SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the The-best-laid-schemes-o'-mice-an'-men-[an'-Congress]-Gang-aft-agley dept.
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.
(Score: 2) by LVDOVICVS on Friday March 23 2018, @10:23PM (5 children)
The comparison I'm trying to get at is guns versus websites. No one has ever been directly killed by a website. Yet they, the website owners, are being held to a higher level of liability than those who sell or make guns.
(Score: 2) by VanessaE on Friday March 23 2018, @11:23PM
A fair comparison. My point stands, though.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Sunday March 25 2018, @03:44AM (3 children)
If I thought this really warranted it, I might add that people have been killed by a website just as directly as most people are killed by guns. The silk road fell when the owner tried to hire a hitman, I am sure I could find cases where the attempt was successful. The vast majority of people are not bludgeoned to death with guns directly. Gunshot wounds tend to be far more effective. In either case, there is a human using a tool.
That isn't to say that I think websites should be liable for the content posted by their users, just that your comparison is fundamentally flawed.
(Score: 2) by LVDOVICVS on Sunday March 25 2018, @04:12AM (2 children)
The gun manufacturer and website owner both produce a product that can be used legally or illegally. How can it be justifiable to hold one of those two responsible for their product's use, while the other should remain free from all liability?
As for your claim that "people have been killed by a website," this is just preposterous on the face of it and requires no further comment. However, let me assure you that "death by website" will only ever be written this one time I just wrote it now. And still, no one actually was killed.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Sunday March 25 2018, @04:52AM (1 child)
Unfortunately [fbi.gov] it [theguardian.com] isn't [cnn.com] rediculous [independent.co.uk] at [telegraph.co.uk] all. [dailymail.co.uk]
Sorry, I am too lazy to filter through to find better sources, you get the idea.
I think I have been fairly clear that I don't agree that either product's manufacturer/provider should be liable for the way they are used by third parties. My point was never that they should be, but that the comparison was ill considered. A gun is designed to kill, the websites this is going to censor, like craigslist, aren't. I also don't think this law will have its desired effect, but that doesn't seem to be the subject here.
A gun that has a design defect and goes off when it shouldn't absolutely does carry liability, and that is about the only example you could supply of a gun directly killing a person any more than a website has, though there have been some near misses there too [theguardian.com]. In either case you seem to be discussing intentional usage, so I have been ignoring these cases.
(Score: 2) by LVDOVICVS on Sunday March 25 2018, @05:24AM
Words don't cause death from physical trauma and blood loss, guns do. If you choose to twist your thinking in knots to try to believe the contrary, that's your choice.