Slashdot Mirror


'Erotic Review' Blocks US Internet Users To Prepare For Government Crackdown (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A website that hosts customer reviews of sex workers has started blocking Internet users in the United States because of forthcoming changes in U.S. law. Congress recently passed the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act bill (SESTA), and President Trump is expected to sign it into law. SESTA will make it easier to prosecute websites that host third-party content that promotes or facilitates prostitution, even in cases when the sex workers aren't victims of trafficking. After Congress approved the bill, Craigslist removed its "Personals" section and Reddit removed some sex-related subreddits. The Erotic Review (TER) has followed suit by blocking any user who appears to be visiting the website from the United States.

"As a result of this new law, TER has made the difficult decision to block access to the website from the United States until such time as the courts have enjoined enforcement of the law, the law has been repealed or amended, or TER has found a way to sufficiently address any legal concerns created by the new law," the website's home page says in a notice to anyone who accesses the site from a US location. The Erotic Review explained in an FAQ why it blocked US-based users even before SESTA takes effect. (The bill is also known as the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, or FOSTA.) "TER has always operated within the law, and it takes SESTA seriously," the FAQ says. "Because we do not know when SESTA will be signed into law, TER wants to be certain that it is in compliance with the statute the moment it becomes effective."
TER can still be accessed outside the U.S., and U.S.-based users can still access the site via a VPN service. "Non-U.S. are asked to agree to a disclaimer, which requires users to agree to 'report suspected exploitation of minors and/or human trafficking' and that they 'will not access TER from a Prohibited Country,'" reports Ars.

154 comments

  1. Irony meter is pinned by AlanObject · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Donald Trump pushing morality laws. I can't say I didn't see it coming but it still boggles the mind how anyone can see that person as a leader in any positive cause whatsoever.

    But I will say one good thing Trump has done. He has exposed, once and for all and as completely as possible, the abject hypocrisy of the fundamentalist evangelical hustlers and the right wing politicians they are in bed with.

    1. Re:Irony meter is pinned by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Trump is a known 'John', he was just rich enough to employ a 'pussy coordinator', so he could tell himself he was a player.

      The people you are thinking of are a strange group. Left and right dedicated to the axiom: 'Nobody can choose to peddle ass, they are _all_ slaves and victims.'

      Watch for a new section of craigslist to get lots more traffic. Perhaps the 'knitting' interest group will start to see lots of traffic. Strange interests though, never heard of a 'greek comforter'...good luck with their whackamole.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I will say one good thing Trump has done. He has exposed, once and for all and as completely as possible, the abject hypocrisy of the fundamentalist evangelical hustlers and the right wing politicians they are in bed with.

      That strawman doesn't exist. While I think partisanship is certified retardation, despite what you read in the Times, Republicans are not one homogeneous group of Jesus-loving Nazis. Regardless, most fundie Christians will vote for whoever is most against abortion. That's not hypocrisy either.

    3. Re:Irony meter is pinned by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Yes, it is hypocrisy, because those "fundie Christians" have abortions too. "Fundie Christians" are people who messed up their own lives so badly that they needed to be "born again". Too bad for them that isn't possible.

    4. Re:Irony meter is pinned by dirc · · Score: 2

      27 Democratic senators have co-sponsored the bill, along with 43 Republicans. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1693/cosponsors?pageSort=alphaByParty) It passed the House by a vote of 388-25. (14 Republican no votes and 11 Democratic no votes). Even if President Trump vetoes the bill, the margins in the House and Senate are sufficient to override his veto and pass the bill into law.

      This seems like a bipartisan effort to me. Isn't that what we always say we want from our politicians?

    5. Re: Irony meter is pinned by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      ...the abject hypocrisy of the fundamentalist evangelical hustlers

      Said hypocrisy has always been so obvious that only those who need to see it can't - or won't.

    6. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I dislike Trump, but you're misunderstand why people support SESTA.
      There are bad people on the internet. Really bad. The kind that kidnap children (think around 6 years old) and offer them up for pedophiles as sex slaves. We're largely ignorant of these dark corners of humanity, but they're real. They advertised their sex slaves quite openly on places like backpage.com. There were code words like "new in town" for underage. The "people" at backpage knew these code words, and did things like edit ads to use those code words so that at first glance the ads seemed innocuous enough. So tell me, using whatever morality you have, should it be legal to edit some dumb criminal's "Sleep with a 1st grader" post to "new in town, love to meet ya!" instead of calling the police? Should backpage be able to make millions in revenue by helping people pimp out kidnapped toddlers? That's why SESTA passed - and with overwhelming bipartisan support.

      If you're implying that only "Christian Fundamentalists" should be appalled by this, then where do I sign up?
      SESTA may not be the best worded legislation, and it probably has its problems. The goal though ain't bad. Like with everything, we'll have to see how prosecutors will wield that law, and then decide what changes if any it needs.

    7. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by trying to expose abuses by Bill Clinton's friend Jeffrey Epstein, Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton John Podesta, and Anthony Weiner whose wife was deputy chief of staff to Hilary Clinton when she was secretary of state, it shows their bias. None of them were elected so this is a nonissue.

    8. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I will say one good thing Trump has done. He has exposed, once and for all and as completely as possible, the abject hypocrisy of the fundamentalist evangelical hustlers and the right wing politicians they are in bed with.

      Oh please! What good has that done? They still win... And when they don't, a democrat (which also passes this shit) wins, so I have to repeat the question. What does it do to expose hypocrisy when it produces no consequence?

      Majority rule has hit the brick wall. The idiot majority begets corrupt, incompetent government. How do ya fix that??

    9. Re: Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're implying that existing laws against kidnapping, sex with minors etc weren't sufficient to cope with "the internet". Is there any evidence for that?

    10. Re: Irony meter is pinned by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You're implying that existing laws against kidnapping, sex with minors etc weren't sufficient to cope with "the internet". Is there any evidence for that?

      Yes. The evidence was that sites like backpage.com existed and did what they did, knowingly, and were not punished for it, because they hid behind the ol' "We're not responsible for the content we host." excuse.

    11. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump doesn't write the laws, Congress does. He does have veto powers for some things, but that's it. You read so much into it, it's almost as if you are bias, even bigoted. Human trafficking plagues the entire globe, is a bad thing, and extremely is destructive. Typically, young girls are forced into it before they are twelve, by beatings and drugging. They're forced to have sex with several men a night, and their lives are controlled by "pimps". They're bought and sold around the globe and no one cares. Many of them die, are scarred, or commit suicide.

      But hey, if these young people are ruined that's OK with you so long as you can make brownie points with your alt+Left friends by hating Trump. Sad.

        And for your information, since you seem to lack an adequate amount of it, it is a bi-partisan bill.

    12. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have nearly zero understanding of what you are spouting.

    13. Re: Irony meter is pinned by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      a 'greek comforter'

      That's the soothing relief (from the previous night's "festivities") that you get by shoving some freshly-cut aloe vera up your ass.

    14. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has exposed, once and for all and as completely as possible, the abject hypocrisy of the fundamentalist evangelical hustlers.

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Holy crap that is hilarious! You say it with such vigor, like you are trying oh so very hard to convince yourself and others that it is even remotely true. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    15. Re:Irony meter is pinned by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your right, this is tame compared to Swaggart and the twink with the megachurch in Colorado...old what's his name? They're just entertainment that keeps on giving.

      If your not a thumper, it's been obvious for a long long time. If you are? Well they're forgiven, Swaggart being back is just SOP.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    16. Re:Irony meter is pinned by youngone · · Score: 2

      Perhaps the 'knitting' interest group will start to see lots of traffic

      It will be the Seamstresses.

    17. Re: Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Backpage has been closed down by the FBI without any trial and before SESTA comes into law, so existing laws are good enough.

    18. Re: Irony meter is pinned by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if they were reaching through the internet and grabbing kids, seems that it wouldn't be hard to get a warrant and search the wires.
      The truth is that very few kids just go missing, though when one does the media sure goes on about it. They're still talking about Micheal Dunahee here after what, 30 odd years? Usually when a kid goes missing it's one of their parents doing the kidnapping and whenever sexual exploitation of kids comes up, it is usually the neighbourhood priest, scout master or some other pillar of the community or their family, though we did have a big problem with kids getting kidnapped by the government and turned over to their religious friends to molest and torture in the residential school thing.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    19. Re: Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can anyone provide any legitimate references for the this problem of child sex trafficking in the US? It all seems like another fake moral panic.

    20. Re: Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic FB should be shutdown for enabling countless pages of crap...

    21. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Revolucion!

    22. Re: Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are laws to deal with the kidnappers and pedophiles - of course. Backpage, who actively and willfully brought these criminals together, was hiding under the first amendment though.

    23. Re: Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      start by checking out the sites of the places that rescue them.
      http://ourrescue.org/

    24. Re: Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SESTA is unconstitutional because it applies ex post facto, so it applies to backpage. (and backpage was shut down a few days after it became law)

    25. Re: Irony meter is pinned by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1
      Yeah, don't you hate sites that say...

      "The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way."

      --
      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    26. Re:Irony meter is pinned by mukinrestak · · Score: 0

      So when one fundamentalist gets an abortion they're all responsible? Congratulations, you're a stereotyping bigot!

    27. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling him a bigot is giving him to much credit. He is a retard to stupid to understand basic logic, strange since he probably thinks that using binary as his name makes him intelligent.

    28. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a logic that is used so often on here, it's not surprising that useful idiots from the other side are picking it up. For example in Russia it appears to be basic logic. The best kind of logic in fact.

    29. Re: Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they hid behind the ol' "We're not responsible for the content we host." excuse.

      They are not. Nobody is. Speech is speech, nothing more than words, which any reasonable, rational human can ignore. Content is none of the government's business! We need an indelible, distributed, ad hoc internet that can't be shut down by anybody! Fuck all the tyrants that want censorship! They are fascists!

    30. Re: Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #ProgressiveGulag

    31. Re: Irony meter is pinned by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Wrong. They were hiding behind that while facilitating and actively monitoring/editing posts.

      You can't eat your cake and have it too. You're either not part of the content and not responsible, or you're part of it and you're responsible. They were actively involved in the content (which advertised illegal things), and tried to claim they weren't responsible. That's why they got shut the fuck down, raided, and charged.

    32. Re: Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your righteous indignation is noted. All the philosophizing is purely masturbatory in nature and utterly banal. The only important thing to do is to protect us from censorship. And that is what this attack is, censorship. It is an act of war, and we are losing badly against the tyrants and their supporters. We need technological developments to protect all content and end the argument once and for all. Save the holier than thou shit for the believers.

    33. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By “Donald trump”,do you mean SJWs? Those are the new anti gaming, anti music, anti movies, anti comic books, anti free speech uptight puritanical morality police shaming women for not being “the right kind of women”. SJWs think this is the best news ever. Sex industry is evil to them. SJWs are not the sex-positive feminists of the 90s.

    34. Re: Irony meter is pinned by houghi · · Score: 1

      He also has exposed the fact that they can get away with it. The next prez the US elects will be worse.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    35. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a logician, I love logic jokes! You guys are joking... right?

    36. Re:Irony meter is pinned by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      I have little time for religious nonsense, but isn't recognizing your faults and deciding to make a major lifestyle change to correct them something people should be praised for?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    37. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is your favourite logic joke?

    38. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is. But another important part of their religion, well at least on paper, is contriteness and humbleness. So looking down on other's and condemning them for what you just did 5 seconds ago isn't something to be praised for. In fact if you (not you personally) believe in the words of Jesus that are in the Bible it's fundamentally unchristian to look down upon others. Furthermore it's stated that God does not pay attention to the spiritually proud and abases self-righteousness, those that exalt themselves and esteem themselves 'holier than thou'.

      But in the end, with all the logical inconsistencies that you can find in holy texts of whatever kind, most people end up just picking the parts they agree with, do something here and there to make themselves believe they've atoned and discarding the rest.

      I mean it's still nonsense from a logical point of view, but most religions also encourage people to be nice to each other. It's just one aspect that doesn't play nicely with certain branches of religion and is quickly brushed aside as non essential or applies only to the group you belong to yourself as it appears.

    39. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should backpage be able to make millions in revenue by helping people pimp out kidnapped toddlers? That's why SESTA passed - and with overwhelming bipartisan support.

      So if they needed this bill to go after backpage, how did they manage to arrest the founders and seize the website while the bill still isn't law?

    40. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's just a crying shame that the only fucking thing the two parties can agree on is policing morality and micromanaging our lives with authoritarian vigor, in the name of "won't you think of the children!?". Why can't they get together on how to boost the economy by putting more money in people's pockets or improving health care?

    41. Re:Irony meter is pinned by rickb928 · · Score: 0

      If you changed just one word of your post, and that being a name, it will not only be entirely accurate, it would unspeakably offend you .
      And it should. You are that clueless.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    42. Re:Irony meter is pinned by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Using binary for your user name is almost as irritating as using 'Anonymous Coward' as your user name.

      Almost.

      I still really don't know who 0xC88 is, but I'm sure 'Anonymous Coward' is someone I know and personally have good reason to despise. Their politics merely reinforce that opinion.

      You ought to change your name just to confuse us.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    43. Re: Irony meter is pinned by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      By that standard a number telephone pole should be cut down. Or perhaps bury every foot of cable worldwide.

      And outlaw exterior walls while you're at it.

      And spray paint.

      And writing instruments.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    44. Re: Irony meter is pinned by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      As ugly as it is, do the police never bother to answer such ads, come armed, and rescue these victims?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    45. Re:Irony meter is pinned by rickb928 · · Score: 0

      There's a kernel of truth there. The Left is open about their intentions. Assume power over everything they wish. Forgive their leaders of any crime. Win.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    46. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you changed just one word of your post, and that being a name...

      Trump is a known 'Jim'...?

    47. Re:Irony meter is pinned by gnick · · Score: 1

      Using binary for your user name is almost as irritating as using 'Anonymous Coward' as your user name.

      He's the only one I know using a string of 1s & 0s for his username with a 6-digit UID. His username is easier to recognize than 'rickb928' or 'gnick'.

      'Anonymous Coward' is someone I know and personally have good reason to despise. Their politics merely reinforce that opinion.

      What did AC do to you? AC seems to be a little schizo, since I've seen him take pretty extreme positions in every direction of politics. Not sure how you can disagree with everything. Seems like too much effort to "despise" anonymous posters.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    48. Re:Irony meter is pinned by gnick · · Score: 2

      ...recognizing your faults and deciding to make a major lifestyle change to correct them...

      That's a fine thing to do and it's to be commended. Until you say:

      I made this change and my life is better for it. Now you'd damned well better make the same change. Let's pass a law.

      Then it's a problem and it happens too much.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    49. Re: Irony meter is pinned by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Closer...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    50. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is law. Trump signed it.
      And (quite unconstitutionally,) the law applies retro-actively. Hence backpage was shut down a few days after Trump signed it.

    51. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was pushed by Hollywood. How FOSTA Could Give Hollywood the Filters It's Long Wanted

      Some of the biggest names in the U.S. entertainment industry have expressed a recent interest in a topic that’s seemingly far away from their core business: shutting down online prostitution. Disney, for instance, recently wrote to key U.S. senators expressing their support for SESTA, a bill that was originally aimed at sex traffickers. For its part, 20th Century Fox told the same senators that anyone doing business online “has a civic responsibility to help stem illicit and illegal activity.”

    52. Re:Irony meter is pinned by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Trump/B. Clinton?

      No it wouldn't. I know it's true.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    53. Re:Irony meter is pinned by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      So which do you know is true, yet doesn't offend you?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    54. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC is not subjected to social engineering through the moderation system that's been long hijacked by trolls. That makes AC dangerous.

    55. Re:Irony meter is pinned by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That both of them are 'opportunistic whore baggers'?

      Duh, they're politicians and men. _Either_ is sufficient proof...I'm pretty comfortable with my 'inner dog', you may have seen me advocating for 'total darkness' (where she's beautiful and I'm handsome) in previous posts.

      I'm even going to go out on a limb and say that my candidate, Vermin Supreme, doesn't turn down much pussy either. Could be wrong.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    56. Re: Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SESTA is unconstitutional because it applies ex post facto, so it applies to backpage. (and backpage was shut down a few days after it became law)

      It's not been signed into law yet though.

    57. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think about it, aren't all laws "morality laws" and isn't that the purpose of laws... to enforce standards that people wouldn't otherwise oblige to? I'm open to debate on the subject :)

    58. Re:Irony meter is pinned by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

      No one even accused Bill of hiring whores
      Though one fool, so poor a witness she had to be immunized twice, said he refused to pay.

    59. Re:Irony meter is pinned by Agripa · · Score: 1

      I didn't noticed the Democrats objecting to this law in the House and Senate.

  2. Irony or Hypocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So the law is being signed into law by a guy who utilises the skills of sex workers.

    Can one of you americans use your many many guns for something useful and please shoot him in the head? Ajit Pai too while your at it.

    Be a goddamn hero, save the world, gain the adoring love of internet users and sex workers globally.

    1. Re:Irony or Hypocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm only replying to this because it got a mod point. If your Progressive fellow travelers succeed in doing in Trump and Pai, the dogs of US civil war will be unleashed and will probably spill over into your shit hole - which is probably Russia.

  3. VPN/proxy much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the Feds use a proxy or vpn to come in from another country. Yawn. Pitiful attempt at press whoring here.

    Incidentally, Zuck sucks.

    1. Re: VPN/proxy much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Zuck!

    2. Re: VPN/proxy much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zuck is a fuck who sucks duck penis!

  4. misnomer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The evidence is piling up that this SESTA law doesn't have anything to do with sex trafficking. Anyone got a list of who all voted for it? They all need to be replaced in the upcoming election. (Why? Because if they didn't read this bill, then what other bills are they voting Yes for, that they didn't read?)

    I think we ought to make it a crime to vote for a bill that you didn't read. (Voting against a bill that you didn't read, or even because you didn't read it, is ok. Failure by Congress to act isn't nearly as threatening to America as their acts.) Each bill could have a password embedded somewhere in it, and have occasional pop quizzes after every vote, where everyone who doesn't know the password gets punished.

    The punishment doesn't even need to be harsh. Maybe just make them issue a statement that they vote yes for bills that they don't read, let at least one opponent add an addendum, and make them run the statement as an ad, paid by their own campaign. e.g. "Hi, Irving Washington and I voted yes on a bill I didn't read!" [Then opponent Washington Irving's satirical voice cuts in with "Whoa, hope I didn't just make it mandatory to feed children into shredders!"]

    1. Re:misnomer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you have to pass the bill to see what's in it. That's according to Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), a noted gargantuan of Democratic party Progressive philosophy.

      Anyways, you gonna make congresscritters like Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX sigh) read bills. Okay then. The next 3000 page Obamacare bill is going to take a while since she reads at the 3rd grade level. And people like Hank Johnson (D-GA) who thought the island of Guam would tip over because too many Marines were there can't even read at all. Your proposed law will never make it out of committee.

    2. Re:misnomer? by fafalone · · Score: 2

      They all voted for it. 388-25 in the House and 97-2 in the Senate. Despite opposition from every stakeholder on both the internet and sex trafficking advocacy side. Good luck tearing down the anti-freedom supermajority.

    3. Re:misnomer? by pots · · Score: 2

      Just a reminder: the word "trafficking" just means trade in illegal goods. "Sex trafficking" is prostitution. Many people confuse it for sexual slavery, in other words: human trafficking for the purpose of sex.

      It's that confusion which lets them get away with anti-prostitution laws like this one, with very little push-back from the public.

    4. Re:misnomer? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but you have to pass the bill to see what's in it. That's according to Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), a noted gargantuan of Democratic party Progressive philosophy.

      Anyways, you gonna make congresscritters like Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX sigh) read bills. Okay then. The next 3000 page Obamacare bill is going to take a while since she reads at the 3rd grade level. And people like Hank Johnson (D-GA) who thought the island of Guam would tip over because too many Marines were there can't even read at all. Your proposed law will never make it out of committee.

      You're making great points for why such a bill would pass. All the congresstards who can't/don't read will vote Yes for it if it has a positive name.

      Call it the United States Congressional Literacy Act.

      All members of the Congress of the United States of America must fully read any and all legislation they vote in favor of. A vote in favor of proposed legislation shall serve as binding certification that the member has read the proposed legislation in its entirety. Should it at any time be admitted or demonstrated that this certification was false, the member shall be immediately tarred, feathered, removed from office, and be considered permanently ineligible to hold any public office, elected or otherwise.

    5. Re:misnomer? by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      You forgot: 'run out of town on a rail'. Being in the middle of nowhere, naked, covered in tar and feathers is a key part of the punishment.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    6. Re:misnomer? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Here are the lists of the people who voted for it:

      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/201...
      https://www.senate.gov/legisla...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:misnomer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think we ought to make it a crime to vote for a bill that you didn't read.

      Unfortunately modern laws tend to be long and numerous. Congress passes maybe 10,000 pages of legislation a year in a huge variety of subjects. It's a lot to ask of a congressperson to read and understand it all, especially since nobody is expert in every subject congress has an interest in. Instead, they read and understand a portion of legislation that's within their field of expertise, rely on other members of their party to read the rest and trust their conclusions are wise. I don't think this should be illegal.

    8. Re:misnomer? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Anyone got a list of who all voted for it?

      Yeah, here's a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  5. And as the FBI just showed... by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 0

    They didn't need it to take down Backpage.com for what appears to be at least a "wink and nod" attitude toward child prostitution. I never believed the activists had good intentions because S230 has never protected sites that are either willfully allowing or in open conspiracy with these sorts of criminals.

  6. Clear violation of 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet nobody will fight it. We have find a way to make censorship impossible.

    1. Re:Clear violation of 1st Amendment by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yet nobody will fight it. We have find a way to make censorship impossible.

      You don't even need to bring the amendments into this. The law states it also applies to all to act committed BEFORE it passes into law. This is call post-ex facto and completely contradicts the constitution, common law, and common sense.

    2. Re: Clear violation of 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Host your websites in Europe where we still have some free speech and enough democracy to hold our politicians to account.

    3. Re:Clear violation of 1st Amendment by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      That part is just there to bankrupt some site operators. Foregone conclusion it won't pass challenge.

      Even the computer fraud and abuse law doesn't go that far, it only makes things illegal if a judge doesn't like them after the fact, but not before the law was passed.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Clear violation of 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have find a way to make censorship impossible.

      The second you do find a way to do that, it will be used for mass censorship by the DRM crowd. Why? Because you can't censor something that isn't known about, but you have to make it known for it to be useful. I.e. You can't censor what isn't sent, but you can censor what is. There is no centralized distribution system that can do that. The current internet routing model (Hostnames and IP Addresses) cannot permit it. There is always a point at which censors can break the link. The only way around this would be to make the content mobile. Something like a virtual sneaker-net. Need porn? Call up the rep, and arrange a dead drop. But that will never happen under the current political climate. There's too many busybodies and too much power at risk for that to happen.

      This is call post-ex facto and completely contradicts the constitution, common law, and common sense.

      And if you had common sense, you'd realize they don't care. Period. They only care about the ends, and that's it. BTW: The "ends" as it were for them are: They get to dictate to us how to live our lives, and we do as we're told like good little drones because the flying spaghetti monster said so, through them. They are the ordained and we are just the discard-able filth that will be purged any moment now. Any moment now......

      Fix your perspective. If there has ever been a definition of evil, these people are it. They would gladly slice you up if it meant fulfilling some purpose. They purposely distort society to that end. They intentionally try to destroy a group whose sole purpose is mutual benefit of it's members. They are the ones who need to be ostracized, and quickly. Before their BS destroys any hope of fixing the mess of a society that we still have.

    5. Re:Clear violation of 1st Amendment by harrkev · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yet nobody will fight it. We have find a way to make censorship impossible.

      You use the term "1st amendment" like it means something.

      We also have a 2nd amendment, but that only means what a judge wants it to mean, and they can happily ignore what it clearly says. Yeah, ban guns with certain cosmetic features. That does not qualify as "infringing."

      The 4th amendment clearly means that you can't have property arbitrarily taken, but we have "civil forfeiture." Pulled over with a bunch of cash? That belongs to the police now.

      Oh, while we are violating the 4th amendment, why not ban certain people from owning guns, without being charged with any crime, nor with oversight of a judge or jury.

      So, yeah, if one amendment can fall, then the precedent is set for them all to fall. Judges and politicians are both complicit in this.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    6. Re:Clear violation of 1st Amendment by BrianMarshall · · Score: 2

      For a country that is so big on "inalienable rights", this business of "civil forfeiture" is disgusting and scary.

      I also have a problem with (a part of) the government going after people using civil law, which goes on "the preponderance of the evidence" rather than what the government should have to prove: "beyond a reasonable doubt".

      --
      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    7. Re:Clear violation of 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Judges and politicians are both complicit in this.

      As are the voters that (re)elect them to 40 year careers... Instead of wasting time on bullshit, let's get to the root of the problem.

    8. Re: Clear violation of 1st Amendment by Reverend+Green · · Score: 0

      Here's what to do when someone says to you, "I'm a Progressive". Twist up your face, look at them sideways, then spit on their shoes. Just like they had said "I'm a Nazi". 'Cuz there's not much difference.

    9. Re:Clear violation of 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's not a popular opinion, but I kind of feel that this is because the concept people have in their head of inalienable rights was flawed. If the law is supposed to be "you have the right to say anything you want" then yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is fine. If the law is that you have the right to bear arms, full stop, then you should be allowed to own and operate tanks and armed drones. How anyone thinks that makes sense is beyond me, but there are apparently a lot of people who would prefer that.

    10. Re:Clear violation of 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's not a popular opinion, but I kind of feel that this is because the concept people have in their head of inalienable rights was flawed. If the law is supposed to be "you have the right to say anything you want" then yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is fine. If the law is that you have the right to bear arms, full stop, then you should be allowed to own and operate tanks and armed drones. How anyone thinks that makes sense is beyond me, but there are apparently a lot of people who would prefer that.

      False. Inalienable rights are by definition rights that no legitimate government can take away - and thus if freedom of speech was an inalienable right it could never be taken away (reasonable freedom of speech might quality as inalienable, but not freedom of speech without a qualifier). You are mistakenly confusing inalienable rights with those that are, in fact, alienable.

      One issue here is that your knowledge of history is incomplete. The US 1st Amendment explicitly only applies to Congress - and thus the state governments have to authority to penalize people who shout fire in theaters. The US 14th Amendment (added after the US Civil War) slightly alters this, but it's vague so there is, in fact, STILL quite a bit of room for the state governments to pass reasonable laws that infringe freedom of speech.

      This is the basis for state courts being able to compel testimony, for limiting the presence and volume of advertisements (no blasting political or religious speeches into peoples homes at night by giant mobile speaker trucks), for fraud, for libel and slander, and so forth.

      This was how it was always intended to work: the federal government would be extremely limited on fundamental matters, leaving them up to the states. In practice, there is seldom - if ever - a need for the federal government to be able to infringe speech. State law can handle any situations where limiting speech makes sense. We don't need federal law to handle false advertising, or testimony before Congress, or things like that. In all federal matters, legislators, judges and juries can and should decide for themselves whether or not somebody is lying. It's no different from the public deciding for ourselves whether politicians or lawyers are lying. There is no need for the federal government to have any sort of power to coerce passwords or testimony from people. The state governments could even handle any speech requirements of border crossing, handling off to the federal government matters such as searches after all speech actions associated with a border crossing are complete.

      Even for the military, the authority to limit speech could come from the state governments by making military units subject to state authority (instead of federal authority) for purposes of matters involving freedom of speech by military personnel.

      If the state governments wanted a common set of rules for any of these issues, they could decide this among themselves without Congress getting involved.

      Infringements of freedom of speech by the federal government are nothing but a power grab, in violation of the law.

      Similarly, the right to bear arms would not extend to weapons that one could not carry, such as tanks and armed drones, since "to bear" means "to carry on the person". Nor does the term "arms" necessarily apply to munitions - in fact, the origin of the term is from Old French c 1300 and refers to the "weapons of a warrior".

      Similarly, the right to bear arms is explicitly a right of the people - and thus restrictions that do not unduly limit the people as whole are reasonable, hence the mentally ill and criminals and children can be limited in their access to these, similarly access to things like grenades can be limited. Note that any rules created would have be simple, straightforward, and easy to understand, since anything else would violate the right to ethical practice of law (avoidable complexity in the legal system creates an artificial demand for the se

    11. Re: Clear violation of 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Host your websites in Europe where we still have some free speech

      *sigh* Everybody's a comic...

  7. I am scared... by Daneel+Olivaw+R.+ · · Score: 1

    I am really scared, I feel like this is how dystopias are born. This is similar to increasing govt surveillance and saying a normal "upright" citizen need not worry about it since it only targets money launderers and terrorists...

    1. Re:I am scared... by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      The digital Berlin Wall is up.
      Everything that was fun before is now a memory.
      Every CC use, ip, vpn use, ISP log, site visit, search term, file uploaded, the cloud, social media is now going to US law enforcement to sort.
      The US internet is now a trap.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:I am scared... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am equally scared. I've started to consider moving out of the United States, but the options aren't very appealing. Canada and Europe seem to be on the same path as the United States. Australia and New Zealand are on the same path, too. China is already approaching a totalitarian surveillance state. Russia is heading toward an entirely different sort of dystopia. Latin America is full of corruption and drug-related crime.

    3. Re:I am scared... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      2008 Crash. Did the cops start mass-evicting people out onto the street? Cook county police told every landlord that they are suspending evictions. Why?

      The difference between Latin America or Europe and the US is, when the US Law enforcement comes for you, they have to deal with getting shot in the face. Also, foreign government and religious communities know that if they try to invade, the indiginous population is armed, already well-prepared for war, and will shoot them. Who pays the mainstream media to run anti-gun propaganda in everywhere they can? I'll guarauntee it'll be China, or Russia, or the Saudi's; it's their wet dream to have America completely unarmed. It'd be wall-to-wall mass graves before the 2020's are done.

      You see, guns have this funny affect. Rich people think because they have 1's and 0's in their bank accounts that they own people and can do with them as they please like any other posession. One of the huge engineering problems for society is the tendancy of leadership to lose sight of the concept of gratititude. People get high on their ego's and they start believing in the unreasonable expectation that the public is this magic pool of never-ending labor and exists for their amusement, to alleviate their ennui. They often set themselves up persuing the wrong goals. For christ sakes, most of them base their self-worth off of a net worth, their entire lives are lived making money so they can invest and make money. At what point do you have enough?

      Then they scream and go apeshit when they don't get what they want. Been going on since the dawn of time. We call it "politics" but the better way to state it is simply "political theatre". Ultimately, the reason why Police have unions is because they alone are uniquely situated to fully understand just how good everyone has it. They have gratitude, even if some of them go off on a power trip or have PTSD from working in a warzone or are young and think they are still invincible.

      And Even IF they were able to find people who were suicidal enough to do it, there'd be a jury trial at the end of it. If 1,000 Brotha's and Sista's Tar'd and Feathered the executive staff of a major US Bank during their annual brouhaha, then flung them off the 100th story penthouse, then surrended to the police, there would not be a single jury in the country that would convict them; every charge would be jury nullified and the juries would tell the judge "threaten me with tanks will you? Make yourself impossible to arresst will you?". And understand, those are the actions of a public that's been so downtrodden, so divided from the concept of dignity and unconditional love that they think that act, like a cargo cult, is some kind of ritual that will bring them out of destitution. Same thing happened during the french revolution. Part of the reason why we don't get there is, most people aren't crazy and rich, they know just the fact a gun's in the safe that we all need to act polite.

      Advertising has long since been based on psychological warfare and the information warfare cycle. Once people realize that advertisers NEED them to be deeply unhappy with every fascet of their lives to make money, and decide to stop wasting time with paying attention to them. That is when the country will change.

      We've got a really unimaginable future ahead of us. The only thing to be afraid of is the amount and pace of change.

    4. Re: I am scared... by javaman235 · · Score: 1

      Good thoughts, glad you shared. The status quo is gone, but people aren't aware yet. The Constitution is based on an ideological divide between speech and substance that is crumbling. To code, more and more, is to create substantial reality, and it's only the beginning: We are moving into a time of being speak things into existence, a time when we see the universe speaking itself into existence. Seeing advertisers as agents of control and attack rather than the naive picture where they are practicing "free speech" (while tracking you) reflects the larger awareness of it. Preserving the spirit of the constitution in a time where it is becoming meaningless and irrelevant is the patriot's task.

      --
      -The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
    5. Re:I am scared... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Also, foreign government and religious communities know that if they try to invade, the indiginous population is armed, already well-prepared for war, and will shoot them.

      Yemen had around 2nd or 3rd most firearms-per-capita in the world (depends on which survey).

      How'd that "prevent invasion" thing work out for them?

    6. Re: I am scared... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have mental diarrhea.

    7. Re:I am scared... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, yeah, and people with guns kill children in schools, churches, and malls. Guns are great for that! It's my freeeeeeedoms to be bat-shit crazy and armed to the teeth with guns. GUNS!

      A couple of hundred years ago some old white guys wrote the commandments/amendments and now we're stuck in the past with guns. Some of those old white guys owned slaves but it's okay because they gave us guns.

      We can't beat the NRA with logic but maybe we can out-stupid them.

  8. Not enough by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    These websites will soon find out that it isn't enough to just ban US users. Since US users can simply use VPN/proxies their legal requirements (if there are any) are not met. US users can still visit the websites.

    1. Re:Not enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe it is going to have a chilling effect though across the online sex industry and general posting board industry.

      Hilarious though that a lot of freedom of speech originated after the french revolution and was picked up with gusto by the americans and is now being used as toilet paper by the american government.

      Also ironic given how much they love their war heros who rebelled against the government and yet now is their time to stand and they are busy eating tide pods and screaming about jesus hating this that or the other. Navel gazing coward fruit from a rebellious tree.

    2. Re:Not enough by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Since US users can simply use VPN/proxies their legal requirements (if there are any) are not met. US users can still visit the websites.

      Untrue. You have to have sufficient mens rea with respect to US users in order to even fit within the defined crime. Banning US users, prohibiting US users, and terminating any VPN users found to be US users pretty much ensures that that requirement won't be met. That's before you get into the "how do we extradite foreign nationals and foreign corporations" issue.

      If you want to advocate for worldwide application of a country's standards for what is legal or nor legal to place on a website, be my guest, but be prepared for Turkey, Iran, and every other country in the world to dictate what every service on the planet can offer since their users can simply use VPN/proxies/TOR and still visit the websites.

    3. Re:Not enough by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I'm not advocating for anything. My point is that it is pointless. US users can still (easily) use the website. So what is the difference if you are "banning" US users? You aren't.

    4. Re: Not enough by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

      Then you wrote poorly, because it is enough. Websites do not car about "secret US users." They care about known US users who kthe guy subject them to liability. Lose the known US users and there's no problem with US law.

  9. No more ratings for Stormy Daniels by Teun · · Score: 4, Funny

    This will mean no more ratings for Stormy Daniels.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    1. Re:No more ratings for Stormy Daniels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She is making a lot of money with her accusations which brings them into question.

    2. Re:No more ratings for Stormy Daniels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump has even more money and is making more.

    3. Re:No more ratings for Stormy Daniels by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I've love to know if sleeping with Trump has increased or decreased her business. On the one hand, celebrity sells. On the other, hotels with "Trump" in the name have been renaming themselves because of the negative connotations.

      In any case the book deal should be pretty lucrative.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. Good that nobody lies on the internet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good that nobody lies on the internet. Clearly, nobody would. Right?

  11. Your meter is broken by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Informative

    Donald Trump pushing morality laws.

    Hey retard - the bill was passed by a nearly unanimous vote of Democrats and Republicans.

    IT's not about what Trump wants, it's about what the state wants, which is not to have money flows they cannot easily trace nor workers they cannot control.

    Do you seriously doubt for a second if Hillary were president she would not be signing the same bill? Would you wax so eloquent about the utter hypocrisy of those that are supposed to support women when they have literally fucked over the entire sex working population in the U.S.?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Your meter is broken by greenwow · · Score: 1

      More Republicans voted against it than Democrats so you should blame us rather than them.

    2. Re:Your meter is broken by AbRASiON · · Score: 0

      Endless Trump bashing is the internet thing now. Regardless if he's at fault or not. (The man is an idiot, but the stuff people claim he's planning, conspiring or doing, is ridiculously, week on week)

      Honestly it's become so bad, I'm embarrassed to admit I was a far lefty once.

    3. Re:Your meter is broken by mukinrestak · · Score: 2

      I haven't checked for the house, but in the senate at least there were exactly two votes against it; Ron Wyden (D) and Rand Paul (R).

    4. Re:Your meter is broken by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Endless Trump bashing is the internet thing now. Regardless if he's at fault or not.

      Yeah, thanks Obama!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    5. Re:Your meter is broken by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      How deluded are you that you think there is an "us" and "them", in regards to the public's role in political parties?

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    6. Re:Your meter is broken by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      It's whoever is president in general really. It's a thankless job and congratulating the president on a job well done isn't really that fun. On the other hand, bashing the president is very popular and more or less always has been. Even Lincoln was a topic of much debate and hostility for most of his career. It was believed that when he died, his wife was the only person who wouldn't line up to piss on his grave.

      I didn't like Reagan, because he was the ultimate puppet. He managed to sell anything the cabinet wanted because he always believed he was doing a good and righteous thing. So, it was almost impossible to believe otherwise. He had a gift for selling his belief in what was good to the Americans and the people behind him were simply not good and righteous.... but scarily, many believed they were trying to be.

      Bush version 1 was something scary. He was in some ways the same cabinets attempt to have lightning strike twice. But he just wasn't as lovable as Reagan was. Instead he was kind of stupid and clueless. You went along with him because it felt bad to pick on the slow kid. Every decision he made, he made because he truly believed he was trying to help people. The problem was, he lacked the capacity to understand the consequences of his actions, he only ever saw the good that could come of it. So, he was the type of person you could convince to cut down 4 million acres of rain forest because the tribesmen in the forest have allergies and it would help them breath a little better.

      Bill Clinton was the lovable and cuddly rubber faced democrat. He was a living, breathing, feel-good campaign. You just wanted to like that guy. He did all kinds of things. Like he balanced the budget... that's FRIGGING AWESOME!!! except that there's another was of looking at balancing the budget.
      1) You defer purchases you really need to make in order to live within your budget. As those deferrals are in place, the quality of the infrastructure decreases. Roads erode, ships rust, engines freeze from sitting idle, etc... the result is a fantastic cost later at an inflated price to attempt to bring all those things back into repair. Poor roads seriously hurt many American industries and were part of what enabled the Chinese to take over much of America's industries. I'm not blaming everything on this one thing. But it was a big contributor.
      2) You don't deflate the currency. Wealth is created when governments work together to dilute the value of their currencies. It's how wealth redistribution works. Unlike the gold standard, people gain wealth by receiving money (filtered down through 100 levels or more) of larger government purchases that come from money printed by increasing the deficit. World wealth increases greatly as more governments around the world work together to devalue their currencies in sync with each other to feed more money into their countries and circulating more money to the people. Clinton starved the economy of this necessary wealth by balancing the budgets. This caused inflated interest rates as this currency devaluation is also needed for banks to have money to loan to people. We were all forced to live more conservatively with a near constant fear that while the government was doing well, our kids wouldn't be able to go to college, etc... all because it became too expensive to send them there. Prices can't rise if there's no new money to pay those prices with. A balanced budget is terrible for that.
      3) Clinton didn't understand that a balanced budget didn't mean the government should stop increasing their national deficit. So, he basically lined us all up for the shit storm associated with what would eventually be the devastation of the GWB economic fall out. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and Bill Clinton and GWB were possibly two of the best and kindest people EVER.

      Bush v.2. I honestly don't know where to start with him. I hate to say anything mean about a person I admire as a human being so much. He was such an i

    7. Re: Your meter is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about...

    8. Re: Your meter is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude actually made a joke about those on the Right that blamed (and some still do) everything on Obama, and he's pretty Right/libertarian from his post history.

      He was actually 'calling out his own side' in a humorous way in agreeing with the OP!

      WTF? Do you even bother to read the posts you respond to?

    9. Re:Your meter is broken by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      It was really this weird group of feminists, people trying to stop sex trafficking, and evangelicals.

      In the process it caught legitimate independent massage therapists and many independent adult sex workers. Both groups were essentially "fired" without notice. I guess LMT's will use web sites and business cards? Sex workers may go back to working in bodyrub parlors, street walking, and having pimps.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    10. Re:Your meter is broken by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Trump uses prostitutes. I expect many other politicians do too, but he is the only one we have proof for at the moment.

      Nothing wrong with that per-se of course. But it's hypocritical. He doesn't have to use backpage.com because he is rich, and can afford to avoid the risky world of low-end prostitution. Rather than extend that opportunity to the people who voted for him on a platform of de-regulation and restored freedoms, he criminalizes them and makes their lives less safe.

      Clinton, FWIW, was supported by prostitutes and seemed to favour support and decriminalization to some extent. Of course, it is impossible to say if she would have supported this bill had she been elected.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Your meter is broken by mjwx · · Score: 2

      Donald Trump pushing morality laws.

      Hey retard - the bill was passed by a nearly unanimous vote of Democrats and Republicans.

      IT's not about what Trump wants, it's about what the state wants, which is not to have money flows they cannot easily trace nor workers they cannot control.

      Do you seriously doubt for a second if Hillary were president she would not be signing the same bill? Would you wax so eloquent about the utter hypocrisy of those that are supposed to support women when they have literally fucked over the entire sex working population in the U.S.?

      Sigh, she lost. Get over it. You cant keep bringing here up to compensate for Trumps failures.

      Now as for Trump... Wasn't he supposed to be "different" and be fighting for the little guy. Seems the best thing you can say about Trump is that he is only as corrupt as you imagine the other guy is (where as in reality, he makes Hillary look like a saint int he corruption stakes).

      Also, am I the only one that finds it hypocritical that Trump pays for sex, but then reinforces laws that are designed to punish prostitutes and johns?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    12. Re:Your meter is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting opinion, but naive, especially about Bush and Bush Jr.

      Trump is his own guy, like him or lump him, and Reagan tried his best until his life was threatened, but the others listed were members of all manner of strange organizations that have no good intent towards freedom nor to the people living in the Americas.

    13. Re:Your meter is broken by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Regardless of what you think about Trump, the target of the law is human traffickers.

      Selling 12 year old girls is not OK.

      The law may be imperfect, but it isn't about anyone pushing morals.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    14. Re:Your meter is broken by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      You should not have forgotten that all legislation is someone's morality.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    15. Re:Your meter is broken by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      It does appear that being an idiot pays off. Smart is overrated.

      Oh, wait...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    16. Re:Your meter is broken by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "Bill Clinton was the lovable and cuddly rubber faced democrat. He was a living, breathing, feel-good campaign. "

      My mom describes him as 'an 8 by 10 glossy of himself'.

      Damned close.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    17. Re:Your meter is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's an idiot - billionaire idiot.
      He's an idiot - President idiot
      He's an idiot - Beat crooked Hillary idiot.
      He's an idiot - Still President, idiot!

    18. Re:Your meter is broken by gnick · · Score: 0

      there is an "us" and "them"

      If you believe that Trump has spurred the job market, you're a Trumpette. If you think people should be fed even if they can't afford it, you're a libtard. There is no middle ground.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    19. Re:Your meter is broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you wax so eloquent about the utter hypocrisy of those that are supposed to support women when they have literally fucked over the entire sex working population in the U.S.?

      [emphasis added]

      You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

  12. I'll miss RUBMAPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this is going to be awkward now on the massage table....

  13. ... congress messed up by jmdevince · · Score: 1

    Where will all of our politicians go for reviews on escorts? Trolling the corner for hookers? No, Never. Right? https://www.ranker.com/list/po...

  14. Donald Trump does whatever people pay him to do by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    right now the Evangelicals are paying, in the form of votes. There's no hypocrisy here on Trump. He's just a businessman. As for the Evangelicals... well, they've got an agenda and an "End Justifies the Means" belief system & religion so I don't see any hypocrisy there either.

    Call a spade a spade. These are not good people. Sad thing is they're leading a surprising amount of good people by the nose since they control those people's social circles.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Donald Trump does whatever people pay him to do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine being this stupid, and getting so far in life that you can't even look up the politics of something.

    2. Re:Donald Trump does whatever people pay him to do by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Call a spade a spade. These are not good people. Sad thing is they're leading a surprising amount of good people by the nose since they control those people's social circles.

      That's your reasons for why the republicans support this. Okay. What's your reasons for why the democrats are supporting this?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  15. The only place there is a bastion of hope is NH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everywhere else you have right or left wing nut jobs who think the answer is government, but in New Hampshire there is at least a migration of people from all over the world who believe in freedom and have gotten together to say no more. We've been quite successful in various areas from guns to crypto to freedom of speech.

    I hate to break it to the majority of you but the government is *why* we have these problems. The government isn't the solution to poverty, war, security, morals, racism, or whatever the latest fetish is.

    Government is the problem and the way you fix it is by neutering it and empowering the individual to make decisions for themselves explicitly by getting out of the way. We're so trapped with government regulations we don't even know what could exist without it. Most of the laws we have today were outright written by private interests looking to profit (looking at you entertainment industry) via limiting competition. By pushing "safety", "children", "terrorism", and other costly regulations industries have created barriers to entry by potential competitors which has artificially increased costs and profits for a select few.

    The solution is simple. Organize. The masses don't care and we'll never achieve anything as liberty-loving people if we're spread so thin there is no voting block capable of even influencing politics. Fortunately the Free State Project, Shire Society, and similar groups have successfully drawn thousands of people together and amongst this group we've gotten tons of people elected and routinely win court cases, get laws passed, or hinder bad ones from taking effect. While the free world collapses around us we're taking some freedom back here. However to really achieve the ultimate level of freedom most of us desire long term we need to focus our energies and gather an even larger number of people in one place. For a few thousand people won't be able to declare independence or take other actions to hinder the federal government from enforcement and of unreasonable and dangerous legislation. Even 10s of thousands that are working on moving here is not enough. However it is enough to make a move worthwhile today. If for no other reason that most people who find themselves at the mercy of governments are there are the state and city level. By fixing local government first we can seriously reduce the amount of harm by government within our little area.

    1. Re:The only place there is a bastion of hope is NH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, NH isn't much better than everyone else and the free staters haven't shown they're improving the state (good job in getting that many signatures and actually moving). We still bowed to the pressures of PETA like most of the other states within the past couple years. If your dog starts humping you, why should he be killed and you go to jail? How is it animal abuse if the animal actively tries to do something with no prompting or actions by you? If anything, the animal raped you not the other way around. And why should possession of any type of drawing or any type of text be a cause to send you to jail? We're supposed to have free speech and thus freedom of ideas in this country. We don't.

      I understand most of the population hates animals who fuck humans and the humans which let them, but this is a slippery soap and the ball has already started rolling. It will eventually crush all of us. Currently it's becoming illegal to own intact animals. Intact animals are healthier, live longer, and are easier to train. They don't stay babies their entire life. Leash laws already prevent them from getting lose and breeding a lot. Furries are next. Then the kink community and it will spread out from there.

      I resell things from estate auctions for a living. I recently got a ton of old books. The health and body education books from the 50s-80s have so much more and better information in them than current books. Our society is eroding.

    2. Re:The only place there is a bastion of hope is NH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck, but human nature does not seem to be on your side.
      You've got people who are enjoying their freedom of not bothering with inconveniences like education or responsibilities so they stay as lazy as they can be under the circumstances. The same thing happened when the communists seized the means of production. There they had the chance to make a difference, give power back to the people by making them equals. But since your common citizen is too stupid to work out politics on a grander scale and rather drowns their woes in beer and entertainment they let others do it for them. And bam! Now you have a new bourgeoisie again - a government.
      I mean hypothetically such a libertarian utopia is possible with the correct people. You will have to select those people in a way that betrays your very own ideals. Maybe at some point natural selection will have taken care of lazy people, but the road you'll have to travel will be a difficult and probably bloody one.

  16. Nanny state! by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

    This is the sort of behavior one expects of a Democrat controlled government. Not the Repedocans. Oh yes, ever since Roy Moore, your party is forever attached to pedos. Sorry about that.

    Insults and jabs aside... stupid... about the only word in my vocabulary that describes this situation. Stupid. Like there isn't going to be 324082103 .onion sites to fill the void. Face it, you can't police or regulate the internet, it's designed to route around such stupidity.

    The harder you try, the more ugly it gets. Just leave it alone, cuz you can't influence it through laws and regulations. We just laugh at you.

    1. Re:Nanny state! by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      You really expect this more from Democrats than the party that wants big government in your bedroom (and basically anywhere but the boardroom)?

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  17. Re: The only place there is a bastion of hope is N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your precious new hampshire voted for the she-devil in 2016. That's some strange talk about freedom.

  18. USA owns the inter-tubes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... blocking Internet users in the United States ...

    Necessary because other countries let the USA own the inter-tubes. If one is dumb enough to brag on the internet about using a sex slave or underage prostitute, one deserves trouble. This should already be policed as the named brothel will want to exclude such blabbermouths from their services. Obviously, banning those confessions means politicians (and police) are helping the criminals.

    1. Re:USA owns the inter-tubes by ezdiy · · Score: 1

      This. Driving criminal elements underground by banning the easy conduits might not be productive - it's basically an act of polishing a turd. Cops don't bother picking up peons slinging on the street, they use those to walk up the supply chain and nip the source in the bud, not just shallow appearance of it.

      A sensible law would not seek to punish sex ad sites for being that. Instead, it would give more power to law enforcement to monitor these sites (request user info & IM dumps without court order, whatever). Carrot and stick.

      My favorite anecdote about this is a subreddit dedicated to illegal bitcoin markets. A few years ago, a user in there casually posted that Silk Road server exposes phpinfo() - revealing real IP address and hostname.

      A year later, Ross Ulbright was sentenced for lifetime for that single mistake.

      This wouldn't be possible with moralizing laws which simply bans all public visibility of such endeavors.

  19. I miss the days when the Internet was free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freedom is such a powerful thing. Which is exactly those in power hate it.

    The good old days will never come back.

    1. Re: I miss the days when the Internet was free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, the old golden age of feudalism and slave owners.

  20. Re: The only place there is a bastion of hope is N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is, of course, the Libertarian philosophy. Without government rules everyone will just do the âoerightâ thing. Companies would never do anything that might endanger their employees or the general population. Unfortunately we have several thousand years of contrary examples ( coal companies, sweat shops, polluted water.) Iâ(TM)ve lived in NH almost everyone is bats*t crazy. Remember this is the state whose governor wanted to arm the national guard with tactical nukes.

  21. Whoâ(TM)s next by Ensign_Expendable · · Score: 1

    I have to wonder if some eager prosecutor will go after sugar baby sites like Seeking Arrangement.

    1. Re:Whoâ(TM)s next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Make all gifts illegal. Make doing nice things for each other illegal.

  22. And RUBMAPS is now offline! by zantafio · · Score: 1

    Coincidence???

  23. this is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happened to the far right supporting freedom, they're clearly in my bed room with this law.

    America sucks, can States start seceding yet

  24. hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Signing this into law will be the single most hypocritical act of Trump's career.

  25. Good job, everybody! by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    First, it was the left's move to slowly shift from "illegal alien" to "undocumented immigrant" so that if someone is against illegal aliens, people on the left say he is against immigration, which is both a useful lie and a useful false conflation.

    Then, someone who is 19 is "a teenager" who should be coddled and treated like a 13 year old if he commits a crime. Unless he commits an horrific crime, then he is an adult.

    Now, people who are against sex work, mostly people on the right and the religious, have moved from "prostitution" to "sex trafficking" to falsely conflate prostitution with sex slavery so they can pass laws like this.

    No one has any right to complain about this because this tactic is used by all sides to try to get what they want and now it is being used to stifle free speech.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  26. They are All Prostitutes by sycodon · · Score: 1

    It is the rare woman who doesn't calculate earnings power into the formula for picking a mate.

    Gold Digger is a real thing and is perfectly reasonable when you think about it. Would a woman prefer to raise their children in poverty or in a wealthy household? Statistic have indicated that the two major causes of Divorce are arguments over money and infidelity. I suspect that one drives the other.

    A woman who dispenses with the charade of love and simply charges the going rate (transparency) is looked down on because she doesn't play the game.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:They are All Prostitutes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That only works if the guy wants a trophy wife and kids though. If they want a genuine relationship, companionship, support etc and/or are not so bothered about kids then the whole thing falls apart.

      And of course many women don't want to be totally dependent and only valued for their looks/womb too. Why else would they go to university/college in greater numbers than men if their main goal in life was to be a kept woman and a mother? Surely vast student debts would be a financial disincentive to marry them, and most of these guys looking to rent a womb seem to prefer them dumb anyway.

      There seem to be some flaws in the MGTOW theory of modern relationships.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:They are All Prostitutes by sycodon · · Score: 0

      Even Educated women prefer men of means. Why would they want to carry a guy who earns less than they do?

      What makes it even worse for the guy is that educated women who are making a good living have even less reasons to stick around. Vows these days are optional. When any argument ultimately ends up with the woman threatening to divorce (because she can financially, and the legal system will generally assure that she comes out on top) what is a guy supposed to?

      Statistics show that most of the time men get the short end of the stick. Emotionally, legally, financially.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    3. Re:They are All Prostitutes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Even Educated women prefer men of means. Why would they want to carry a guy who earns less than they do?

      Because they like him? Because they think he would be a good father? Because they aren't obsessed with money and/or realize that it's more fun to spend with someone than alone?

      When any argument ultimately ends up with the woman threatening to divorce (because she can financially, and the legal system will generally assure that she comes out on top)

      The legal situation isn't like that around here, and even in the US it seems like being a single mother has many down sides, not least that it can be very difficult to get the father to actually contribute.

      But more importantly none of this explains why women marry guys who don't earn much and never will, or why they stay in abusive relationships if divorce is such a great option.

      Thinking women are that way seems like a sure-fire way to end up lonely, resentful and angry, when you could be enjoying their company.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:They are All Prostitutes by sycodon · · Score: 0

      Being a single mother seems to be a badge of honor in the US.

      Spending time with someone, enjoying their company, isn't the same as being in a monogamous, committed relationship...marriage.

      That's my whole point. Why put yourself in jeopardy when you can just as easily, and more safely, treat the relationship as the business transaction it actually is?

      There will always be the minority who stay in abusive relationships and marry beneath them (financially). Who knows why? But the divorce rates and the outcomes for men are empirical evidence that marriage is a treacherous thing for them.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  27. VPN? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can you find anyone local? They have U.S. search turned off even with it on.