MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
A US government effort to fight online sex trafficking has cleansed many sites of personal ads and consensual eroticism, in a shift advocates say amounts to dangerous censorship. (Already having a major effect, article gets into examples.)
By Erin McCormick in San Francisco for TheGuardian.com, March 30
Craigslist has shut down its renowned “personals” section, which once featured ads titled “Hot days” and “Looking to fool around tonight”. Porn performers are complaining that Google Drive is no longer allowing them to share erotic videos with private clients. Microsoft has announced new rules banning “offensive language” from conversations on Skype and Xbox. And Reddit has closed sex industry discussion groups entitled “Escorts”, “Hookers”, and “SugarDaddy”.
All of this has happened in recent days and weeks; a particular genre of online sex, it seems, is vanishing from the internet.
The timing of all these internet sex crackdowns corresponds with the US Congress’s passage last week of a bill known as the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (Fosta).
While intended to protect victims of sex trafficking, critics say the bill will force internet platforms to censor their users in order to avoid being prosecuted for newly created sex trafficking offenses. Some sex workers argue the bill will hurt those who voluntarily work in the sex industry by pushing them off the internet and back on to the streets. Internet advocates say the bill may the beginning of a crackdown on free speech online.
“US Congress just passed HR 1865, ‘Fosta’, seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully,” wrote Craiglist in a statement posted on Friday [....]
Comments
No surprise that there aren't any Larry Flynts around willing to take this to the Supremes if necessary. They are all mostly caving, leaving the dirtiest sectors behind to risk it all. Old school players like Stormy Daniels don't have to worry. Roseanne should be happy from the few things I've read.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/31/2018 - 3:32pm
related op-ed @ The Guardian:
Sexual freedom is at risk from these damning new bills passed by Congress
Craigslist closed its personal ads due to Congress’s patriarchal, homophobic bid to control sex workers. It won’t stop there
By Steven W Thrasher, March 29
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/31/2018 - 3:43pm
What Craiglist and similar sites are implicitly saying is the revenue stream from personals seeking unpaid consensual sex is insufficient for them to monitor the site to eliminate ads for paid services. There are still many sites where a person can look for queer, kink, adultery etc. unpaid sex. I've seen no articles that they are shutting down.
I'm usually of the opinion that almost everything should be legal but that doesn't mean that I think web sites should be allowed to advertise things we as a society have decided are illegal.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 03/31/2018 - 5:17pm
It's kind of like saying you can operate a taxi, but you have to verify none of your riders has been doing anything worn or carrying illicit material on them. It's not like the IlUS Post Office checks that no one is sending kiddie porn, and if soneone's caught, it's them that face the burden, not USPS. Same w UPS et al. So why the policing requirement for the online providers? Sure, they can easily flag certain terms in ads, but are they supposed to verify age or what?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/31/2018 - 5:37pm
The USPS and Fed ex take precautions to find and stop illegal activity and cooperate fully with law enforcement if there's an investigation. One thing that was discussed frequently back in my pot smoking days when mailing pot was to not get high and to wash your hands well when packaging the pot because post offices sometimes had dogs sniffing packages.
These sites facilitate illegal activity. They know that's what they're doing. It's by design a large part of their revenue stream. When called on it they play innocent and claim free speech rights.
If an ad is clearly offering a child for sale the site doesn't need to verify the girl is actually underage to ban those types of ads. And once again even adult prostitution is illegal in most states whether or not you or I think those laws are good or wise.
ETA: You keep making what I consider bad analogies. Here's one that isn't good either but better imo than your's. If a taxi company let it be known that it would take you to the tenderloin district, drive around until you picked out a 13 year old run away, and then drop you off at a hotel that would also look the other way I'd have no problem shutting down and prosecuting that taxi company. Even if they made absolutely sure that no sexual contact happened in the cab.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 03/31/2018 - 6:35pm
FOSTA: The New Anti-Sex-Trafficking Legislation May Not End the Internet, But It’s Not Good Law Either
By Danielle Citron & Quinta Jurecic @ Lawfare.com, March 28
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/31/2018 - 4:07pm
HOW A CONTROVERSIAL NEW SEX-TRAFFICKING LAW WILL CHANGE THE WEB
By Nitasha Tiku @ Wired.com, March 22
Congress OKs sex-trafficking bill that critics say will “censor the Internet”
By Jon Brodkin @ ArsTechnica.com, 3/21/2018
Critics say law will limit free speech online and won’t help trafficking victims.
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/31/2018 - 4:17pm
And there's no compromise between policing ads for under girls vs. allowed content?
If an underage girl is walking the street, can we sue the city for providing a platform for trafficking?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/31/2018 - 4:20pm
It very much appears to be very lousy law, l I just found this: the DOJ called it unconstitutional and said it would make convictions harder!...
FOSTA Passes Senate, Making Prostitution Ads a Federal Crime Against Objections from DOJ and Trafficking Victims
The measure will "make it harder, not easier, to root out and prosecute sex traffickers," said Sen. Ron Wyden, one of only two senators to vote no on FOSTA.
By Elizabeth Nolan Brown @ Reason.com, Mar. 21, 2018 3:55 pm
by artappraiser on Sat, 03/31/2018 - 4:24pm
Web sites want a complete exemption from all liability for content on their site. It's illegal in most jurisdictions to publish a magazine that contains ads for sex work, especially child sex work. Why should web sites get more protections than print?
Imo web sites could have avoided this law if they had been proactive in eliminating all child sex ads. One reason they weren't proactive is that child sex ads were part of their revenue stream. They chose to fight for a complete exemption and as expected they lost big. Not just liability for child sex ads but ads for all illegal paid sex.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 03/31/2018 - 5:26pm
The difference is that mags sell specific ad space - online pubs have a space with massive numbers if rotating ads - no one's going to review 10,000 programmatically driven online ads derived from a specific user demograpgic. The ads aren't even known until the user clicks.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 03/31/2018 - 5:32pm
It's not the programmatically driven online ads that are the problem. It's the "personals" that are quite often thinly veiled ads for prostitution, a significant number for child prostitution. If a site is incapable of monitoring it's personal ads for child prostitution it shouldn't have the site. It's because they were unwilling to monitor for ads for child prostitution that they left an opening to restrict ads for adult prostitution, which by the way, is still illegal in most states. How ever you or I might feel about those laws.
by ocean-kat on Sat, 03/31/2018 - 6:06pm
Backpage.com taken offline ‘as part of an enforcement action,’ federal officials say
By Tom Jackman & Mark Berman @ WashingtonPost.com, April 6
by artappraiser on Fri, 04/06/2018 - 8:31pm