Ricci Levy is the Executive Director of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation (www.woodhullfoundation.org). She has been involved in sexual freedom activism for nearly a decade, helped found the Woodhull Freedom Foundation in 2003, and is dedicated to seeing it become a leader in the sexual freedom movement.“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” –Wendell Jones, abolitionist

Q: What does the Woodhull Freedom Foundation do?

A: Our purpose is to affirm sexual freedom as a fundamental human right. We do that by protecting and advancing freedom of sexual expression and speech.

Q: You’re not real well known yet. Why the low profile?

A: We’re newer. And, unlike the Free Speech Coalition (www.freespeechcoalition.com), we’re not an industry organization. Like them, we’re a lobbying organization but that isn’t the only thing that we do. While the NCSF (www.ncsfreedom.com) has focused a great deal of its attention on the Barbara Nitke vs. John Ashcroft anti-CDA case, Woodhull focuses on an assortment of issues and cases that cover both self expression and speech. We’re not limited to any one community, although we serve all communities, because sexual freedom is the backbone of every other piece of work that anyone is doing. That’s why we have such a close alliance with the Free Speech Coalition, with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, with the National Organization of Women. That’s why we’re part of the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary which, by the way, is a coalition of about 75 progressive organizations including the ACLU, AFL-CIA, People for the American Way, the National Council of Jewish Women… It’s all progressive organizations that have come together to ensure that we are able to accomplish a fair judiciary through these hearings and nominations.

Q: What is the point of working with so many groups?

A: It’s through some of these alliances that we are able to help affect change. We work with a coalition in Washington to try to change laws in Washington. These laws are enormously punitive and restrictive against sex work and they’re under the guise of sex trafficking, which is this administration’s buzz word. Mention sex trafficking and they mention child pornography and you’ll find (Kansas Senator) Brownback standing behind the word. We are on the Hill every single week. We’re at the Senate Judiciary hearings monitoring a number of bills that affect all of us, including the adult industry — and most particularly the adult industry because that’s the easiest target. We’re not just looking at a single case. We’re there at the hearing for the Patriot Act, we’ve testified in Congress at the obscenity hearings, we’ve challenged Senator Brownback to allow the adult entertainment industry to testify at the hearings.

Q: That’s a lot of work. Aren’t brochures and fundraisers enough?

A: Because of my experiences doing these things, I believe that outreach and education aren’t enough. They’re important, but distributing information is only part of the job. Unless we teach people how to make change, we’re only creating job security. Incident response is very important. People in crisis need help; they need someone that they can turn to. But without work to create sex positive legislation it is just maintaining the status quo — and this is not an acceptable status quo.

Q: Why do we have this status quo?

A: Let me go back to 2003 when the Supreme Court ruled that private acts of sodomy were no longer a crime. I think it’s possible that some people thought that we’d won the fight for sexual freedom. Anthony Kennedy declared in that ruling that “liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex,” so if you just read that you think we’ve won and now we should be able to sit back and just do outreach and education, establish some mechanisms for incident response, and settle in to live with the new status quo. But that’s wrong. Our battle is really just beginning. We have to meet the challenges of sexual freedom proactively. I think we do that by arming ourselves with research, model legislation, and a determination to help craft sex positive legislation while we continue to fight antiquated sex laws. The Woodhull Freedom Foundation has taken a leadership role in creating a sexual freedom movement by forming alliances, partnerships, and coalitions.

Q: Can you give me some examples of what we’re up against?

A: One of the most exciting projects that we’re involved with right now is the joint project to analyze sex laws throughout the United States. That project has a dual purpose: to educate Americans about the unjust sex laws in the nation and to give grass roots activists policy and organizing tools to change the laws. There are some really archaic laws, like Michigan has laws against unmarried people having sex and living together, like differing age of consent laws in Kansas based on the gender of the persons involved. Almost every state in the country has antiquated laws and regulations that criminalize consensual sex. Massachusetts has a statute that prohibits masturbation and sex toys. In laws passed since 1990 five states criminalized possession of sex toys. Florida prohibits sending sexual images and messages over the Internet. A law enforcement administrator in Texas just got fired from her job recently because she was cohabitating with somebody who wasn’t her spouse and it’s illegal to do that.

Q: Yeah, but how often are those laws ever used?

A: One of the questions we get asked is if the laws aren’t really enforceable or aren’t really enforced, why should anybody be concerned? Because they are used selectively. Sometimes only against LGBT practitioners, sometimes against BDSM-ers, sometimes against people of color. Even more importantly than any of that, the government still uses these laws on the books to deny us all liberty and sexual privacy. Texas hadn’t prosecuted anyone on sodomy charges for years and years and years before they convicted Lawrence and Garner, who were the defendants in Lawrence v. Texas.

Q: What’s the Response on the Hill Been to Woodhull’s Work?

It’s interesting. We’re now known by a couple of senators, including Brownback, who actually called me by my first name. Some of the Democrats have been at least open to discussion. Russ Feingold is one, for example. It was Russ Feingold who got my testimony accepted in the obscenity trial. We testified, the Free Speech Coalition testified, we submitted testimony, we were not allowed in as witnesses, we were present at the hearing. It’s a volatile issue and it goes against the current administration’s wishes. A government that’s not afraid of what it’s doing doesn’t feel a need to censor.

Q: Why are they so unwilling to take testimony from us?

A: That’s an interesting question and that’s the one that I challenged Brownback with. One person who was an organizer for the second hearing came right out and said “I am not about to give your side a platform for your views.” It was overheard by Mark Kernes. That room was chock full of people who did everything but jump up and yell “amen.” The hand we’ve been dealt is not a great hand, but I don’t think we can fold up our hand and go away. That’s why I’m at the hearings. That’s why my face is there every Thursday. That’s why when I get word — and you don’t always get word – that there’s going to be a hearing, I’m there. As soon as I know they may bring up a bill, I’m there. It’s not easy to dismiss me. I look like the people Sam Brownback thinks are on his side. That’s why he spoke to me the first time. He thought I was just one of his constituents.

Q: How can we deal with ideologues like that?

A: I think we need sex positive activists doing exactly what Woodhull is doing. I think that the message that we need to get out is that sex is not a dirty word, that it’s a private matter for adults to decide for themselves. I don’t think that we should let elected officials decide how we conduct our sex lives any more than we should let elected officials discriminate against us because of our consensual sexual acts. I know we are facing an enormous, enormous obstacle in this administration but if we sit silently, if we don’t make our face one that senators know, if we don’t continue to fight to secure these rights and to hold onto the rights that we already have, then all we will have done is created job security for incident responders.

Q: What has WFF accomplished?

A: We took part in changing local liquor control laws in Washington that were enormously restrictive for things like nudity and flogging. We are in the middle of meeting almost weekly with the DC government working with the Alliance for a Diverse and Safe DC and I think we’re going to be successful in crafting sex positive legislation rather than the onerous, restrictive, punitive legislation that had been proposed to limit sex workers that would have actually targeted many other minority groups in DC. Among the restrictions that were pending was one that would allow an officer to arrest based upon appearance. We were successful in getting our testimony accepted in the obscenity hearing.

Q: That sounds positive, so maybe things are improving?

A: I believe that if this administration continues the way it is, unchecked, we will in this country have a level of censorship that no one born here has ever experienced. It’s “national security.” It’s “sex trafficking.” It’s “child abuse.” Republicans are wonderful at framing a message that sounds a lot like “when did you stop beating your wife” because how can you comfortably come out in favor of child pornography – and would come out in favor of it? But if you’re coming out in favor of free speech and expression, that’s what they beat you over the head with. According to Brownback and the people that testify at these hearings, there is no one in the adult entertainment industry who’s there of their own free will, regardless of what they say. So it’s a case of sex trafficking. They had a witness that said they’d interviewed I don’t know how many sex offenders and child molesters in prison and they’d all used pornography. Well, I’m not positive, but I believe that it’s illegal to have pornography in jail – and if they mean beforehand, what’s the adult population that looks at adult material? There was a man probably in his mid 60s who testified that he was a victim of pornography and this is how he described his victim-hood: When he was a 14-year-old boy, he became enamored of women’s breasts. He began looking in the magazines in the drugstores to try to see pictures of women’s breasts. Sometimes when he didn’t have enough money left from his allowance, he actually stole a “dirty magazine.” That’s what he called them. That was the beginning of his road to perdition, through his addiction to pornography. It left him unable to have a healthy relationship with women. He was divorced once but “thank god” he found his way and he found a wonderful woman and “thank god, thank god”… The problem was that there was no one there to challenge this testimony. And that is the hearing where I stood up and challenged Brownback. I could go and educate Brownback all I wanted, he’s not going to hear anything I say to him. I have done outreach to Brownback. He knows my name. That’s not going to change a thing. But I’m working with the Free Speech Coalition. I’m working with various alliances. I’m working with people in a network in Washington to try to get antiquated laws off the books or at least get legislation that’s pending to try to help craft more sex positive legislation.

Q: How can members of the adult industry get involved?

A: You can support organizations like Woodhull and do more than send your dues into the Free Speech Coalition. You can call the Free Speech Coalition and find out what you can do. You can lobby your senators. That can be done by phone, because it does matter. I am more in favor of phone than email, but if you can’t make a phone call you can send an email. You can monitor what’s happening on the Hill. You can do that very easily through the Free Speech Coalition because they have a Washington lobbyist now, whom I work with. The money’s important to keep organizations like Free Speech Coalition and Woodhull doing the really important work that they’re doing, but so are the voices. Other organizations can lobby for you, but you can lobby for yourself. We have sound bytes, the Free Speech Coalition has sound bytes. You don’t even have to think about what you’re going to say, because you’re not going to get to talk to your senator, you’re going to get to speak to an aid in your senator’s office. It’s important to have close to the same message, that’s the point of the sound bytes that organizations distribute.

Q: Do they really care if we contact them?

A: They really do. And you know why? Because, unlike a Supreme Court Justice, they’re going to have to run for office again. I never give my party when I call. He or she may not have gotten your vote last time but you’re still a constituent and they want it this year. Remember, one election went down the tubes for 500 votes. That would be the presidential election. The one he didn’t win. Every voice matters.

Q: When do you think we’ll be able to relax?

A: I think no organization can affect change without the participation from those affected by leadership. Sexual freedom, freedom of sexual expression and speech are global issues that touch every nook and cranny of our lives. Personal autonomy is being removed bit by bit by this administration. Organizations like Woodhull and like the Free Speech Coalition need the support of the people for whom we are fighting. Organizations like Woodhull are fighting for the adult industry in addition to every other community, gender, sexuality, and form of sexual expression. We are fighting for a human right. And that human right is sexual freedom. I am suspicious of anything coming out of this administration. I don’t anticipate that anything that anyone in the Bush administration proposes bodes well for freedom of sexual expression and speech. That’s another reason why outreach and education are not enough. Vigilance. Active participation.