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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @12:35AM
It's so obvious you couldn't be bothered to explain it?
You make a case* for why it's not useful to carry dozens of rounds for self-defense, but you never explained why there should be a law not only against carrying, but even owning, a magazine with more rounds than is useful. I don't see anything obvious about the idea that owning a drum mag for plinking is harmful at all, let alone so harmful that it justifies forcibly dragging me to jail.
*not a particularly good one, as you don't address that people aren't perfect shots to begin with and get worse in stressful situations -- while many assailants flee at any gunfire, hit or miss, in the cases where they take cover and a literal gunfight ensues, it's quite possible to spend a dozen potentially lethal rounds to get one lethal hit.