(S. 1693) - Bill w/ Cencorship Loophole, Voting 2/27/18

This bill (S. 1693) is being voted on in the House on TUESDAY 2/27/18. If passed it will be the death of MANY WEBSITES and SEVERE CENSORSHIP. We cannot allow this to happen, WRITE, EMAIL and CALL your Congressman!!!

The government is creating a loophole where website owners will be responsible for what EVERY visitor posts/comments!!!

If this law passes the government (or any visitor) essentially can shut down ANY website. Comments/Posts involving sex trafficking will allow the Feds to move on the site's owners resulting in arrests/fines/jail. basically its a loophole allowing the orchestration of an online FALSE FLAG against any targeted site.

Website owners are liable for strangers visiting the site, that is the root issue disguised as combating "human trafficking".

[this Bill will cause small sites to shutdown right away and the major websites will be running MASSIVE CENSORSHIP and POLITICAL AGENDAS.
Websites like voat.co and 4chan will be forced to shutdown...GONE!!!]

FULL SUMMARY:
(1.) kek.gg...
(2.) www.govtrack.us...

It might be useful to read what this is about.

Ever since a 1996 law, no internet website or company can be penalized for content a user posts. That’s why Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, or Reddit can’t be sued when anybody uses their platform to post hate speech or advocations of violence or terrorism.

The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act would open a crack in that prohibition. The bill would allow the government to prosecute websites which knowingly help or promote sex trafficking, and also allow users to sue those websites.

The word “knowingly” is key there, as the legislation was sparked by the results a Senate investigative report in July titled “Backpage.com’s Knowing Facilitation of Online Sex Trafficking” which found that the website consciously allowed advertisements for child prostitution and other similar crimes.

Source in post above.

"knowingly help or promote sex trafficking" is the key here. I believe your claims that the government can move against a web site because someone visits the site are really absurd. This bill is aimed at Backpage, not Facebook.

a reply to: schuyler

Caution is good. What the government says is the goal and the actual end result are not always the same.

Civil forfeiture laws say hello.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Agreed. An example is somebody hacks the passwords of old longtime inactive ATS accounts, and posting on their profile page sex trafficking content. That then could be the loophole to attack ATS.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Startups used to give out promotional CD's, DVD's and ISO files with their domain name and website as a reference. Sometimes built into an autoloader. Those websites disappear as the startup gets bought out. Then that domain gets claimed by advertisers, and then used for spam baiting to get clicks.