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website from the United States until such time as the courts have enjoined enforcement of the law, the law has been repealed or amended, or TER has found a way to sufficiently address any legal concerns created by the new law," the website's home page says in a notice to anyone who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website from the United States until such time as the courts have enjoined enforcement of the law, the law has been repealed or amended, or TER has found a way to sufficiently address any legal concerns created by the new law," the website's home page says in a notice to anyone who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