EFF Sues To Invalidate FOSTA, An Unconstitutional Internet Censorship Law (eff.org) 89
schwit1 quotes a report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation: We are asking a court to declare the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 ("FOSTA") unconstitutional and prevent it from being enforced. The law was written so poorly that it actually criminalizes a substantial amount of protected speech and, according to experts, actually hinders efforts to prosecute sex traffickers and aid victims. In our lawsuit, two human rights organizations, an individual advocate for sex workers, a certified non-sexual massage therapist, and the Internet Archive, are challenging the law as an unconstitutional violation of the First and Fifth Amendments. Although the law was passed by Congress for the worthy purpose of fighting sex trafficking, its broad language makes criminal of those who advocate for and provide resources to adult, consensual sex workers and actually hinders efforts to prosecute sex traffickers and aid victims. The EFF goes on to cite some examples of how FOSTA has already censored the internet. Most notably, two days after FOSTA was passed in the Senate, "Craigslist eliminated its Personals section, including non-sexual subcategories such as 'Missed Connections' and 'Strictly Platonic,'" reports the EFF. Reddit even removed some of its subreddits out of fear of future lawsuits.
Anyone know why Bernie (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
At all costs?
What if the cost of eliminating child pornography is the complete genocide of the entire human race? That would fit under your "at all costs" statement?
But of course that's absurd, because you didn't actually mean "at ALL costs," you meant "at the cost of anything that *I* don't care about." That's what most people actually mean when they say "all costs," because they don't want to argue about the specifics of some thing they don't care about with someone who does.
Under the banner of "all cos
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you've been trolled by a fake account.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you singling out Bernie? I'm not objecting to your post.
I am admitting ignorance, and I'd appreciate the backstory.
Thanks.
Re:Anyone know why Bernie (Score:4, Insightful)
there are very few places in the U.S. where prostitution is legal.
Yes, and in those places, prostitutes should be free to conduct their business as regulated. They should not be blocked by an overbroad law designed to protect someone else.
Unlike you, some of us actually like being free. Freedom was, once upon a time, a core American value, protected by patriots who laid down their lives for it. Your personal disapproval of something is NOT justification for making it illegal (and no, dammit, I am not talking about your disapproval of human trafficking, I am talking about your disapproval of everything else that is NOT human trafficking but is blocked by this law).
People should be free to post personals on Craigslist. There are better ways of fighting human trafficking than taking away unrelated civil liberties.
Re: (Score:2)
Reddit even removed some of its subreddits out of fear of future lawsuits.
Maybe it was fear of lawsuits, maybe it was because it was a day ending in "y". Can't really say with Reddit.
Re: (Score:2)
I"m singling out Bernie because I didn't expect (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Right wingers like Pelosi & Schumer I expect that from. They're really Republicans they just run in a district that votes "D".
If you honestly think Pelosi and Schumer are "Right wingers" and "really Republicans" then I'm afraid of what your political stance is. I am a left-leaning Democrat, and what these two are is so far left of my position they might as well be on the moon. Their stance on civil liberties would make Lenin and Stalin outrageously happy.
That is not to say that the Republicans have been upright defenders of Freedom... It's just that they have not been so rabid to deny American's Rights as the Democrats, led by
Re: (Score:2)
On a more serious note, not valuing personal liberty is strong bipartisan consensus. Both sides are big on telling you what you may and may not do with your own body and with other adults. I say this only because your comment makes me think you somehow think the right stands for personal liberty, which unless you want a gun, or are a corporation, they do not.
I disagree, Bernie values personal liberty (Score:2)
What's the old saying? Everyone has a price. Bernie's one of the few politicians to recognize that devil's detail
Re:I disagree, Bernie values personal liberty (Score:4, Insightful)
You're not free so long as somebody controls your access to food, shelter, healthcare, education and transportation (the latter being required to access the former). Until you have reliable access to those things then you're one bad year (or month if you're 40% of Americans) away from disaster and doing whatever anyone tells you to get those things. You're what's referred to as a Wage Slave.
Your definition of freedom is extremely short sighted. All of those things have to be produced somehow. They aren't free and can't be given to everyone for nothing. So in order for everyone to have them you have to force someone else to create them. You're enslaving someone else. You're doing the exact thing you're claiming to fight against.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Au contraire, it's the righties who keep using "Hillary lost" as a catch-all comeback to any and all criticism or attempt to hold them accountable for their words and actions. They wouldn't feel the need to do this if they weren't afraid deep down inside that the allegations tainting their "victory" might well be true.
Turning it back on them is just a little reminder that—successful or not—crimes are still crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Except Obama did absolutely nothing of the sort, so you've not "fixed" anything, Jackson. Thanks for playing.
Don't you get it yet?? (Score:3)
I would have voted for Bernie if I had been given a chance.
But I was not surprised that he, and pretty much every other Democrat, and Republican,voted for this bill [thehill.com]. Of the two voting against, one was R and one D...
It's not because he was afraid of anything. It's because most of the people in DC crave power above all else, and this bill was a pure manifestation of power of people as they come.
This delusion that there is more than a micron of difference between R and D must end.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit naive to assume legislators actually read the legislations they're voting on. Almost all will vote exactly how they are told to by their party leadership or risk losing campaign financing. And the legislation is often so large that it's an enormous time to read it all between the time it leaves committee and is taken up for a vote. There's also the added pressure that if you vote against something like that because of a bad last-minute addition you will be seen as not tough enough on crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Was it really just that he feared the [other political party] using it in a "think of the children" line of attack?
Yeah, that's why pretty much everyone in both the House and the Senate voted for it. That, and/or to make it look like they were doing something about a very difficult to deal with problem.
Following the rules (Score:5, Interesting)
This kind of thing reminds me of what Jack Tramiel said to his assistant when asked how he could do business with Germans after having been through Holocaust:
"You know," he once told me, "it's hard to believe it really happened. But it can happen again. In America. Americans like to make rules, and that scares me. If you have too many rules you get locked in a system. It's the system that says this one dies and that one doesn't, not the people. That's why I don't hate the German people. Individuals, yes. Rules, yes. But not all Germans." He shrugged. "They just obeyed the rules. But that's why we need more Commodores. We need more mavericks, just so the rules don't take over."
Re: (Score:2)
John McCain is anything but a maverick. He is a Republican in Name Only. He is so far left that when he ran fro president he needed to pick a candidate for vice president so far right that between the two of them not even the most die hard real Republican could hold their nose long enough to vote for him.
As for supporting prostitution, for every fully informed and self-actuating consensual sex worker there are half a dozen who are exploited victims. I have no pity for those who use these victims situation i
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Yes we are. Often it's not whether a politician is left, right, up, or down, but whether they are in the majority or not. Once a party is in power they inevitably throw out their old ideas and start marching in lockstep.
Right now, if you are Republican and disagree with the president then you are likely to not win the next election. If the Republicans were full of McCains and Flakes then I might actually register a party preference and vote that way, but instead it's got too many toadies so I'll s
Re: (Score:3)
A flawed law designed to slow down sex trafficking but which actually goes too far. That's the whole point, you get too caught up in the rules and start forgetting about the reason for the rules or whether the rules are just or not. As in, "I'm not personally against prostitution, but the law is the law", and eventually it's "ok, they scooped up and jailed 10 people, 9 are probably innocent but it's better than letting that one guy go free", to "sure the government is probably overreaching and I'm worried
Re:Following the rules (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm breaking the rule not to respond to AC to say that's not what Jack said. He never said that rules are bad, but that *too many* rules are bad. Rules should be added with caution, knowing that each rule has a real material and human cost and that too many rules compromise system flexibility. Kind of like unit tests. ;-)
To the other coward: Learn to read without letting your emotions overwhelm you. I'm not left. And I think that unnecessary moralizing, virtue signaling rules from the right are just as bad as unnecessary social justice, virtue signaling rules from the left.
Re: (Score:2)
Responding to an AC again! It could be a form of virtue signaling to say that I'm in the middle of the road. I'm not quite -- I consider myself a Green Conservative Independent Libertarian. I guess I'm about the middle on the average.
Jack Tramiel isn't someone I would turn to (Score:2)
He was an impressive organizer, but he ran Atari into the ground largely by being a complete dick to the suppliers who ma
Massage therapist? (Score:2)
I'm assuming the "non-sexual" part of "certified non-sexual massage therapist" is descriptive, just letting us know that they're not a "happy endings" kind of massage therapist, not that they're certified in something called "non-sexual massage".
But given that this is just an ordinary massage therapist, what is their connection to FOSTA and why are they part of this case?
Re:Massage therapist? (Score:5, Interesting)
Forrest Cameranesi inquired:
I'm assuming the "non-sexual" part of "certified non-sexual massage therapist" is descriptive, just letting us know that they're not a "happy endings" kind of massage therapist, not that they're certified in something called "non-sexual massage".
But given that this is just an ordinary massage therapist, what is their connection to FOSTA and why are they part of this case?
At a guess, it's because the effects of FOSTA on classified advertising has made it difficult to impossible for them to economically advertise their services. Most solo massage therapists don't make enough money to afford TV or display advertising, and classifieds sections in local indie papers (the traditional - and least expensive - advertising venue for massage therapists) have already pretty much completely eliminated ads for massage of any kind in response to FOSTA.
Yes, it's an overreaction - but Americans in general are really good at panicking, and American businesses are even better at it ...
Re:Massage therapist? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
But given that this is just an ordinary massage therapist, what is their connection to FOSTA and why are they part of this case?
Because companies, due to the penalties in FOSTA, refuse to allow a massage therapist to post anything, ads for their service, customer support, even outside of work as a person simply stating their occupation, nothing.
This is because as worded FOSTA makes the company running the forum/chat/board/whatever legally liable for when the massage therapist is simply *accused* of being a sexual type of massage giver.
Once (not if) an accusation is made, this law clearly says the company running the soap box is guil
Re: (Score:3)
The key issue here is that people like you know that already and are playing dumb. Conflating all these issues allows you to impress your moral standards on other people. Get out of my country.
Re: (Score:2)
The legality of porn in the US is a really complicated matter, and depends on state. There are a lot of laws which are intended to make it legal, but also completely impractical to produce or distribute. Fortunately for the porn fans of the internet, most of these laws have not been enforced for years.
Re: (Score:2)
They are also sex workers, as are strippers, which are also legal.
Strippers aren't sex workers unless they're exchanging sex for money. Dancing for money isn't sex even if you do it naked. My understanding is that a high percentage of strippers are also prostitutes, but it didn't seem that's what you meant.
Re: Duh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Porn isn't (or rather, wasn't before this dumbass law) illegal. They are also sex workers, as are strippers, which are also legal. But it now isn't legal to advertise for them.
The key issue here is that people like you know that already and are playing dumb. Conflating all these issues allows you to impress your moral standards on other people. Get out of my country.
This isn't about porn. This law is about people engaging in illegal shit or aiding and abetting illegal shit.
If a site is shutting down their legal sites because of this law they're idiots or are afraid of being able to prove they're on the up and up.
Re: (Score:2)
If i denounce your post for being advertising for woman trafficking, slashdot probably will have to remove it, regardless of being or not.
The website simply does not have the resources to manually check every complaint, and if they miss a real one, the government shuts the site down.
And this is true for pretty much all the websites with user content.
Re: (Score:2)
If i denounce your post for being advertising for woman trafficking, slashdot probably will have to remove it, regardless of being or not.
The website simply does not have the resources to manually check every complaint, and if they miss a real one, the government shuts the site down.
And this is true for pretty much all the websites with user content.
Show me where the law says that. Go ahead and quote it, please.
Just set up a monthly donation to EFF (Score:3)
I'm thankful that the EFF exists. You guys rock, I feel like you're one of the only good guys out there.
I'm not a prostitute but it's still affecting me (Score:5, Interesting)
I went to university for computer science and specialized in 3D graphics.
It took me about four years to slog through that program. I graduated and immediately got a job in the VFX industry, which was so insanely stressful that it burned me out in less than 2 years. I spent the next little while bouncing between interviews and bagging groceries at the local food store. All the jobs I applied for looked like they were going to be the same perma-crunch bullshit, so I gave up and went back to IT.
I spent the next year or so running some network at a dead-end job for a company that was in a state of perpetually going out of business.
Around the same time, I started to open up online about a few of my fetishes. They're nothing bad or illegal. Most people wouldn't even consider them R-rated, since there's zero nudity involved and absolutely no sexually explicit stuff. If a normal person saw the sort of thing I'm interested in, they'd probably just go "what?" and laugh. It's literally that harmless. I met a lot of people interested in the same thing (of which there's quite a few), and made some amazing friends along the way. They all told me the same thing- I should start up a Patreon account and put my 3D skills to use.
So I did.
Within 6 months, Patreon was my sole source of income, with more money coming in through Gumroad and direct PayPal payments through my artist website. I was making more than I ever did at either of my two former jobs. Everything was totally legit and legal- I marked all my content as NSFW whenever required, and followed the rules everywhere I could.
Recently, I got suspended for Patreon. To be fair, the Patreon folks were extremely helpful and had me up and running again within 24 hours. This is not about them though, it's about FOSTA/SESTA.
You see, I'm not even a US citizen. I live in Canada. However, FOSTA has made Patreon's payment processors paranoid to the point that they are all locking down everything to the point that they don't want to deal with anything even remotely considered NSFW, even if it's not actually pornographic in nature (which my content is not). Patreon has fought back to a certain point, but they're basically losing an unwinnable battle. The more the paypament processors torque down the screws, the more Patreon has to clamp down on "NSFW" content.
I got suspended over a banner showing a fully clothed 3D model sitting on a bar stool looking into the camera. I'll admit that the character in question was pretty curvy- but once again, I don't do nudity or anything even remotely considered sexually explicit. This wasn't anything worse than the sort of thing you'd see after spending 5 minutes on Instagram.
I had to remove that banner and replace it with something else. After I did that, my account was unlocked and I was back in business.
What I'm worried about, however, is that this is only the beginning, and that my entire online business may be threatened as a result of knee jerk reactions to FOSTA. I fear that one day, I may not be able to rely on this source of income anymore, despite the fact that what I'm doing is completely legal and something I'm actually good at. I know many other people who have run into similar issues in the past 2 weeks, all because everyone is getting super paranoid about the new laws. Some of them have resolved their issues, others are permanently screwed by the new tighter interpretation of the community rules.
This shit needs to stop.
FOSTA is having a HUGE impact in a ton of industries that have nothing to do with what the bill was originally designed to prevent. It was poorly thought out and needs to be taken out behind the barn and summarily put down. I sincerely hope the EFF succeeds here, or this turns into a huge legal battle for the US Government that results in them being put on the hook for a few billion dollars of lost e-commerce. I don't know how the fuck this bill crept up into service or why there was no major outrage over it, but it's clear that the only thing it's doing is damaging the online economies. Why nobody thought of this beforehand is beyond me, but I guess it's all about control and power in the end, and that's exactly what FOSTA is designed to provide.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bet they did read, but didn't understood it, because they're too old and too technologically inept to understand the consequences.
No way this gets overturned (Score:1)