Disaster FOSTA has reached Trump's Desk - Craigslist and Furry Sites shutting down Personals Section because of "Sex Trafficking Law"

  • 🔧 Issue with uploading attachments resolved.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
How will @KatsuKitty ever find people to date now.
https://www.craigslist.org/about/FOSTA
US Congress just passed HR 1865, "FOSTA", seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.

Any tool or service can be misused. We can't take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we are regretfully taking craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day.

To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness!
Click to expand...
 
Click to expand...
Google is scrubbing their Drives of porn using an automated system.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9kgwnp/porn-on-google-drive-error

DZGM6JgW0AAmqK_.jpg


lol
 
Last edited:
A short summary why FOSTA is bad news:

It's a bill meant to tackle prostitution and child prostitution online (prone to fail because the real dealers will simply go deeper into the web while adding obstacles for prosecutors).
But the real problem comes from the sneaky butchering of the section 230 of the Communications Act, nullifying (again) free speech and empowering tech giants by giving them green light to increase the surveillance of their userbase while at the same time killing potential competitors.

Shown Here:
Passed House amended (02/27/2018 )
Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017

(Sec. 2) This bill expresses the sense of Congress that section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 was not intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims. Section 230 limits the legal liability of interactive computer service providers or users for content they publish that was created by others.

(Sec. 3) The bill amends the federal criminal code to add a new section that imposes penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both—on a person who, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (or attempts or conspires to do so) to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.

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.

A person injured by an aggravated offense may recover damages and attorneys' fees in a federal civil action.

A court must order mandatory restitution, in addition to other criminal or civil penalties, for an aggravated offense in which a person acts with reckless disregard that such conduct contributes to sex trafficking.

A defendant may assert, as an affirmative defense, that the promotion or facilitation of prostitution is legal in the jurisdiction where it was targeted.

(Sec. 4) The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to declare that section 230 does not limit: (1) a federal civil claim for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, (2) a federal criminal charge for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, or (3) a state criminal charge for conduct that promotes or facilitates prostitution in violation of this bill.

The amendments apply regardless of whether alleged conduct occurs before, on, or after this bill's enactment.

(Sec. 5) The bill amends the federal criminal code to define a phrase related to the prohibition on sex trafficking. Currently, it a crime to knowingly benefit from participation in a venture that engages in sex trafficking. This bill defines "participation in a venture" to mean knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating a sex trafficking violation.

(Sec. 6) A state may file a federal civil action to enforce federal sex trafficking violations.

(Sec. 7) This section states that this bill does not limit federal or state civil actions or criminal prosecutions that are not preempted by section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.

(Sec. 8 ) The Government Accountability Office must report to Congress on information related to damages and mandatory restitution for aggravated offenses under this bill.

Wiki entry for Section 230.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

Here's an article detailing why FOSTA is garbage.
https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/21/senate-passes-fosta-sex-trafficking-bill

And here's a video that explains the ride we're into now.


Also if you wanna do something about it without the effort of moving the turd factory out of your chair, the White House got you covered.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/repealstop-fosta-now


Really didn't knew if trow this into the weird news thread, kinda doubt it because of the extent of FOSTA, but if any mod think it should, by all means move it please.
 
Last edited:
ThePurpleProse said:
nullifying internet free speech and empowering tech giants by giving them green light to increase the surveillance of their userbase while at the same time killing potential competitors.
Click to expand...
... So, really nothing at all changes, then?

I haven't dug into this so much as a single word, but I sincerely don't understand how that's even one iota separated from how this entire system already functions. I'm not really capable of panicking when someone sets fire to the house that's already been burning for ten years.
 
Last edited:
It's HK-47 said:
... So, really nothing at all changes, then?

I haven't dug into this so much as a single word, but I sincerely don't understand how that's even one iota separated from how this entire system already functions. I'm not really capable of panicking when someone sets fire to the house that's already been burning for ten years.
Click to expand...
From what I understand is that it's now Government Sanctioned™. So the FTC won't likely be able to lift a finger..
 
On one hand, sex workers are generally morons who need to be protected from themselves.

On the other hand, the government should not be involved in people's life to such an extent.

HMMM.
 
It's HK-47 said:
I haven't dug into this so much as a single word, but I sincerely don't understand how that's even one iota separated from how this entire system already functions. I'm not really capable of panicking when someone sets fire to the house that's already been burning for ten years.
Click to expand...
ColtWalker1847 said:
I'm not sure how you get all that out of a bill against online escort services, but ok.
Click to expand...
Tried to make it really short but I'm a shitty writer, I guess it shows, but check the video or read the article above it, those guys make a far better job and really easy to understand how it connects.
 
Last edited:
ColtWalker1847 said:
Uh-huh.

I'm not sure how you get all that out of a bill against online escort services, but ok.
Click to expand...
It's pretty devious. Create a bill that is good and will help the victims of sex crimes, but weaved into it are semi-hidden provisions that have little to do with the bill's overall intent.
 
Hortator said:
It's pretty devious. Create a bill that is good and will help the victims of sex crimes, but weaved into it are semi-hidden provisions that have little to do with the bill's overall intent.
Click to expand...
It seems pretty straightforward to me.
Here's the bit about section 230 that everybody is getting all worked up over.
(Sec. 4) The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to declare that section 230 does not limit: (1) a federal civil claim for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, (2) a federal criminal charge for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, or (3) a state criminal charge for conduct that promotes or facilitates prostitution in violation of this bill.
Click to expand...
So basically, www.cambodianloliclasifieds.com can't use sec 230 as a defense if they get busted under provisions of the new law. It's not slipping shady shit in, it's aligning other laws to follow the new legislation so that the courts don't have to hash this shit out later.

I swear to christ every damn year we get this chicken-littling from online libertarians over some nothingburger legislation.
 
Whatever happened to hooking up with a barfly.

I don't need to read over the classifieds...I go down to the bar.
 
The troons who don't get laid sure are mad about this.

Free market could stop and reduce this but the government is much happier stomping on free speech, freedom to exhange and miss out on that sweet is dosh you could make by legalizing bookers as well as protecting sex workers with shit like OSHA.
 
The problem with this is if a certain paedophile in England posted CP via Tor on a certain site they could report it, or this certain paedophile in England can make two accounts and PM CP and then report it. And the site owner could face 20 years in prison.
 
Bassomatic said:
The troons who don't get laid sure are mad about this.

Free market could stop and reduce this but the government is much happier stomping on free speech, freedom to exhange and miss out on that sweet is dosh you could make by legalizing bookers as well as protecting sex workers with shit like OSHA.
Click to expand...

It makes a lot of sense if you consider "human trafficking" to be the 21st century version of "white slavery", right down to using the near exact same rhetoric except instead of niggers kidnapping white women across state lines for sex it's mexicans transporting mexican women across the border for sex.
 
SO, another Patriot Act? You know, the kind that will send thousands and thousands of innocent Americans to FEMA camps for sneezing on the internet in a way the government didn't like.... and yet 15 years on, I haven't seen one of my neighbors drug off, let alone go missing for this supposed abuse that's going to happen any second now, just you wait, the Chicken Littles said so..... yeah, that's what I thought.

Can anyone name me a person busted under the Patriot Act that wasn't already doing shady shit? Can someone name me a single citizen taken to trial, convicted and sent to prison for expressing themselves online in a way that didn't break a law that existed before it? Don't think so.

Seriously, if it's that unconstitutional it'll be struck down, if the right has an irrational fear of Jackboots coming from DC for all their guns, the left has the same irrational fear of them coming for their computer's porn folders.
 
Bassomatic said:
protecting sex workers with shit like OSHA.
Click to expand...

Good luck there, buddy. To comply with OSHA regs, I hope johns enjoy that the new extent of their ability to legally get off, which will include (this is a full list) getting gloved handjobs and grinding against a hazmat suit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom