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."
I for one can't wait until the politicians who approved this bill have users post links "illegal" sites and they get hauled off to jail.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Since everyone in Congress told us this bill was necessary to take down Backpage.com, are they going to after them now?
If you hate this country and individual rights so much why not move to Bullshit Mountain?
Charges were unsealed and the people who run the site were arrested at the same time.
That was before the law was officially signed which tells you just how badly some people were wanting to take the site down.
Most UGC is being claimed as copyrighted by the providers, if they want the rights to it then deal with the consequences. The solution here is decentralization and self-hosting of your content.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I don't think Slashdot knowingly assisted you in sex trafficking.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Which would have been sufficient under the old system. Under the new rules they can be held responsible if the government thinks they should have know about it and stopped it.
For most sites with User-Generated content for the business model. Normally have ways to find and remove inappropriate material.
Otherwise their forums would fall apart from all the chatter and abusers. Doing this type of work to keep the forums clean in general is a good business practice to keep their business model.
The sites at risk are ones who just say "don't do that" with a wink-wink-nudge-nudge and cry when they are being targeted because there is illegal activity going on and they are not doing anything about it, behind a twisted version of free speech.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
In the wake of this?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
Trump didn't act unilaterally this time. The bill passed in the Senate 97-2: https://www.democrats.senate.g...
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!
It's ok. Any law that tangentially severely stifles speech has always been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Without picking a side, I'd like to point out the interesting dichotomy we have here.
On the one had, with regards to the Second 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 Second is outdated, that the founders never saw Semiautomatic weapons coming, etc.
On the other hand, presumably those same people absolutely stand against a law the also arguably infringes on Free Speech rights and arguably for a purpose just as valid as their Second Amendment statements. After all, the Founding Fathers could never had imagined that a 12 year old girl could be purchased anywhere on the continent with the click of a button. (Ironically, 12 year old girls were practically marriage material back then.)
I guess a silver lining in all of this is that pretty much everyone will become acutely aware of the consequences of infringing on any of our Constitutional Rights, no matter how well intentioned.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It's hard to stomach a law meant to curb bad sexual behavior signed by Mr. "Grab 'em by the pussy".
The sites most at risk are the ones without massive piles of cash and overseas backups that would allow them to survive law enforcement testing out the new law. That is why so many sites decided to self censor. By the letter of the law very few of them would likely be involation, esp since it includes a section talking about the intent of the changes. However, many of the sites are scared about the law being used against them in a way that would destroy their business even if the case was thrown out.
I've been contemplating how to relate this to the real world.
I think this is equivalent to being able to criminally and civilly charge a hotel chain if any prostitution occurs on their property that they didn't take measures to stop. They must then spy on all of their clients to at least try to be able to prove that they were taking reasonable steps to make sure that no prostitution is occurring on their property. Since that would be nearly impossible to perfectly perform, the only solution they'd have to be truly safe from any prosecution is to not allow any more than one person in a room at a time.
All of that leads me to question whether this law is an attempt to ban social discourse on the web because the only effective defense is to not allow more than one person in a conversation.
Who could have seen this coming, besides anyone who gave it a moment’s thought?
The new federal legislation that closed down Backpage.com "is creating an actual market for pimps."
WaPo reports on the unintended consequences of the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act.
According to The Guardian, the site allowed sex workers to screen potential online clients before meeting them in person. It was a simple layer of safety without resorting to pimps for protection. These deals, that were once handled online, will now be pushed back into the open streets, leaving women on their own to protect.
The Internet disintermediates. Take away the Internet, and you get re-intermediation.
It's going to be really funny when they have to shut down Twitter and the POTUS will have no way to communicate with the outside world.
Our Craiglist personal pages work just fine. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to write a reply to a woman who only wants to go shopping at Holt Renfrew in exchange for me to experience her one hour bikini Jello wrestling in-call only services.
DaveyJJ
SCOTUS proved with the DC vs. Heller decision about the "well regulated militia" clause once and for all. If you don't like the 2A, campaign to have a Constitutional amendment made to repeal it.
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.
That removal is now a business critical action. The concept of what actions will show that a service took reasonable precautions to prevent being a party to any trafficking will be a moving bar defined by 12 jurors at a time.
Also, what sites this applies to is very unclear. To be safe, you had better be reading it as all sites on which people may publicly or privately communicate. News sites with editors approving every article and no commenting allowed should be safe, but little else.
It is also not limited to written communication. Microsoft, for example, understands this. It is certainly the reason for the Skype censorship recently in the news.
We should see censorship announcements in all of the email systems and all messaging systems of any type start pouring out in the near future. Facetime, for example, is at its root an internet service. Even most phone traffic today could be argued to be internet service though, other, more explicit laws, may override censoring them.
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.
How FOSTA Could Give Hollywood the Filters It's Long Wanted
We can use this site to ask for sex
"Wanted to buy __ girl"
Troll farms must pay below minimum wage. That didn't make any sense. No TOS were violated. It was an arbitrary and capricious decision.
People think this law effects only sections that allow for "personals" and "adult" type categories. Actually, this law is so vague it can be applied to any web site that has a comments section or allows a user to post a message. This means about 99.99% of every web site out there can potentially be shut down. Even this web site, if someone posts an ad about prostitution in the comments section, this web site owners are liable for that content.
Let's see... people are using the internet to 'date.' And somehow this is a really awful thing, so, I know what to do. Let's blame the websites! They look like nice rich folks who'll be able to fill lawyer pockets with cash to fight this.
I notice a lot of politicians and lawmakers tend to be lawyers or judges before they were politicians. Ever get the feeling they're doing stuff like this to generate income for their lawyer buddies? I mean, this is a really really ugly can of worms and you're going after the websites instead of the individuals that're actually the bad actors. Talk about backwards, stupid and defective. Just wow.
Yeah, I dunno. Seems like government is trying to push everything into the dark web, so they can have a clean kid-friendly, politically-correct internet for the masses. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a good thing, but maybe it'll force the trolls and their ilk in to the dark web too. Then we can have a happy cloud with no dirty spots, no controversy, and certainly no free-speech. Good job?
See, in a liberal's mind, being forced to adhere to your terms of service is a grave injustice, but being forced to make a political statement you disagree with is just peachy.
The first amendment protects an intrinsic attribute of being a person, while the second regulates a very external piece of optional property that arguably exists only to destroy.
You are mistaken. In the constitutional era private ownership was key to having a "well-regulated" militia. "Well-regulated" in that era was commonly used to describe something as effectively functioning, in the militia context properly equipped and trained. This usage is less common today, the resulting confusion a matter how phraseology and fashion changes over the centuries.
... yet they are legally part of the inactive federal militia. Well, they don't have to show up until drafted, which is legally a transfer from inactive militia to the regular reserves.
Militia often carried their personal weapons, and those weapons were at times technologically superior to the military issued weapons. For example the Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles of hunters as opposed to the military issued muskets. The establishment of the right to private ownership helped ensure properly equipped militias. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The *people* have the right so that the militia will be equipped and trained (private ownership, hunting, private target shooting, etc).
Keep in mind that then, and *today*, the militia included all able bodied male citizens of military age. Today, the federal militia has both active and inactive components, the active the national guard and the inactive all abled bodied males age 18-45. The latter do *not* have to sign up, do *not* have to show up anywhere,
... 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 ...
You are misinformed. The Bill of Rights was specifically added to address what was considered fundamental rights, the inclusion of private ownership is its defacto establishment as fundamental. The fact that private ownership of firearms was the second item listed suggests its relative importance.
... well, until drafted, which is legally transferring you from inactive militia to regular reserves. So even today, the existence of a militia where all military age men are legal members, is a fundamental part of national defense. Its the legal underpinning of conscription, the draft.
... until you also consider that in the constitutional era it also had a "law enforcement" / "peace keeping" / "self defense" role. The later, self defense, is recognized by the US supplement court as a right derived from the second amendment. So the second amendment has a fundamental role to this day.
Private ownership of firearms was fundamental because the militia was a fundamental element of national defense in constitutional days, and local "law enforcement" to some degree. The "standing army", the regulars, was quite small. Militia members were commonly equipped with their personal privately owned weapons. The text of the second amendment is establishing the right to private ownership so that militias may be more easily equipped. In a practical sense militias had sometimes been better equipped than the regulars, for example the Pennsylvania and Kentucky rifles some militia brought from home compared to the muskets issued by the army.
You might argue that we have a large regular army, that the national guard is the modern citizen soldiers / militia, and police forces. True, but that does not change the legal fact that we also still have a federal militia to this day and the national guard is defined to be only part of that militia, the active part. There is also an inactive part that by federal law is composed of all able bodied males age 18-45. This inactive part required no signing up, there is no obligation to show up anywhere
While militia called to active service (drafted civilians) no longer need to bring their own weapons, the fact remains that in constitutional days this was common, hence fundamental, hence the reason a personal individual right to firearms was established, a right that helped ensure that militias were "well-regulated", ie properly equipped and trained.
OK, beyond the draft, a federal militia is a bit of an anachronism
Not to mention from a technology standpoint, porn is an incredible bandwidth hog.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
There is a difference. Since you obviously don't run a site with user-generated content, let me try an analogy to demonstrate the nature of the change.
Before FOSTA, if your house was messy, your friends wouldn't visit you as often and you have less fun. After FOSTA, your friends wouldn't visit you so often, you have less fun, and the you can be criminally charged and go to jail. This of course hits small-to-midscale sites that cannot afford 24-7 moderators and a dedicated legal department. My advice to these sites operating in the USA is this: move. Do it yesterday.
There is some very old supreme court case when someone claimed their sawed off shotgun was legal because of the militia.
US v. Miller btw. Interestingly at the time sawed off shotguns were in common use in the military. Miller died before trial though so they ruled without his side presenting anything.
Miller was dead and unrepresented before the USSC. The USSC literally said:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
And remanded the case back to lower court to make that determination which of course could not happen with MIller dead and unrepresented.
So if the prefatory clause means anything, it is that military *arms* are protected including real assault rifles. I would add that anything law enforcement uses, which includes much more than assault rifles, is an example of a weapon useful for a militia. That includes machine guns, batons, stun guns, tear gas in its various forms, and apparently explosives now.
no one here gets arrested for 'fucking a ho' ...its quite in the open, even the more conservative mayors would speak about "moving it to the edge of town" and not about RE-moving it ... and frankly if it werent for the nigerian mammadoc this year its barely ever in the news, no shooting or dead girls but that doesnt mean they get protection by law or anything, its a grey zone and the fact that nothing ever happens is probably why last year the nigerians could do what they did, smuggle underage girls into the place, otherwise that wouldnt have happened, for once i agree with the controlfreaks there, if its illegal the girls cant get protection from anyone but a pimp ... high class escorts can pay for a bodyguard to double as a driver but your €50 for a blow & go girl wouldnt
all stuck on ancient morals i suppose, but wherever its illegal it still happens, just like the dea has been winning the war on drugs which is why they dont need money anymore
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Yeah, like Republicans are going to vote in favor of business regulations.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.