Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

U.S. Congress Passes SESTA/FOSTA Law

posted by martyb on Friday March 23 2018, @01:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the The-best-laid-schemes-o'-mice-an'-men-[an'-Congress]-Gang-aft-agley dept.

takyon writes:

In Passing SESTA/FOSTA, Lawmakers Failed to Separate Their Good Intentions from Bad Law

The U.S. Senate just voted 97-2 to pass the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA, H.R. 1865), a bill that silences online speech by forcing Internet platforms to censor their users. As lobbyists and members of Congress applaud themselves for enacting a law tackling the problem of trafficking, let's be clear: Congress just made trafficking victims less safe, not more.

The version of FOSTA that just passed the Senate combined an earlier version of FOSTA (what we call FOSTA 2.0) with the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA, S. 1693). The history of SESTA/FOSTA—a bad bill that turned into a worse bill and then was rushed through votes in both houses of Congress—is a story about Congress' failure to see that its good intentions can result in bad law. It's a story of Congress' failure to listen to the constituents who'd be most affected by the laws it passed. It's also the story of some players in the tech sector choosing to settle for compromises and half-wins that will put ordinary people in danger.

[...] Throughout the SESTA/FOSTA debate, the bills' proponents provided little to no evidence that increased platform liability would do anything to reduce trafficking. On the other hand, the bills' opponents have presented a great deal of evidence that shutting down platforms where sexual services are advertised exposes trafficking victims to more danger.

Freedom Network USA—the largest national network of organizations working to reduce trafficking in their communities—spoke out early to express grave concerns [.pdf] that removing sexual ads from the Internet would also remove the best chance trafficking victims had of being found and helped by organizations like theirs as well as law enforcement agencies.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
U.S. Congress Passes SESTA/FOSTA Law | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 73 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @03:16PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @03:16PM (#657140)

    You miss the point. This has nothing to do with sex trafficking.

    It has everything to do with internet censorship.

    Today on WSWS: Behind the Facebook data scandal: The drive to censor the Internet [wsws.org].

    The harvesting of the personal information of some 50 million Facebook users by Cambridge Analytica raises serious privacy concerns. But the media firestorm sparked by the synchronized release of the story by the New York Times and the Guardian has far darker and more nefarious motives. Using the election data scandal as a cover, the media, working with the intelligence agencies and leading congressional Democrats, is seeking to create the climate for a crackdown on political opposition on the world’s largest social network.

    It's merely a happy coincidence tying in with #MeToo that creating an atmosphere of sexual repression tends to create support for war. We're heading for World War 3, and the moon matrix is preparing you.

    See also WSWS' articles on the CIA takeover of the D team. The CIA takeover of the Democratic Party [wsws.org].

    In a three-part series [wsws.org] published last week, the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.

    Unless

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   1  

  • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by arcz on Friday March 23 2018, @03:48PM (5 children)

    by arcz (4501) on Friday March 23 2018, @03:48PM (#657150) Journal
    The CIA is takin over the democratic party. That's concerning. Obviously they want to shut down dissent. It's time we fought for reason and truth, and that means disbanding the CIA, NSA and other secret operatives. A first world country does not need spies and others who violate the sovereignty of other nations. We do not need our privacy invaded at the behest of the illegal article I fisa courts which are unconstitutional as you cannot appeal to an article III court.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 23 2018, @05:42PM (4 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday March 23 2018, @05:42PM (#657188) Journal

      I feel like you're mangling some talking point you heard somewhere...

      All courts are Article III courts because Article III of the Constitution is what creates the Judicial branch of our government.

      Article I creates the Legislative branch, which has no courts.
      Article II creates the Executive branch, which has no courts.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday March 23 2018, @06:52PM (2 children)

        by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Friday March 23 2018, @06:52PM (#657215) Journal

        FISC is referred to as an Article III court [wlu.edu]. Article III permits Congress to create federal courts.

        However, there are Article I courts [wikipedia.org]:

        Article I [wikipedia.org] courts, which are also known as "legislative courts", consist of regulatory agencies, such as the United States Tax Court. Article III courts are the only ones with judicial power, and so decisions of regulatory agencies remain subject to review by Article III courts. However, cases not requiring "judicial determination" may come before Article I courts. In the case of Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. 59 U.S. 272 (1855), the Supreme Court ruled that cases involving "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty" inherently involve judicial determination and must come before Article III courts. Other cases, such as bankruptcy cases, have been held not to involve judicial determination, and may therefore go before Article I courts. Similarly, several courts in the District of Columbia, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, are Article I courts rather than Article III courts. This article was expressly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through Federal Law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. This transformed the article IV United States territorial court in Puerto Rico, created in 1900, to an Article III federal judicial district court.

        See the link for lists of Article I and Article III tribunals. FISC is listed under Article III.

        Can the Constitutionality of the FISA court ever be accurately determined? The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appoints the judges, so maybe not.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 2) by arcz on Friday March 23 2018, @07:14PM

          by arcz (4501) on Friday March 23 2018, @07:14PM (#657230) Journal
          Yes. FISC is incorrectly listed as an Article III court. It's actually an Article I court because the judges are not appointed by the president, as required by the Appointments Clause.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday March 23 2018, @09:06PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday March 23 2018, @09:06PM (#657258) Journal

          Good point, takyon, you've proven me wrong.

      • (Score: 2) by arcz on Friday March 23 2018, @07:11PM

        by arcz (4501) on Friday March 23 2018, @07:11PM (#657229) Journal
        Except we have lots of non-Article III Courts. Article I courts, such as United States Tax Courts, and Article IV Courts, such as courts established in US territories. Do your researching before spouting off about stuff you're clueless about [heritage.org]