Trump Signs Law Weakening Shield For Online Services (vice.com) 188
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."
Campaign websites will become targets (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I am looking for junior representatives in government -- young, willing, and eager to please me by enacting policies of my choosing, without citing their "seniority" as independence from me as a special interest. Make me feel like a very special interest. I want to feel your warmth in my pocket.
If you or some people you're able to acquire are able to perform this service for me, please contact. You'll find me to be a generous friend.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Nah, lawmakers will make certain there's an exemption for those in power just like the exemptions Congress has to "insider trading" laws so that they may enrich themselves via their foreknowledge regarding new laws, Acts. and actions of the government that affect stock prices.
I wonder how many people are checking to see if anyone in Congress has a softball game scheduled?
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
It's ok. Any law that tangentially severely stifles speech has always been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Now we can go after Backpage (Score:3)
Since everyone in Congress told us this bill was necessary to take down Backpage.com, are they going to after them now?
Yes. On Monday. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Or that this law is completely unnecessary and Backpage was just a strawman to get this power grab passed.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the law literally gives people the ability to go after sites for things they did before the law the passed, I'm pretty certain that this is the backup plan to these charges.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The more logical conclusion is that these things are unrelated.
Re: (Score:2)
But how would they do that without this law that they needed?
Re: (Score:3)
pro-tip: anytime you're engaged in an illegal activity of ANY kind at scale; you will almost by definition be involved in money laundering. (unless you have shoe-boxes full of cash in your house.. which is probably illegal all by itself in 2018)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Backpage was claiming that they had no connection to, and therefore wasn't responsible, for what users posted and what business was initiated, using their site.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know what this means... (Score:1)
How does anyone run an online dating site (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From outside of the US, I imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
Run the ad and people would buy the locally printed magazine for cash.
Bill was Bipartisan 97-2 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, after being told by everyone in the freaking world--police, investigators, sex trafficking experts--that it will actually cause more harm to victims of sex trafficking and make it harder for police to find them and intervene.
There are a ton of proposals out there that actually do things like put more funding up for investigation resources. FOSTA covers up the problem so we don't have to look at it, and causes it to fester even worse. People will die for this. 15-year-old hookers will be pimped and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These people didn't pass this because voters were demanding it; they passed it because they have no idea what they're doing.
My answer to the financial thing is to simply eliminate poverty. Right now I'm working on a completely-new approach to tax and income policy [google.com]. I've figured out a replacement for tax brackets and personal exemptions, and possibly the Standard Deduction. I'm not sure if there's an alternative to the Mortgage Interest deduction or SALT deductions (these were big topics for the GOP's
Re: (Score:2)
That's the big tragedy.
Vote against this, and you'll be labelled as being "pro-sex trafficking"
Try to give a nuanced answer as to why this bill is counter productive and very few people will listen.
Voting for or against a law is nearly always judged by the law's stated intent, not by it's effectiveness or by its unintended consequences.
Thanks for doing your bit to try and change it.
Re: (Score:2)
Try to give a nuanced answer as to why this bill is counter productive and very few people will listen.
Generally, very few people don't listen; speak up.
People got pissed at our State Senate recently for trying to put enormous penalties for violent and sexual crime re-offenders, with mandatory minimums [legiscan.com]. One Senator (yes, it was Zirkin) told me there were no mandatory minimums because the "no judge shall issue a sentence less than the minimum defined for these crimes" line leaves them open for review; of course, another clause says that these people aren't eligible for parole until they've served those mi
xeS roF ginkooL (Score:1)
Yeah - this will totally work.
Guvf jvyy gbgnyyl fbyir gur ceboyrz naq erqhpr genssvpxvat
All long-term, philosophical implications aside (Score:4, Funny)
It's hard to stomach a law meant to curb bad sexual behavior signed by Mr. "Grab 'em by the pussy".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's never consensual when there is a big power imbalance.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just butt hurt that there are girls that will be his groupies.
Is that okay? Then it ought ought to be okay to do so by the Internet.
The current situation is: it's illegal to advertise certain services on the Internet even if your are in a jurisdiction where those services are legal. Whereas, if you are the president, paying for prostitutes is a sign of your virility and attractiveness. Does that seem right to you?
What's the physical world equivalent to this? (Score:2)
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 b
Re: (Score:2)
China and communism when after what they saw as the 'Four Olds' of society: old customs, old culture, old habits and old ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]"Four_Olds"
Todays US SJW are going after The United States Constitution by granting US governments the color of law to make speech online illegal.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
In murder mysteries of a certain period, there are a lot of hotel detectives who seem to be primarily devoted to hindering the use of the place for extramarital or premarital sex. Having the house dick (which appears to be period usage, at least in the fiction) presumably meant the hotel couldn't be accused of allowing prostitution (or adultery or whatever...).
The Pimps' union must have good lobbyists (Score:5, Informative)
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." [blogspot.nl]
WaPo reports on the unintended consequences of the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act. [thelily.com]
According to The Guardian [theguardian.com], 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I Canada, meanwhile ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is anybody surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Slash dot too (Score:1)
We can use this site to ask for sex
"Wanted to buy __ girl"
this law effects *every* website (Score:2)
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.
Stifling! (Score:2)
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 aft
You could move (Score:1, Insightful)
If you hate this country and individual rights so much why not move to Bullshit Mountain?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This would all be much simpler if we'd just legalize & regulate prostitution already.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, like Republicans are going to vote in favor of business regulations.
-
Re:1st amendment zealots (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Dichotomy (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
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.
Not really. The 2nd Amendment specifically refers to "a well-regulated 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.
Re: Dichotomy (Score:2)
And every other right in the Bill of Rights is acknowledged as an individual Right.
Supremes agree the Second is an individual Right also
Re: (Score:2)
No other right in the Bill of Rights has a rationale attached. The Supremes have changed their minds before, and have demonstrably been wrong on the interpretation of the Constitution (I mean, if they change their minds, they were wrong either before or after).
SCOTUS proved you wrong... (Score:1)
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.
All able bodied 18-45 in militia (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Further, his position implicitly argues that members of the "militia", all able bodied make citizens (let's throw in women these days), should actually be able to purchase M-16s and other military rifles.
Re: (Score:2)
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 m
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I don't think that is quite true. Congress does get to organize and decide the training standards of the militia (Article I, Clause 15 & 16), and as things have it, they have essentially made organization and training for the militia into joining the National Guard (ie active military) and any militia which hasn't done so is not covered by articles of war and can be tried for disobeience.Larger discussion here. [justia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I don't think that is quite true. Congress does get to organize and decide the training standards of the militia (Article I, Clause 15 & 16), and as things have it, they have essentially made organization and training for the militia into joining the National Guard (ie active military) and any militia which hasn't done so is not covered by articles of war and can be tried for disobeience.Larger discussion here. [justia.com]
I used "active" and "inactive" when I should have used "organized" and "unorganized". Apologies for any confusion. The national guard remains only part of the militia, the organized part, the remaining able bodied males of military age with no existing connection to the armed forces whatsoever the unorganized part:
"10 U.S. Code 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of t
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that is quite true. Congress does get to organize and decide the training standards of the militia (Article I, Clause 15 & 16), and as things have it, they have essentially made organization and training for the militia into joining the National Guard (ie active military) and any militia which hasn't done so is not covered by articles of war and can be tried for disobeience.Larger discussion here. [justia.com]
This was specifically discussed during ratification. It is a right of the *people* and says so because otherwise, Congress could disarm the people simply by disbanding the militia. They were very cognizant of the difference between an unorganized militia (the people) and a "select" militia which is the National Guard.
Re: (Score:3)
The 'militia' in the context of the 1790 meant all able bodied males that might be eligible for military service. That means YOU.
In the genuine historical context you are trying to distort, YOU personally would be responsible for owning an M-16 and knowing how to use it. You would also be expected to go off adventuring with the Army whenever called to do so.
You are also deeply confused about patent reform. If anything, most ideas about IP reform in general are about getting back to practices closer to what
Re: (Score:3)
The 2nd Amendment mentions the militia as a REASON for having the right (and not necessarily the only reason). But note that it says that the right belongs to "the PEOPLE" and not "the MILITIA."
But, let's assume that you are right. So, you are encouraging anybody who wants to own guns to join a local organized militia. Is that what your argument is? Do you really WANT people joining militias? Or would the thought of your neighbors bein
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Make sure and provide reputable links when making outlandish claims.
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously don't think human trafficking is a thing, eh?
Are you also denying that Pagepage.com was pimping underage women? [npr.org]
Seriously?
Maybe someone should be checking your computer.
Re: (Score:1)
You seriously don't think human trafficking is a thing, eh?
I didn't say that. I was questioning YOUR claim:
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.
Please, post links where one can purchase a 12 year old girl with the click of a button. In the USA (I assume that's what you mean by anywhere on the continent, and referring to the founding fathers).
Re: (Score:2)
Check the link. It discusses trafficking of underage girls on the internet.
Last I looked, you buy things on the internet by clicking a button.
Re: (Score:2)
Check the link. It discusses trafficking of underage girls on the internet.
Last I looked, you buy things on the internet by clicking a button.
Right, so because people involved with human trafficking use the internet (like most of humanity), it therefore follows that in the USA, you can but a 12 year old girl with the click of a button.
FUD much?
Re: (Score:2)
I find the claim frighteningly plausible. Of course, I have no idea where to go to get the button in question, or any desire to buy a 12-year-old.
Re: (Score:2)
I find the claim frighteningly plausible.
Do you see any difference between finding something plausible and claiming it as a fact? That's my point.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I do. However, something that's plausible isn't really FUD, as you claimed it was.
Re: Dichotomy (Score:2)
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.)
Adding a button into the process doesn't change anything. It would have been FAR easier to purchase a 12 year old girl back in their time than it is today, especially given that age of consent laws were nonexistent, bordellos were considered a legitimate business, and girls as young as 11 worked as prostitutes.
Plus there was that whole "slavery" thing back then which meant that you could buy a black girl of any age you wanted whenever the hell you pleased.
Re:Dichotomy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Private ownership key to "well-regulated militia" (Score:2)
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.
Militia often carried their personal weapons, and those weapons were at times technologically superior to the military issued wea
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, but I've been told that witty ripostes pointing out hypocrisy falls in the realm of Whataboutism.
Re: (Score:2)
Private ownership of firearms fundamental ... (Score:2)
... 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.
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 regul
Re: (Score:2)
1. If I live in a democratic country and we decide (jointly) to restrict access to guns, and then later there is a problem and the government must be overthrown, does the fact there is a law saying "you can'
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not arguing about it's utility at the time it was drafted. It might have served it's intended purpose for a while, it might not have. The fact is, in modern times, the 'right' to own a gun is no more essential to liberty than the 'right' to own toothpaste or pseudoephedrine.
You ignore the right to self defense, which the Supreme Court recognized as a right derived from the second amendment. Self defense being a historic militia activity as well, so the spirit of the original militia persists into modernity in that sense. Actually it exists in rare other senses as well, suppressing a riot for example, witness the armed business owners of the 1990s LA riots. Only the militia in the sense of military conflict is obsolete.
Re: (Score:2)
You ignore the right to self defense, which the Supreme Court recognized as a right derived from the second amendment. Self defense being a historic militia activity as well, so the spirit of the original militia persists into modernity in that sense. Actually it exists in rare other senses as well, suppressing a riot for example, witness the armed business owners of the 1990s LA riots. Only the militia in the sense of military conflict is obsolete.
In many countries, people are fined and pay compensation to shop owners if they break or damage property. This especially applies to countries based on Common Law, because people should be allowed to make mistakes and not be summarily executed without trial. People possess fundamental rights, shop windows do not. Common Law means that humans, no matter how lowly they are perceived to be by society,
Re: (Score:2)
So you accept the argument that guns are useless for defending against tyranny, which is what I actually said.
Actually you said "gun ownership has no actual impact on a persons liberty". Self defense is exercising liberty so you are mistaken. Another personal liberty would be engaging in hunting and sport shooting. You seem rather misinformed on this topic.
... citizens are rioting as an expression of grievance against the government ...
There is no right to riot. In the 1990 LA riots Korean shopkeepers were specifically targeted for violence by some rioters. The arson that accompanies some riots can also endanger lives. Your assumption that rioting is about breaking glass windows further demons
Re: (Score:2)
Actually you said "gun ownership has no actual impact on a persons liberty".
That's true, I did say that, but in the conversation you replied to, I said: In the United States, however, a large proportion of the population think that owning a gun will magically prevent tyranny. That is frankly absurd. Might as well swap that gun for a statue of Ba'al carved from a bar of soap, and then pray to
Re: (Score:2)
Hence my assumption that you agree that this oft quoted trope is a fantasy.
I'd agree with "fantasy", I wouldn't necessarily agree with "oft quoted". Except possibly in the sense of a minority opinion disproportionately quoted due to its outrageous nature and/or for framing a discussion purposes.
Self defense is exercising liberty so you are mistaken
Those two statements don't belong together. And your view is one dimensional. There is nothing wrong with reasonable self defence. But if one citizen shoots another then the net result is a loss of liberty, since a dead person cannot exercise any liberty. For this reason a true libertarian will always seek to minimise instances where that scenarios can arise. Logically then, the presence of guns in such a scenario is a negative to the overall exercise of liberty.
Reasonable self defense has nothing to do with the instruments used in that defense, reasonableness has to do with the nature of the situation. You also naively assume that self defense requires the discharge of a firearm (example below). And your logic fails with respect to net liberty, a
Re: (Score:3)
By the way, I note with interest your signature. That seems to strongly imply that you see yourself as living under fascism. Why didn't your guns prevent that with their magical powers?
Re: (Score:2)
You read the sig incorrectly.
Since you apparently live in Disneyland, I'm not surprised.
Re: (Score:2)
You read the sig incorrectly.
You don;t live under tyranny. So you are a part of the tyranny?
Re: (Score:2)
Do I really have to explain that sentence to you?
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live, Disneyland?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yo, asshole.
Go Fuck Yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, presumably those same people absolutely stand against a law the also arguably infringes on Free Speech rights
I don't think that should be presumed. If 97% of congress passes a bill in a bipartisan way, then they've probably done polls showing that Americans largely support the bill.
Re: (Score:1)
In the immortal words of W.C. Fields
Go away, kid, ya bother me.
Re: (Score:2)
Minors aren't allowed to own hand guns in most jurisdictions. They are quite capable of handling small rifles if adequately supervised. Some kids start hunting at that age. The Boy Scouts also train kids that age in handling guns (and archery).
When are you going to come for the knives (like our idiot cousins across the pond)?
You must have been great fun in industrial arts class.
In another way to look at this (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 anyt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 thes
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Slashdot knowingly assisted you in sex trafficking.
Re: (Score:2)
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.