Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Censorship United Kingdom Politics

UK Politicians Push For FOSTA SESTA-Style Sex Censorship (engadget.com) 124

Posted by BeauHD from the copy-paste-decision-making dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Engadget: If you're familiar with the phrase "that's a terrible idea, let's do it" then you might be one of the British MPs who think that the UK should do its own version of FOSTA-SESTA. That's exactly what Labour MP Sarah Champion has done by leading a debate this week for the creation of laws to criminalize websites used by sex workers in the UK -- under the rubric of fighting trafficking, of course. A self-appointed group of MPs (the "All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade") fronted by Ms. Champion made a call to ban "prostitution websites" during a Wednesday House of Commons debate. Conflating sex work with trafficking just like their American counterparts, they claim websites where workers advertise and screen clients "directly and knowingly" profit from sex trafficking.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Politicians Push For FOSTA SESTA-Style Sex Censorship More

UK Politicians Push For FOSTA SESTA-Style Sex Censorship

Comments Filter:

  • Where then ... (Score:4, Funny)

    by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Friday July 06, 2018 @06:36PM (#56904648)

    ... will the MPs get their sex?

  • Prostitution is legal in the UK. (Score:5, Informative)

    by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Friday July 06, 2018 @06:42PM (#56904668) Journal

    Prostitution itself is not illegal in the UK, so how should these legal workers advertise their services? I guess the answer, according to Ms. Champion, is that they should not.

    • they can move to amsterdam!

      • Re:they can move to amsterdam! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Saturday July 07, 2018 @03:23AM (#56905880) Journal
        There's something of a clampdown on prostitution going on here in the Netherlands. The laws have largely remained the same, but mayors can simply opt to withhold or rescind licenses for brothels or windows. I expect the new mayor of Amsterdam, appointed* earlier this month, to increase pressure on the sex industry in this manner. With the results usually being that sex workers are criminalized further (it is hard for them even to open a bank account to conduct business), and driven into the hands of actual human traffickers.

        *) Yes, our mayors are appointed, not elected. The city Council draws up a job profile, the ministry publishes the vacancy. The King's Commissioner for the province does the first selection of candidates, after which the City Council will recommend a few candidates. Usually, the #1 recommended candidate is then appointed.
    • I think they simply don't care. People like Ms. Campion probably see it as a benefit that they can't make a living this way, or at the very least, a small price to pay for her personal pet project.

  • Simplify. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Just make prostitution legal. Then regulate it to prevent trafficing, underage, unsafe conditions and so on. Works well in New Zealand.

  • Not the first time the UK government has tried to do things like this. Of course I'm not in any way shape or form saying that Human Trafficking is a good thing, it's horrible, but come on, UK PMs, don't you already have applicable laws on your books that cover this sort of thing?

    You can't legislate morality

    It never works.

    • You most certainly CAN legislate morality. The American War on (some) Drugs is a perfect example of this. It's not effective however, as victimless crimes don't get reported much, and the slipery slope of incentivising people to ignore the law inevitably leads to higher crime rates.

      • You most certainly CAN legislate morality. The American War on (some) Drugs is a perfect example of this.

        Hundreds of thousands of people are being killed in South America with some governments flirting with becoming failed states thanks in large part to America's war on drugs.

      • Jackass, stop trying to hijack the subject, this is not about THAT, it's about THIS, and you can't legislate morality because it DOES NOT WORK and never will, people will go find whatever it is they want regardless.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      It worked in the 1950's.
      What to print a book? Magazine? Like to import a magazine, book?
      Should a government not approve of such material the having of one copy and lots of copies for sale is not legal.
      • Yeah because that really stopped everyone didn't it? It also so really stopped Rock 'n Roll music from getting off the ground, too, and banning pornography and banning alcohol in the United States totally worked too didn't it? Oh wait none of those things are true! You're completely wrong and have no idea what you're talking about! Legislating morality never works because people will go find whatever it is they want to find.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AHuxley ( 892839 )
          Re "in the United States".
          The UK is trying for new censorship again.
          The UK had a long history with police and what could be sold. What kind of printed and published material could be created and then sold in the UK and imported.
          This time of the internet.

          The USA had a lot more freedom to publish and sell printed material at the time.
          • You're usually full of crap you know that? Nothing you say changes anything I said. People like what they like and they'll get it one way or another if they're motivated enough and governments can't stop that without being so authoritarian and dictatorial that any semblance of 'freedom' dissolves away. That's not the UK, not anytime soon, so I really don't see what you're going on about.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AHuxley ( 892839 )
              Changes to the laws in the UK are about what can be published and seen on the internet. No US freedom of speech and freedom after speech in the UK. The UK has very different laws and had very different laws in the past covering what could be sold, imported, printed and published.
              Now the UK feels it is time to control the internet in the same way.
              • They -- and you -- don't get it at all do you? People get blocked by the "Great Firewall of the UK", they'll get a VPN or use TOR and get what they want anyway. Do you really think they're going to ban TOR and VPNs? Good luck with that. If it's a website hosted within the UK then they'll get what they want at a website outside the UK. If a website is going to have it's business destroyed because of the overreach of the UK government, they'll move their hosting outside the UK. If the UK government goes compl

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AHuxley ( 892839 )
                  VPN use can already be tracked by the GCHQ so thats not going offer any of the expected protection.
                  Edgehill/Bullrun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

                  Re "What do you think they're going to do then, arrest everyone?"
                  More like the way EU nations track reports of any other wrong type of social media use.

                  A visit by, a request to talk to the police. Plainclothes law enforcement and the person is given a more informal chat down about the what they have done.
                  Should the person then go on doing illegal t

  • Pleasantly surprised to discover Fosta Sesta turned out to be an acronym that included sex, since my distracted consciousness actually read it that way the first time through.

    Final thought: If it were possible to legislate away the sex trafficking game, it would've been accomplished generations ago.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dryeo ( 100693 )

      Final thought: If it were possible to legislate away the sex trafficking game, it would've been accomplished generations ago.

      It's quite possible to mostly legislate the sex trafficking away. Has to be done like how it was done with the bootleggers, legalize and reasonably regulate. Just like most people like getting alcohol from a regulated source for a reasonable price, I'd assume most sex buyers would like similar. I know that if I was in the market to pay for sex, I'd prefer someone vetted as being clean and honest to buy it from.

  • there is human trafficking in the UK, about 4000 enslaved people.

  • Trafficking [oxfordlear...naries.com] just means trade in illegal goods. If selling sex is illegal, than prostitution is sex trafficking.

    I realize that it's pedantic to bring this up every time someone claims that these laws are trojans, but it's not irrelevant: if they make a law against sex trafficking and you cheer for it, and it turns out that you don't want a law against prostitution... well that's at least partly on you. Yes they're taking advantage of public confusion over the word, so they certainly deserve some of the bl

    • HUMAN TRAFFICKING means enslaving, selling and trading human beings, as property

      You are an idiot.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pots ( 5047349 )
        Yes, human trafficking does mean trade in humans. I did say above that trafficking means trade in illegal goods. What is the confusion here? It's also commonly used to describe trade in illegal drugs, i.e.: drug trafficking. Do you have some kind of point, or were you so eager to insult me that you forgot about that part?

        • only that there is a human trafficking problem in the UK, thousands enslaved. There are ways laws could help lessen that problem.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by malkavian ( 9512 )

      Definitely "appeal to definition" logical fallacy.
      Sex trafficking is importing people to act as sex workers under false pretences/illegally. It's basically modern slavery.
      Though on that front, if that political wing concentrated funds on trying to cure modern slavery, instead of trying to tell everyone how bad ancient slavery was, then it may be further along the process of solving than it is now.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pots ( 5047349 )
        It's only a fallacy if it's wrong. Sex trafficking is trade in sex, however it's unfortunately also sometimes used as shorthand for "human trafficking for the purpose of sex." Hence the public confusion that I mentioned above.

    • If selling sex is illegal

      It's not. Even if the rest of your argument even remotely made sense it all just fell apart.

      Speaking of the rest of your argument:

      If selling sex is illegal, than prostitution is sex trafficking.

      You'd be wrong. Trafficking even following the oxford dictionary is not about paying for the service of sex, it's about paying to obtain a sexual servant. Here's the full legal definition since a dictionary won't get you anywhere in a court or parliament:

      Sex Trafficking Law and Legal Definition
      Pursuant to 22 USCS 7102 (9) [Title 22. Foreign Relations and Intercourse; Chapter 78.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pots ( 5047349 )

        Even if the rest of your argument ...

        What argument? What are you going on about? I had a definition, that's basically it.

        You want a legal definition? You're not happy with the Oxford Dictionary? How about Black's Legal Dictionary? [thelawdictionary.org] It says the same thing.

        I have no idea where you got this idea about a "sexual servant" from the Oxford definition... None. I'm stuck there, can't even dispute what you said if I can't understand it. I also can't argue with the definition that you give, but... this here: “the recruitment, harboring, transp

        • What argument? What are you going on about? I had a definition, that's basically it.

          Your definition was done in 2 sentences. You then built an arguement around that definition against supporting laws based purely on that definition. In case you forgot, let me quote you: "if they make a law against sex trafficking and you cheer for it, and it turns out that you don't want a law against prostitution... well that's at least partly on you."

          That is an argument and since it's based on 2 incorrect premises it's wrong.

          You want a legal definition? You're not happy with the Oxford Dictionary?

          No I don't want the legal definition. I have a legal definition and gave you the

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        You'd be wrong. Trafficking even following the oxford dictionary is not about paying for the service of sex, it's about paying to obtain a sexual servant.

        Actually, by the definition you posted, the GP appears to be correct:

        âoethe recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act.â

        That appears to cover solicitation. The next one appears to cover brothels, the fourth appears to cover pimping, the fifth appears to redundantly cover so

  • Another step toward a police state (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OneHundredAndTen ( 1523865 ) on Friday July 06, 2018 @07:09PM (#56904778)
    The UK keeps taking steps toward a police state. This is the country where CCTV cameras are literally all over the place. George Orwell wouldn't be all that surprised about what is happening in his country.
    • CCTV cameras are all over the place everywhere. Even been into a bank? Never seen a security camera in a shop? Those are the cameras that the much hyped report all those years ago was talking about.

    • I don't know why people keep singling out the UK for extensive CCTV coverage. Yes, we have cameras everywhere. Now find me a developed nation that doesn't.

  • For GOP, but not for thee. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday July 06, 2018 @07:13PM (#56904782) Journal

    The bill was signed into law by President Donald Trump on April 11, 2018

    Show of hands: Who is surprised that Republicans would enact these kind of repressive laws as soon as they got into power? The Great Leader can engage in all the prostitution he likes, but the rest of you better clean up your act.

    In related news, family values stalwart Rep. Jim Jordan (R- The Holler), turns out to have been jacking it to boys getting molested for years as a wrestling coach. And what is it with Republican wrestling coaches and the sexual abuse of young men? It wasn't that long ago that the most powerful Republican in the nation did hard penitentiary time for molesting boys. What is it that draws Republicans to become wrestling coaches?

    https://www.politico.com/story... [politico.com]

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/... [chicagotribune.com]

    • Re:For GOP, but not for thee. (Score:5, Informative)

      by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Friday July 06, 2018 @08:17PM (#56905006)
      Like many of the greatest affronts to civil rights, FOSTA was overwhelmingly bi-partisan. The vote was 97-2 in the Senate. There's plenty to blame on Republicans, but sex trafficking hysteria is one thing where the blame is equally on Democrats. Republicans approach it from the religious angle, whereas Democrats have decided that all sex workers are exploited, even if they say they're not, so the choice should be taken away from them. Same result.

      • Like many of the greatest affronts to civil rights, FOSTA was overwhelmingly bi-partisan. The vote was 97-2 in the Senate.

        And Donald J. Trump signed it into law. A real president would have vetoed and dared the Senate to overturn.

        • A real President like who? Clinton (and Bill too for that matter) would have signed it; both Bushes would have signed it; I can't think of a single President or nominee from the big 2 parties in the past 50 years that wouldn't have signed it, especially in the face of the vote to override being basically guaranteed. My rabid hate for Trump is well documented, but there was no getting out of this one.

          • Clinton (and Bill too for that matter) would have signed it; both Bushes would have signed it; I can't think of a single President or nominee from the big 2 parties in the past 50 years that wouldn't have signed it,

            You can speculate all you want, but one thing we know for sure: This law was passed by this Congress and signed by this President.

            It shouldn't have even come up for a vote. The good news is that in above five months we're going to have a new Congress. We can only hope they act with more wisdo

  • They let Jimmy Savile fuck everyone from children to the elderly. Keep up the good work!

  • The solution is... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Black Art ( 3335 ) on Friday July 06, 2018 @07:25PM (#56904824)

    Forced castration for anyone who votes for this peice of legislation. If you don't want people to use their sexual organs, you don't get to use yours.

    • Re:The solution is... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by currently_awake ( 1248758 ) on Friday July 06, 2018 @08:23PM (#56905026)
      Or more constructively: Have a mandatory inspection of all proposed laws to see if they are Constitutional. If they are not and it gets thrown out by the courts, then everyone who voted for it is liable for damages.

      • The UK does not have a constitution. We have a legal doctrine that parliament can pass any law they want, with the sole restriction that they cannot pass a law which restricts their own ability to pass laws.

        It may sound totalitarian, but it actually works quite well in practice. We don't get the US's infamous federal-verses-state-verses-local legal conflicts where different levels of government are actively working in opposition to one another.

        I still can't figure out how the prime minister gets determined

        • The leader of the party with the most seats in the house becomes prime minister. It's like replacing the electoral college with the house of commons.

  • Get the facts (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 06, 2018 @07:54PM (#56904926)

    I am a UK citizen and am a prostitute. Prostitution is not illegal although many of the activities surrounding prostitition are. Every prostitute I know of not only looks after the personal hygiene very well but also practcies safe sex to look after themselves. The biggest health danger is from the occasional stinky client who wants unprotected sex or risky body contact and they are firmly told "NO" and asked to leave.

    Recent UK law conflating prostitition with sex trafficking is against the rules of the European single market.

    As for people wanting to outlaw prostitition this never works. Another thing is will the prohibitionists change policy to create jobs and raise living standards so people are not forced or coerced by circumstances into prostitition? I doubt this very much.

    Basically, Sarah Champion is just a jealous bitch who wants to raise the value of her tight ice cold slot by creating scarcity. She probably thinks all prostitutes are just the dumb girls who were prettier than her she hated at school when in fact many prostitutes have degrees or are successful businesswomen easing their way past a financial crunch caused by social climbing politicians.

    • I am a UK citizen and am a prostitute.

      I've seen many, many dubious claims from ACs in the past, mostly involving expertise or wealth. This is a new one to me.

  • sorry for giving your right wing stupid idea.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      most men had no reason to visit prostitutes

      That'll be why it's such a new phenomenon then?

      Hookers aren't the problem here. We have an incel-mass producing culture that is arguably worse than a society that practices polygamy.

      Welcome to human history. Shit, you think polygamy produces fewer men with no partner than monogamy? Not unless a substantial number of men are dying very young.

      • Throughout most of human history, a substantial number of men *did* die very young. Men took all the most dangerous jobs, and frequent wars killed huge numbers of men. Polygamy was more viable under those circumstances.

    • The first problem with trying to legislate morality is we live in a multi-culteral society and we can't agree on the single moral code to follow. The second problem is the rules change when you get rich and/or powerful.
  • A city in the US did something similar and rape increased 76% and violent crime increased 53%. They quietly took the law off the books 18 months later and slowly the crimes dropped.

Slashdot Top Deals

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]

Close