Key Supporter Of FOSTA, Cindy McCain, Misidentifies 'Different Ethnicity' Child; Claims Credit For Stopping Sex Trafficking That Wasn't
from the see-something,-shut-up dept
In the wake of 9/11, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) in New York City hired an ad agency, Korey Kay & Partners, to come up with a "creative exercise" in dealing with the post-9/11 world. They came up with slogan "If you see something, say something" and plastered it all over subways. Incredibly, the MTA trademarked the term (despite its lack of "use in commerce") and later licensed it to DHS (insanely, the MTA has been known to threaten others for using the slogan). However, despite now sounding like common wisdom, the program has been an utter disaster that has not stopped a single terrorist, but has created massive hassles for innocent people, and law enforcement who have to deal with busybodies freaking out about "weird stuff."
Take, for example: Cindy McCain. The wife to the late Senator John McCain, recently decided she had seen something and had to say something. Specifically, as she herself claims, she was at an airport and saw a woman with a child of a "different ethnicity." And, rather than thinking "how nice" or "maybe I shouldn't be racist," she thought "I must go tell the police." Specifically,as she told an Arizona radio station:
“I came in from a trip I’d been on and I spotted—it looked odd—it was a woman of a different ethnicity than the child, this little toddler she had, and something didn’t click with me,” McCain said in the radio interview. “I went over to the police and told them what I saw, and they went over and questioned her, and, by God, she was trafficking that kid.”
By God, no she wasn't. The police did go check it out, and whatever McCain thinks happened... did not.
Phoenix police said Wednesday that while officers did respond to the Jan. 30 call, at McCain’s request, they were able to determine “there was no evidence of criminal conduct or child endangerment.”
McCain is now trying to brush away the criticism by insisting she was just seeing something and saying something:
At Phoenix Sky Harbor, I reported an incident that I thought was trafficking. I commend the police officers for their diligence. I apologize if anything else I have said on this matter distracts from “if you see something, say something”
— Cindy McCain (@cindymccain) February 7, 2019
Of course, there's more backstory here and it's kind of important. Over the last few years, McCain has been really heavily focused on playing up the exaggerated moral panic around sex trafficking. As we've discussed many times, sex trafficking is a real issue, but a very small one. The numbers around it are massively exaggerated or distorted, leading to crazy moral panics, and a desire by the police and the press to rush to talk about breaking up sex trafficking rings that don't seem to actually exist.
A more cynical person than I might point out that Cindy McCain's focus on "sex trafficking" seemed to coincide with her focus on Backpage, and a desire to extract some level of revenge from that company's owners, who also, for a time, owned the Phoenix New Times, which published a series of unflattering articles about Cindy McCain (and John McCain).
But, even leaving that aside, in the run up to the debate over FOSTA, multiple people told me that more sane and reasonable versions of the bill were well positioned to move forward until Cindy McCain got involved. Prior to that, there had been real, serious discussions, understanding the problems with the FOSTA/SESTA approach, and an attempt to create a more reasonable policy to deal with (what little) sex trafficking that actually happens online. However, then Cindy McCain "got involved" and basically everyone was told that the awful approach found in FOSTA was what would be in the law.
Of course, since then, we've highlighted how FOSTA has failed miserably. Just as many of us had predicted, it has resulted in widespread censorship, many closed services, an increase in online sex ads, and more womens' lives at risk.
And Cindy McCain "seeing something" and "saying something" and then taking credit for stopping trafficking, when she was really just hassling a diverse family. Maybe we should stop listening to Cindy McCain on this particular topic.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cindy mccain, fosta, moral panic, see something say something, sex trafficking
Reader Comments
The First Word
“...it's particularly galling considering that McCain, herself, has an adopted Bangladeshi daughter (who the Bush campaign targeted in a malicious, racist whisper campaign during the 2000 primary season). McCain knows perfectly well that people can have children who do not share their ethnicity, because she has a child who does not share her ethnicity.
made the First Word by Gary
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You mean like the Christmas bombing in Times Square, that was prevented by the disabled ex-Marine street vendor (they get most or all the permits to sell on the streets of NYC) who spotted the suspicious car and told police?
Then there is Richard Jewell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The car was suspicious because it was on fire. Are you having trouble understanding the difference between telling the police that a car is on fire and telling the police that a woman has a child of a different ethnicity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In addition to that, to prove the effectiveness of the "See something, say something" campaign, AC would have to prove that without the campaign, that the ex-marine would not have said something. Or more reasonably and at the very least, the AC would have to show that after the campaign there was an increase in the percentage of terrorist attacks that were stopped by some one saying something. But even this would only show correlation, not causation.
But that would be more than we have right now: fuck all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And if you were really trying to weigh the efficacy of the program, you'd also need to look at any negative consequences when some one saw something and said something which then caused harm to an innocent person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In NYC, a car on fire doesn't necessarily make waves, though this is the first I had heard of the car being on fire. Where did you hear or read that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So if you see a car on fire in NYC, no need to dial 911 and report it so that it can be put out and not spread to other cars/buildings and cause more damage, and so anyone caught in the fire can be treated?
Are you really this stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Friday at 3:00am in the Bronyx used to look like a movie set with dismantled stolen cars on every street/ sidewalk. A car on fire would be a bbq for the homeless, not a reason to call 911.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the answer is yes, you really are that stupid.
A dismantled, stolen car is VERY different than a car on fire. It is actually fairly rare for a car to be on fire, especially if it was not in any kind of accident. So even in the Bronx (not Bronyx, sounds like a Pokemon), a burning car would be cause for concern and a 911 call.
Given that the incident in question was a burning car in TIMES SQUARE, that would be HIGHLY unusual, as evidenced by the fact that it was reported to the police by no less than THREE different individuals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wikipedia entry for "2010 Times Square car bombing attempt". Second sentence. Cites CNN and BBC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Richard Jewell was innocent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jewell
Richard Jewell was an example of how the internet, and alternative media was able to run successful counter-narrative against an FBI frame job in what was likely a manufactured terror event.
And, of course, the “good guys" HATE counter-narrative that challenges manufactured terror/social engineering almost as much as the ADL and other racist crybullies hate it when you reveal their overly cozy relationship to FBI black operations:
http://www.magic-city-news.com/Nicholas_Stix_86/The_FBI_s_War_on_Richard_Jewell_printer8 757.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has little to do with FOSTA, as it didn't even happen online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You are correct. But it does show the mindset of a person who helped make FOSTA law, believing incorrectly that sex trafficking of children is rampant and easily spotted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FOSTA and SESTA are good steps towards reducing trafficking.
"Sex work" is a crime magnet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it isn't!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
... should I take a contrary position?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And as we all know, the best way to reduce "crime magnetism" is to drive it further underground where it is harder to find.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps this will help with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pushing it underground prevents it from mainstreaming and destroying society.
Oh yeah, I forget that some attorneys who post here converse regularly with hookers and porn stars. Just like the hookers and porn stars, the attorneys mistake their internet echo chamber for mainstream acceptance of their conduct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you're advocating for the ostrich strategy? "I can't see it so it doesn't affect me!"
News to me.
Statistics would like to say hi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[proof needed for first claim]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I do hope you are aware that sex work aka prostitution and sex trafficking are 2 separate issues with some overlap.
Also, do you have a citation for your claim that sex work is a crime magnet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Open up a business in the sex industry and find out who visits you for a cut.
The sex industry is completely mobbed up.
Some people are too horny and desperate to see the obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Some people are too horny and desperate to see the obvious.
Sooooooooooo much projection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Keep away.. It'll get on you ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do the mob also chase down sex workers on the street? To they look through all classified ads to find the escorts? And no, not all sex workers have pimps.
Some people are so blindingly stupid that they can't differentiate between two words that are prefixed with the word sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please provide your sources for your claim that sex workers are all mobbed up.
None of the half dozen sex workers that I personally know have any mob connections. The only one who had anyone approach them for a cut was approached by a local cop for protection from the police money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No citation's needed. It's a tautology: the work is defined to be a crime, so all the people involved are criminals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sex work is not actually a crime. Especially depending on the type and location. Only specific kinds and in specific locations is it an actual crime. (Note: sex work is not the same as sex TRAFFICKING which is a crime anywhere and everywhere it is found.)
So, you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"the work is defined to be a crime"
Except where it isn't, of course...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Allow me to present something equally valid as what you just did:
FOSTA and SESTA are good steps towards increasing trafficking.
"Politics" is a crime magnet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...it's particularly galling considering that McCain, herself, has an adopted Bangladeshi daughter (who the Bush campaign targeted in a malicious, racist whisper campaign during the 2000 primary season). McCain knows perfectly well that people can have children who do not share their ethnicity, because she has a child who does not share her ethnicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Kind of makes you think that maybe she is completely dishonest, and doesn't actually care about sex trafficking in first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which raises the question: If someone reported her as engaging in human trafficking because obviously she had to be doing something dodgy to have a kid of a different ethnicity, would she be okay with her own (what passes for) logic applied to her, object and realize how monumentally stupid her position was/is, or object with nary a thought of how hypocritical it made her?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No. One of the hallmarks of the moral crusader conservative is that they really can't empathise with the people they're attacking. They don't understand the negative effect they have o honest people, and they'll find a way to justify it when they experience the same thing that they're attacking. There's plenty of examples - anti-gay crusaders who suddenly change their tune when someone close to them come out, pro-lifers who suddenly have a different attitude when their daughter is the one who needs an abortion, etc.
Most likely, she'll come up with some excuse as to why her situation is somehow different, or complain that she's being unfairly targeted, unlike those other people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeez! where do these thick politicians come from? do any of them actually know anything, apart from how to screw up, that is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Er, this particular one was married to a senator...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just think of how badly this could have ended given the jackboot thuggery of our current police force, I am surprised they didn't shot the woman and flash bang the child, all because somebody thought they saw something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah, Arpaio's not sheriff anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Though he's not behind bars where he should be. I wouldn't put it past him to attempt some vigilante justice considering he didn't have much use for the law when he was sheriff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Would this be grounds for a successful lawsuit? Her initial statement seems to be pretty definitive, that the woman was indeed found by police to be trafficking the child. Not just an "I thought it was child trafficking".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If she really did say what she was quoted in the article as saying then that definitely would be legally actionable defamation. Calling someone a human trafficker would definitely cause them contempt and ridicule, and since it was specific info that was clearly false, seems like she should get sued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...except she never actually named anybody or provided any way for anyone to determine the identity of the person she was talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I smell a PR Stunt
Just to draw attention to her cause.... Don't people overlook a politicians lies because they expect it? I mean who wants to attack a political widow - right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I smell a PR Stunt
Growing up with political crusader parents must really be so traumatic for their kids. I'll bet they're all fucked up before they get to the 10th grade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought the motto was "If you seize something, don't say something."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couldn't she find a black person doing something completely normal to call the cops freaked out about??
Oooh she could be Crosswalk Cindy...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it needs to be an alliteration, not just the same letter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sidewalk Cindy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Her own adopted daughter is of a different ethnicity and I'm pretty sure she hung out with her a fair bit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use of the slogan by the MTA as part of a public program is classic “use in commerce”. Not clear why the author would state otherwise, unless the author misapprehends the legal significance of the word “commerce”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is the slogan for a "good" or a "service"?
If not, what is the trademark for? Because it certainly can't be for any use of the phrase, anytime, anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Read the linked record re the mark...used in association with a public service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sex trafficking is NOT a "very small issue."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Facts and statistics please.
Is it a "small issue" in sense that it is an absolutely horrific and despicable thing to do to another human being? No. Absolutely not. It should be stamped out with gusto.
However, that is separate from "in the US, the percentage of humans who are trafficked equates to a very small percentage of the overall population, less than other major crimes such as homicide".
Morally? Big issue. Statistically? Small.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you cite anything other than the groups who pay themselves to tell us everything we are doing wrong when it comes to sex trafficking?
Can you explain the lack of the anticipated 3 billion children shipped to the superb owl to service sports fans?
Or do you just parrot bullshit & pray you don't attract the attention of someone who doesn't believe the hype because I've read the methodology used to calculate the number and its multiply still not high enough multiply again...
Won't you think of the children you supporting this narrative is hurting? They can no longer play outside, they can not be allowed to be in public because every person passing by them is going to grab them and sell them to a foriegn sheik to diddle!!!!
Do you understand that many of the 'victims' are hookers who got busted by the cops (hookers who chose to do this work) and get presented with do a media blurb about how you were snatched as a baby & trained to be a super hooker or we'll throw you in jail and hey maybe only half the shift will make you service us...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do sex-industry workers use fake names and have thugs guarding them?
Many don't pay taxes. Many have violent men commit crimes against their customers (especially if they have the customer's info), and many more wind up regretting their "choice" which was anything but, given the lack of viable alternatives.
Throw in the outright trafficking in major cities and this is obvious to anyone who isn't willfully blind or ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ok, first off sex workers is not the same thing as sex trafficking. One is a profession of choice, the other is forced slavery and human denigration. Learn the difference.
How do you know with 100% certainty that this is true for all sex workers?
How do you know this? Got a buddy who works at the IRS who looks up all these sex workers for you? (which is illegal by the way)
This is just blatantly false. You're deliberately harming your customer base, thereby decreasing it to...what...put yourself out of business? For a business based on pleasure, this just doesn't jive. Please stop lying.
Some do, some don't.
Then perhaps it would be better to give them viable alternatives instead of trying to punish them for making a living the only way they can? Or do you think they should all just die instead?
Really? I didn't know it was so out in the open such that you could see it happen every day right in public.
Says the willfully blind and ignorant shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Police and news reports show how bad the trafficking problem is. All kinds of sex-slave houses in red-light districts that import their "talent." Trafficked women won't admit to being trafficked, as they're being threatened, while others say they want to do it until the day comes they say they don't. The women who rob their customers by proxy never let the customers know, obviously (many "sex workers" confess to this).
The entire industry is slimy at best and promotes child sex-trafficking at worst. It is vice, and should be barely tolerated as long as it cannot be seen. It causes lots of damage to women, men, families, and children. Those who defend it are usually profiting from it or are horny, desperate, and trying to justify patronizing it. The women are so disgusted by their customer base they need large amounts of money to be with them, and that builds resentment towards the men they have to interact with in order to get paid.
There are industry sites where the women actually confess to some of the worst sins, or just explain how disgusting they find the work, the customers, and the slime that runs their establishments. It should not be mainstreamed over the internet. Let it remain off the beaten path, and underground, where it belongs. It is a true underbelly of our society, useful to some, perhaps, but hardly anything worth defending or encouraging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Police and news reports show how bad the trafficking problem is.
The same police have reported that FOSTA made it harder to solve the problem, not easier.
Regardless of what you feel on the issue, it makes very little sense to continue pushing a solution when the enforcement arm in charge of implementing your solution have given you feedback that the solution backfired spectacularly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes they do. Statistically very small. If you don't believe me you can look it up. Mike even provided links to the stats. Where are yours?
Are you speaking from professional experience? Stats and facts please.
And I want to work in IT until the day comes when I say I don't. This statement is literally so generic it can apply to anyone, anywhere, in any profession.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Again, you are literally advocating for sticking your head in the sand and saying "LALALALALA as long as I can't see it it's not my problem!" which is contradictory to the rest of what you say in that it's a horrible practice that should be eliminated. Which is it?
Or they recognize the difference between legal and lawful sex work and sex trafficking which isn't legal or lawful anywhere in the US.
Speaking from personal experience? I thought they actually didn't make much, according to you, and they only did it because it was their only viable means to survive. Come on man, keep your story straight. Your lies are showing.
Yes? And? So? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
So they go to a Catholic church confessional? Also which sins would those be?
Some doesn't mean all. It doesn't even mean a majority.
It's not. Unless you count pornhub.com.
Ah, now I get it. You actually work in said industry, or at least partake of it, but are so disgusted by yourself you feel the need to rant about it. But you like it so much you can't actually go that extra step further to say "No, this is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated. Period.". Got it. You're a hypocrite and a liar.
Again, your contradictions are showing. It's either outright bad or it's worth protecting and valuable. You can't have it both ways. Pick one and at least you will then be logically and morally consistent.
And if you really think that all sex work is that bad, not just sex trafficking, then perhaps you should take it up with your congressmen because guess what, they are the ones that made sex work LEGAL. Don't like it, fine, but the law says it's legal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Yes? And? So? What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?"
Reading between the lines, I think he's saying that he has an uncontrollable urge to visit ladies of the night and needs someone else to hide the temptation from him. Either that, or one of them brushed his advances off too harshly and he now wants payback.
It's a shame that he's using this to push for things that are actively damaging to others, but he does seem the type.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Police and news reports show how bad the trafficking problem is."
Police NEVER lie & news reports never parrot bullshit to get viewers...
Police never bust hookers & then claim they "rescued" trafficking victims... oh wait.
I mean we lose 42 million children every Halloween to parents who refuse to check their kids candy... oh wait.
There are roving bands of evil clowns trying to lure kids into the woods.... oh wait.
There are people who are leaving tennis balls loaded with explosives to kill pets in parks!!!!!.... oh wait.
See I've actually talked with sex workers, and they've educated me about all sorts of stupid shit people claim being false.
An adult deciding to do sex work is not a trafficking victim. Like many things you are putting them all in 1 basket because there is sex and money involved, but they are REALLY different things.
List the industry sites please or stop pretending it exists. You will be unable to do so and instead link us to one of the sites run by groups who claim to know how to end the trafficking problem (and put themselves out of business in the process... I think not).
Sex is a real thing, it is not sick, it is not dirty, and despite what mom told you playing with yourself will not make you go blind.
If we stopped pretending no one would EVER use a hooker & stopped freaking out about it, decriminalized it guess what... the tiny tiny tiny number of trafficked victims would be easier to find and save. You will claim this is untrue, I will point at the states where pot is now legal & the stats on street dealing of pot.
You seem to be letting your fevered imagination override the reality of the situation. Perhaps you should go rub one out to take the edge off... or if you'd like I know some very nice sex workers of both genders, thought I doubt you could pass the background check to get an appointment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What? Lots of people who interact with the public use a fake name for business to protect their privacy; I did when I did bill collections because I was acutely aware of how much information could be obtained with inexpensive skip tracing tools. I always followed the law and treated people respectfully, but some misdirected their anger and I wasn't taking any risks as a single female. And why do some workers have body guards or pimps? Because predators know that prostitutes aren't considered credible to cops and are reluctant to report anything because of illegality of prostitution. Body guards and pimps deter and can intervene in an attack, collect money from clients who think they don't have to pay. Get rid of prohibition and street justice will no longer be a problem because their are legal remedies- which applies to all prohibition. There is no scourge of John's being attacked on behalf of prostitutes, I don't even know what would possess you to suggest such a foolish thing. Having your clients beaten up or harassed simply makes bad business sense, it takes less effort to do repeat business than recruit new clients. You are clearly don't know anything about the how or why someone chooses sex work so you lack credibility on your claim that they regret their choices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, it kinda is. At the very least, all of the actual evidence shows that it's much smaller than most public reports claim. We have stats: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170925/16401838283/sesta-is-being-pushed-as-answer-to-sex-traffi cking-epidemic-that-simply-doesnt-exist.shtml
You have replied with "nuh uh."
Which one is more compelling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Toddlers in real life
Toddlers, in real life, are assholes. I can't imagine that even a few million bucks would make it worth the indignity of the TSA, followed by squeezing into microscopic seats with a stranger's screaming kid who cannot be reasoned with or bribed into sitting down quietly for even a few minutes, let alone hours and hours. A child that won't take no for an answer, who will insist on eating and drinking whatever you are having, and will ask the question"why?" Well past the point you appear to be having a nervous breakdown, will flush your wallet down the toilet when they ask you to come and wipe them even though they screamed bloody murder when you tried to go in with them because they can do it themselves. Seriously, nobody wants a toddler, because in real life they are assholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Last Word
“Facts and statistics please.
Is it a "small issue" in sense that it is an absolutely horrific and despicable thing to do to another human being? No. Absolutely not. It should be stamped out with gusto.
However, that is separate from "in the US, the percentage of humans who are trafficked equates to a very small percentage of the overall population, less than other major crimes such as homicide".
Morally? Big issue. Statistically? Small.
made the Last Word by Gary