Slashdot Mirror
Senators Propose Bill Targeting Websites That Facilitate Sex Trafficking (usatoday.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation Tuesday that aims to make it easier to sue and criminally prosecute operators of online classified sites like Backpage.com that have been used to advertise sex workers. The proposed bill would amend the Communications Decency Act to eliminate a provision that shields operators of websites from being liable for content posted by third-party users. In addition to removing liability protections for websites that facilitate "unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims," lawmakers are seeking to amend the CDA to allow state prosecutors -- not just federal law enforcement -- to take action against individuals and businesses that use websites to violate federal sex trafficking laws. "For too long, courts around the country have ruled that Backpage can continue to facilitate illegal sex trafficking online with no repercussions," said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio. "The Communications Decency Act is a well-intentioned law, but it was never intended to help protect sex traffickers who prey on the most innocent and vulnerable among us. This bipartisan, narrowly crafted bill will help protect vulnerable women and young girls from these horrific crimes."
Backpage.com has already been pressured into eliminating their escort/massage section. "Escorts" just moved their ads to the "Women seeking Men" dating section. All websites need is positive deniability and you can't touch them. "What, you expected us to READ everything that anybody posts? Even slashdot doesn't do that!"
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Ever have one of those days when you google the number the cute girl gave you in a nightclub, and it shows up in an ad on backpage.com? I have. At least now I understand why she gave me her number!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Why don't you mind your own goddamn business? Thank goodness the "family values conservatives" are in charge, amirite? Sessions cracking down on marijuana, Trump encouraging police to brutalize suspects and Portman making sure it's illegal for two consenting adults to enter into a personal contract.
If Portman cares about human trafficking, maybe he should look into Trump's "model agency" or his relationship with Melania.
http://www.inquisitr.com/43971...
You are welcome on my lawn.
unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims
The whole article sort of subtly conflates the two-- unlawful sex acts, and sex trafficking victims, as though they are one and the same. i.e. prostitution == victim
So ... multiple judges and juries have decided that it's nothing wrong with it but and they want to change that ?
The judges have determined that it's not against the law, not that there's "nothing wrong with it." The proposal is to change the law.
Not that I necessarily agree with this proposal, but it's not really correct to conclude that something is "right" or "wrong" based simply on court decisions. I'm sure we can all come up with cases where we think that the law should be written differently than how it now stands.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Sounds to me while this may (or may not) be well-intentioned, it'll be abused to censor online discussions, having a chilling effect on peoples freedom of speech.
Furthermore, as others in this discussion have already pointed out, sex traffickers will just learn to hide their posts better. The net effect will then be infringement on the rights of people who are doing nothing wrong, and sex trafficking will continue unabated.
Really sounds to me like they just need to enforce the laws already on the books with regards to this sort of illegal activity, and nevermind creating new legislation.
Great.
So, are they going to remove safe harbor for newspapers? The postal service? Phone companies? Hell, you see such adds posted on library community noticeboards! All of those mediums can and do have an involvement in the sex trade. Are they going to shut down strip bars? or do we just keep pretending that they have nothing to do with the sex trade.
Or just perhaps it is time to grow up out of the 1800s and accept that pushing these things deeper and deeper into hidden markets actually makes things much worse for the women involved, and that they should legalise and regulate - as many countries have done - with a matching reduction in drugs, violence, disease and abuse in that inevitable industry? The way things stand, a girl going to the police because of abuse is more likely to end up in trouble herself than get any protection - is that the way things should be?
Interestingly you will find, just like the drug 'industry' the lawless 'big players' running most of these things are actually strongly against legalisation - because it reduces their own control and profitability. They would need to clean up their act a lot, would face competition, and would need to treat their workers much, much better than many do.
But no, the US will continue burying its head (like many other countries) in an 'us and them' view of the world where the women caught up in such situations are bad and the people passing laws to punish them for their situation are good, and a blid eye is turned to the fact that many of the people passing the laws are violating them themselves, with impunity..
Sad, really.
Government run single payer health insurance is cheaper (1/2 the price per capita) than the American system, and gives better results. The government is accountable to the voters, a corporation is only accountable to the share holders.