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, Troll) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday March 23 2018, @07:18PM (3 children)
The USA should adopt similar laws to what most Nordic countries have.
Last I heard was ;
Offering sex in exchange for money: legal
Offering money in exchange for sex: illegal
The only people who get punished when these laws are enforced are the clients who "victimize"* the sex workers. It also allows sex workers to report abuse and violent behavior without them having to worry about being arrested themselves.
Of course many of these types of laws in the USA (other places too) are not about helping victims but are about controlling to people. And this law is a perfect example of the later.
*Many sex workers are doing it by choice. It might be their only income or an occasional supplement to their regular paycheck. The real victims are forced into sex work by threats or intimidation, and since they can not go to the police in the USA because they are more likely to be arrested than helped the laws just enable the real criminals.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday March 23 2018, @09:14PM (1 child)
So you can be arrested for engaging a prostitute, but the prostitute can't be arrested for offering it? Yeah, that protects the prostitute, but if I were a John I'd be nervous as hell about the whole thing.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 24 2018, @12:05AM
And it does little to solve the problems that black markets bring.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 23 2018, @11:01PM
The issue I have with this style of policy is that, if a sex worker really is being forced into it against their will, whoever is controlling their situation isn't going to give them any chances to contact the police. The only people such sex workers will have contact with, who might be able to help them, are the customers - who risk their own arrest if they go to the police.