And although McGinley has claimed that, "The number one thing to make clear is that the information we're asking for will not be publicly available," the dancers don't believe their identities and addresses will remain secret for long. "I don't trust any of the agencies to actually help with sex trafficking, let alone be an ally to any people working in this industry. They have a proven track record of not doing that," Roth said. "I don't want them having my home address, honestly. ...  [O]ne of the greatest perpetrators of violence against sex workers is law enforcement. Even though stripping is a legalized form of sex work, it still carries a stigma, and law enforcement regularly comes into clubs and targets strippers." Indeed, a similar statute passed in San Diego led to vice squad officers frequently conducting "raids" at clubs during which dancers were detained, harassed and forced to pose nearly nude for photos in the name of enforcement of the statute, according to a story in the L.A. Times. Nearly 30 of those dancers have filed a lawsuit against the San Diego Police Department. The bill is currently on hold, and Rep. Baker intends to have meetings with club owners and dancers which might result in changes to the bill, and it might be more than a year before HB 262 makes it to the full (Republican-majority) legislature—if it makes it out of committee. "If they really wanted to do something that was meaningful, they would work on an education component," Ocello suggested.