Slavery can never be too strong a word. I want you to envision a girl living in an upscale apartment in Atlanta. She's 15. She's not allowed to leave, not allowed to have contact with family or friends. She is forced to service 10-20 customers a day. It's her only life. She has no freedom at all. She lives only to face another day of exploitation. If she refuses, she's beaten severely.
There is not a word strong enough in the English language to properly name that travesty, so I'm comfortable with slavery.
We have had cases here where South African workers were kept in a garage for months. Eating, sleeping, and living in a 20 x 20 garage. 20+ men. 1 meal a day. Forced to work 15-18 hours for no pay. Beaten if they refuse, subject threats against their families. No freedom, no pay, abusive conditions. What else would you call it other than slavery?
My frustration is that I so often see articles in the media talking about "slave-like" conditions when it comes to actually slaves like this. We don't say that people are in "dead-like" conditions or that I've just eaten a big meal and I'm "full-like," you either are or you aren't existing in a certain state of being.
I think perhaps compassion and classification are being confused here. A victim is, after all, a victim. A victim may not want to be a victim and may not consider themselves imprisoned by the term, but they were exploited, as Kloer mentions. It was not voluntary. They were victimized. Avoiding terms that describe that sounds evasive of the truth. As for terms that resonate with the communities, I'm not sure that's the best idea. When we name a new species, we really don't check with them first to see if they like the name. We name them for the purposes of classification. Its not an attempt to be callous - but for so many reasons we have to have a way of identifying groups (especially victims) in order to lobby on their behalf for treatment options, funding and the like. Creating a softer name does not change the fact that a very hideous crime took place.