Coercion is not consent when you are trafficked
London: The lawyers for Sean “Diddy” Combs knew exactly what they were doing when they made a spectacle of Cassie Ventura’s pain on the stand. They wanted to establish with jurors and in the court of public opinion that Cassie loved Diddy, therefore he could not have trafficked her. Indeed, Cassie did testify that “I had fallen in love with him and cared about him very much.”
But love doesn’t matter when it comes to proving trafficking, nor does consent. Trafficking requires the use of force, fraud or coercion to cause someone to engage in a “commercial sex act,” defined broadly to include sex in exchange for anything of value. Under the law, whether Cassie loved Diddy is not part of the equation. Many victims believe their trafficker loves them or would never do them harm. That is part of why they go along with being trafficked. Often, the victim learns to settle for going along with what their trafficker wants so they can get on with their life — as a type of damage control, as Cassie testified. “If I pleased him with a freak-off,” she said, “then my premiere would run smoothly.” This is typical of an abusive relationship.
Diddy’s attorneys wanted to muddy the waters so people blamed Cassie for staying with their client. Boxed into a corner legally, they tried to influence public opinion instead. It worked well for Johnny Depp. But modern trafficking law is based on a realistic understanding of how abusive relationships work: that victims get progressively isolated and ground down so that, even without being literally locked up, they lose the practical ability to protect themselves and need the law’s protections instead. Pamela Takefman
Off his radar
Barnegat, N.J.: Here’s hoping that Taylor Swift can finally get a good night’s sleep knowing the orange serial sex abuser doesn’t think she’s hot anymore. Jerry Serillo
Downgraded dessert
Bronx: To Entenmann’s: You shorted your loaf cake by 2 inches, and the price was the same. Shame on you. Mary Caggiano
Biggest threat
Manhattan: I am profoundly disturbed that none of the candidates for mayor have addressed the threat of climate change, specifically the necessity of drafting plans to forestall and/or mitigate the devastation it poses to our vulnerable city. Could it be that the candidates have not taken seriously the environmental warnings by expert scientists and the TV scenes of wildfires and flooding? Or do they lack a sense of responsibility to try to prevent future destruction and suffering of humans and animals? Should New Yorkers choose mindless and heartless individuals to lead our great city in a time of crisis? Voters should mobilize to insist that all candidates for office must publicly commit themselves to take effective action on climate change and place it at the top of their mayoral agendas. Aviva Cantor
Unserious agenda
Manhattan: While Voicer Margaret Dabraccio calls the Daily News a tabloid, she has the gall to tell its reporters what to print. Maybe the Daily News isn’t printing stories about Curtis Sliwa for the same reason that rational, thinking adults did not vote for President Trump. The city doesn’t need another Republican blowhard with zero political experience. Sliwa is not a politician. He is not qualified to run this city. He just says the impossible nonsense you so badly want to hear. While he is a NYC icon in his way, he is woefully unqualified to do anything more than posture for the cameras and make nonsensical promises. I think you should be thanking The News for not showing Sliwa’s run for what it is: another publicity stunt by a man who is unqualified for the office he seeks. We don’t want or need another performer in a red hat. T.S. Fallani
Unpersuasive
Bronx: I have two campaign letters from Sliwa and even listened through a speech, and I still have barely any idea what he believes in besides himself, Trump and the good cop. He’s a redder, more generic Mayor Adams. Unlike Adams, I don’t think he knows how to actually govern the city. Jorge Sierra
Pyramid theme
Sayville, L.I.: Regarding mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s statement that billionaires should not exist, I’m not sure I fully agree, but the billionaire phenomenon does perplex me. Most are worth billions via stock ownership in their companies, propped up by millions of people buying that stock. It resembles a pyramid. Those at the top (in early) do extremely well, propped up by money coming in after they buy in. Newcomers at the bottom are most vulnerable — the least to gain and the most to lose. When sentiment changes, the money stops coming in and the pyramid collapses from the bottom. Those at the top suffer paper losses at worst but usually cash out before the bottom has a clue what’s coming. The ones at the bottom lose real money. The difference between a pyramid scheme and the stock market should not be difficult to see. The similarities are far more numerous than the differences. Michael Hooker
Constitutional
North Bergen, N.J.: Why does the most obvious solution to a problem frequently go overlooked? Consider the Supreme Court’s recent ruling where district court injunctions, while correct in their district, can’t be presumed to hold sway nationally. Regarding the issue of birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court ruled that it should only be recognized in those states where the lower courts have determined it to be. While I admire the rush to get injunctive relief via a class action lawsuit, everyone seems to have overlooked the wide-open door to challenging the Supreme Court’s decision. By ruling that birthright citizenship need only apply to some parts of the United States, the court is overlooking the protections granted by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Clearly, individuals who have obtained the right to citizenship by birth in some states must be recognized as citizens in all states. Irving A. Gelb
Whose plane?
Patchogue, L.I.: Regarding the plane Qatar wants to give to Trump, who wants to use it as Air Force One, then take it with him and donate it to his library when his term is up, we all know he plans on using it for his personal use. If he accepts this plane, it will have to be stripped down to bare bones and retrofitted at taxpayers’ expense, estimated at up to $1 billion. Therefore, I feel the plane becomes the property of the citizens of the United States and should be available for succeeding presidents for their use. If Trump feels he should keep the plane, let him pony up the money spent on the retrofitting. Then he can have it. Lynda Welsh
Feel-good stories
Bayonne: I just wanted to write to thank you for including the comic strip “Red & Rover” again in your paper. I was so disappointed not to see it in my paper for a few weeks. It is so sweet and uplifting. It is my morning panacea in these troubled, turbulent times. Please keep including it in your section. Laure Blomquist
Fly free
Brooklyn: I’m writing in strong support of the recent City Council proposal to ban bird sales in pet stores. A similar bill, A8327, has been proposed in the state Assembly, and I believe both are fantastic ideas. While keeping birds as pets is an age-old practice, it’s time we recognize birds as creatures deserving of respect and freedom. They are meant to fly, and keeping them in cages is simply inhumane. Many birds sold in pet shops come from large-scale bird mills, not unlike horrific puppy mills, where they are kept in cramped and unsanitary conditions. Birds face severe psychological stress in captivity. A home environment is no substitute for the freedom of flying. Furthermore, bird sales contribute to the illegal poaching of wild birds, pushing some species closer to extinction. The notion that birds are here for us rather than with us demonstrates a profound lack of respect for these animals. Lauren Tartaglia
