This isn't true at all. The term 'sex work' doesn't just apply to prostitution but to all of the allied trades -- strippers, cam girls, porn stars, etc.
According to Wikipedia:
Types of sex work include various consensual sexual services or erotic performances, involving varying degrees of physical contact with clients:
Webcam modeling and pornographic modeling. The former is often done via a camming site, and the latter may or may not make use of an adult content-subscription service.
Stripper
Naked butler
Pole dancing
Phone sex operators: have sexually oriented conversations with clients, and may do verbal sexual roleplay
Prostitution
Street prostitution
Indoor prostitution (brothel work, massage parlor-related prostitution, bar or casino prostitution)
Erotic dancing
Erotic massage
Pornographic film acting
Peepshow performers
Escort services / Girlfriend experience / Sugar baby
Sexual surrogates: work with psychoanalysts to engage in sexual activity as part of therapy with their clients.
Dominatrix
Yes, and there is still a big logical leap from "cam girl" to prostitute sucking dick on the side for extra cash.
It does not help Jeff's case at all if he decided to take a term that could mean different things, and interpret it in the worst possible way, then publish the claim without a request for commentary to establish the truthfulness first. Jeff might have overplayed his hand, especially by responding to her further after the lawsuit was already filed.
Cam Girl = Legal
Prostitution = Illegal
Bullshit. Saying "nuh-uh!" isn't adequate. Alyssa needs to actually win the case first. Finding of fact and all that.
It very much is. Alyssa sent a C&D about those claims, and filed a lawsuit, contesting them as false.
Republishing them, after being told "this is wrong", is completely retarded. Even Jeff isn't trying to claim "she did work as a prostitute and took money for physical sexual services", his defense is "she said these things, so I had a good faith reason to believe my statements to be true".
Jeff had a reason, Selma did not.
If Selma were slapped with the same lawsuit, she would get obliterated because she would have to provide evidence to support her claim.
"I think she is lying about it" is not a legal defense unless you can call witnesses or can present evidence to support your belief.
[EDIT] I am looking at this entire thing with a little different perspective ever since the shafting Karl Jobst received. I still do not believe Alyssa has a good case, but until we see the motion to dismiss it is hard to say if they have solid arguments to counter her claims and/or justify some statements (with a proper timeline of events that is not massively skewed by Alyssa to exclude things that look bad for her). Where she will get nowhere with are her claims about losing her job being caused by him or his responsibility for other people's comments. She has not presented any evidence that support the claim that he caused either.