Slashdot Mirror
Trump Signs Law Weakening Shield For Online Services (vice.com)
President Donald Trump has signed a new law aimed at curbing sex trafficking. From a report: The bill -- a mashup of the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA), which is commonly referred to as the latter -- passed Congress in March. It makes websites liable for what users say and do on their platforms, and many advocacy groups have come out against the bill, saying that it undermines essential internet freedoms.
It could be months -- or as late as January 2019 -- before FOSTA is enacted and anyone could be charged under the law. But even in the days immediately after the bill passed in Congress, platforms started scrambling to proactively shut down forums or whole sites where sex trafficking could feasibly happen. Fringe dating websites, sex trade and advertising forums, and even portions of Craigslist were taken down in the weeks following, while companies like Google started strictly enforcing terms of service around sexual speech. Commenting on the development, EFF said, "As we've already seen, this bill silences online speech by forcing Internet platforms to censor their users."
It could be months -- or as late as January 2019 -- before FOSTA is enacted and anyone could be charged under the law. But even in the days immediately after the bill passed in Congress, platforms started scrambling to proactively shut down forums or whole sites where sex trafficking could feasibly happen. Fringe dating websites, sex trade and advertising forums, and even portions of Craigslist were taken down in the weeks following, while companies like Google started strictly enforcing terms of service around sexual speech. Commenting on the development, EFF said, "As we've already seen, this bill silences online speech by forcing Internet platforms to censor their users."
If you hate this country and individual rights so much why not move to Bullshit Mountain?
This would all be much simpler if we'd just legalize & regulate prostitution already.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
As an afficionado of trolling attempts; this one caught my eye. Notice the playful way in which he's attempting to elicit a response by hitting the key points of "think of the children" and then accusing those who disagree of being zealots. Then by calling out founding father's and using a bit of .. what can only be called "psychic wizardry" to ascertain what a group of people who died 200 odd years ago were actually thinking (despite them being very, very clear in the phrasing) he's attempting to reel you in by basically saying: "Hey, i'm just like you - a patriotic American! This shouldn't be controversial!"
But then he sadly botches the landing with that last sentence. Hitting the 'think of the children' trope yet again, he ruins the craftsmanship of the previous sentences.
All in all, i'd give it a 5/10. Good potential though, keep it up!
Not really. The 2nd Amendment specifically refers to "a well-regulated militia".
In constitutional days well-regulated meant equipped and trained to an effective level, it did *not* mean having all your regulatory paperwork and permissions in order.
Also to this day by federal law the federal militia includes all able bodied male citizens age 18-45. There is no enlistment, no signup, no requirement to show up anywhere and train, you are in automatically. This is the "inactive" component component of the militia, the national guard is the "active" component of the militia. The national guard is not the entire militia. Armed citizens with no prior armed forces affiliation are also part of the federal militia.
Almost no other parts of the Constitution and Amendments include a rationale, so the only reasonable interpretation is that the rationale was included for a specific reason. It's no different than advocating for patent reform because one feels that the current system is not meeting the purpose explicitly given in the Constitution.
Armed citizens with no prior armed forces affiliation are also part of the federal militia. Hence the 2nd amendment being an individual right that supports the militia. And as others have pointed out the 2nd amendment has also been ruled an individual right with respect to self defense. Which also has a historical tie to the militia. In colonial/constitutional days the militia was not just used for military conflict, it could also be used to suppress riots, defend against and/or arrest bandits, etc.
Many advocacy groups have come out against the bill, saying that it undermines essential internet freedoms.
Of course it does. That's the fucking point.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Without picking a side, I'd like to point out the interesting dichotomy we have here.
Without picking a side, let me also point out another interesting dichotomy: with regards to the First Amendment, some people are more than willing to infringe on Rights when they believe the greater good would be served . Often making the argument that the First is outdated, that the founders could never have imagined the internet, etc.
On the other hand, presumably those same people absolutely stand against a law the also arguably infringes on Gun Ownership rights and arguably for a purpose just as valid as their First Amendment statements. After all, the Founding Fathers could never had imagined that gun ownership would become what it is today, a tool to support tyranny (by luring a large proportion of the population into believing that tyranny is impossible as long as they are allowed to own a gun. It's land for beads).
The difference between youir dichotomy and mine, is perhaps free speech is a fundamental right necessary of the upholding of liberty, and gun ownership has no actual impact on a persons liberty, anymore than the "right' to buy toothpaste, or certain sorts of drugs.
It's never consensual when there is a big power imbalance.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!