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the website from the United States until such time as the courts have enjoined enforcement of the law, the law has been repealed or amended, or TER has found a way to sufficiently address any legal concerns created by the new law," the website's home page says in a notice to anyone who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.
"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the website from the United States until such time as the courts have enjoined enforcement of the law, the law has been repealed or amended, or TER has found a way to sufficiently address any legal concerns created by the new law," the website's home page says in a notice to anyone who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.
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.
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!"]
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."
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
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.
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"
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.
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."
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
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