Senate approves anti-sex-trafficking bill

We're talking about something that is already illegal and something that law enforcement already has all the tools they want to go after it if they so desired. So what are we really talking about here? It sure isn't about sex-trafficking and pedophilia. Those activities won't be curbed in the least by this bill. It will continue on as it has since the dawn of human civilization. As will the practice of psychopaths rising to positions of power and trying to take control over everyone they perceive as beneath them.

originally posted by: sooth
We're talking about something that is already illegal and something that law enforcement already has all the tools they want to go after it if they so desired. So what are we really talking about here? It sure isn't about sex-trafficking and pedophilia. Those activities won't be curbed in the least by this bill. It will continue on as it has since the dawn of human civilization. As will the practice of psychopaths rising to positions of power and trying to take control over everyone they perceive as beneath them.

DITTO

I give them the benefit of the doubt and just say they are confused.

However they have not agreed on anything this much since his presidency.

Just look at what they will all say when he does not sign the bill.

However there is one shred of hope that it will not be signed and that is that the justice department does not support the bill so he does have some ground to stand on if he trashes this bill.

originally posted by: drewlander
a reply to: rickymouse

I'll star you for contribution but can you be more specific how this will get someone in trouble for flirting?

It seems that when a law is passed, some people try to inappropriately use that law to get back at people they do not like. It has always been that way. People will be turned in for things they say which is twisted to interpret it in a way it was not meant to say. This happens a lot even by accident, someone will say something they think they are saying appropriately and half the people hearing it take it wrong. It happens here on ATS quite often and it happens in the real world a lot too.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: rickymouse

If it’s the same law I heard about. It requires every isp to provide a feature that sorts any possible incoming data and can block what they choose.

Supposedly, all the “adult material” as well as child/revenge porn.

Any program set up to sort all the data, can inherently do whatever it wants..


TPTB should just find, track and hack the websites..


Use the websites as bait.

Websites are already being used as bait to track down pediphiles. I suppose they will just expand the practice with this law.

a reply to: howtonhawky

t paves the way to remove any and all freedom from you the user of the web. It has to be stopped. This will pave the way to silence the net as we know it because it will usher in a tyrannical state where your rights are no longer philosophically taken away but in a literal way they will be killing free speech.

How?

According to the source in the tread to which you link, the bill sort of amends the safe harbor statue of the DMCA so that it will be possible to prosecute websites which knowingly help or promote sex trafficking.

I am on board with that.

As far as I can see, the burden of proof still lies with the government, so for the safe harbor statue to be disregarded, the government first has to show that you 'knowingly help or promote sex trafficking'.

And really, I am on board with that.


What in the bill do you find troublesome?

I can understand why the morally bankrupt would not want to limit sex trafficking online (it kind of ruins their party), but for normal people, this should be a good thing.

Overall though, I find the selective moral outrage at censorship and surveillance to be most amusing.

i think what people are wary of is this part:

Additionally, it establishes enhanced penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 25 years, or both—for a person who commits the offense in one of the following aggravating circumstances: (1) promotes or facilitates the prostitution of five or more persons, or (2) acts with reckless disregard that such conduct contributes to sex trafficking.

www.congress.gov...

This is a killer to any site that allows user to user communication.

Including web mail services and chat boards of nearly every site on the internet.

It makes it so that a provider has to check every message sent over the internet.

To think that only morally bankrupt people are against this is ignorant of it's contents and short sided.

It would not matter if folks were using code words on a site and the auto censors caught them. The site would still get shut down.

FOSTA is indeed an internet killer.

They may not use the law to it's full extent at first but someone will come along one day and tighten the bolt of tyranny.

Please people educate yourselves on this action before we lose our freedom.

The safest way to eliminate sex trafficking is to be able to regulate and monitor the industry.

How will they ever know is someone is being trafficked and held beyond there will if there is no trace of such?

This bill will remove first amendment protections and force companies on the net to become one way communication outlets.

It will create a more hostile working environment for sex sellers and leed to unsafe conditions for all involved cause you are not gonna make the coochie any less valuable by shutting up the internet.

For those who choose to give up freedom for security get neither. Some great guy givin statue likeness said that before his statue was removed in the name of feel good justice. Maybe not but there are attempts made to do so.

Do not be foolish stand up for our rights and heritage cause that is where we get our rights.

Ever heard the term blood in blood out.......

ALSO note that this bill is retro active!

Craigslist has already removed all their dating pages in hopes of dodging the possible prosecution.

I get it people that many of you do not like my past posting history and i did not want to be the one bringing you this news but flag this now and get the message out or please form a more better thread yourself and get the message out. It is not about my views or your views but it is about ALL OF OUR VIEWS.

We are standing on a cliff

This is not at all about limiting sex trafficking.

This is specifically designed to remove our freedom of speech.

techdirt

As we've been discussing, this afternoon, the House voted both on Rep. Mimi Walters' bad amendment to attach SESTA to FOSTA, and then on the combined bill -- and both sailed through Congress. Somewhat incredibly, this happened even though the Justice Department weighed in with a last minute letter saying that the language in the combined SESTA/FOSTA is so poorly drafted that it would actually make it more difficult to prosecute sex traffickers, and also calling into question whether or not the bill was even Constitutional.

Here you go MR.President
you love the law and here is your way out.
forget about the past and brace yourself for the name calling that will ensue but stand up for the freedom and country you love.

, this was passed on March 22nd before Congress went on another vacation. What's taking so long to have it signed?

congress.gov

If i have any spiritual power then i am now vetoing the bill.

Daily Beast

On March 21, Senate passed SESTA, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017, with a vote of 97-2. And already the bill, an iteration of the FOSTA legislation that cleared the House in February, has had a destabilizing and demoralizing effect on individuals who trade sex.

By contrast, the Senate bill would require proof that a website “knowingly participate[d] in the sex trafficking of children or sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion.” But, according to Splinter, “Advocates remain concerned that Congress will revert to the House’s original language when the two bills are reconciled and the final version likely ends up on the president’s desk.”

survivors against sesta

to track shut downs

im not sure, this one seems like its pretty tightly defined to apply to sex trafficking specifically.

a reply to: underwerks

Nope they would not. I argued that freedom of speech for pedos talking to kids online should not be a thing but some here argued it is their freedom of speech right to do so.

We do not need any new laws.

We need current laws to be enforced.

If things illegal are currently not being prosecuted then what makes one believe they will begin to prosecute them with a new law.

The lack of enforcement of existing laws and push for new laws only highlights alliterative motives for the new laws.

In this case it gives total control of the speech on the net over to the government.

It does through the need to monitor all internet activity by site operators and will force sites to shut down due to operating cost and by way of guilt by association via message boards. ALL MESSAGE BOARDS WILL BE EFFECTED

What do you think happens to young,hispanic women that are brought here across the southern border? Does that sex trafficking count?

a reply to: neo96

I believe the Senate refers to them as "reverse rapists".

Its already starting backpage has been seized:

www.google.com...

Backpage has been under increasing pressure in recent years, in part because it featured ads that included what child advocates said were code words for underage girls, including “Amber Alert.”

Oh wait "Amber Alert" isnt that great of a code word... it pretty much defines that the ad is about underaged girls.