Senate launches bill to remove immunity for websites hosting illegal content

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Bladewire
    StraightBro
    • Aug 2003
    • 56228

    #1

    Senate launches bill to remove immunity for websites hosting illegal content

    It looks like congress is going to make platforms responsible for content on their sites, and using sex trafficking as the excuse. Both the House & Senate have similar bills to do this.

    ------

    Senate launches bill to remove immunity for websites hosting illegal content

    The Senate on Tuesday introduced an amendment to a law that protects the hosts of websites from liability for content posted by others to go after sites such as Backpage.com that have been criticized for facilitating child sex trafficking.

    The bill, titled the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017, would amend the Communications Decency Act. It is sponsored by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and a bipartisan group of 19 other senators, some of whom served on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which focused on Backpage.com in its probe of online sex trafficking.

    In April, Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) introduced a slightly broader bill in the House which now has 101 co-sponsors. In addition to amending the Communications Decency Act, it also seeks to amend the federal criminal code to say that any website provider who publishes information from anyone, ?with reckless disregard that the information ? is in furtherance of? sex trafficking of a person under 18 ?shall be fined ? or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.?


    Skype: CallTomNow

  • directfiesta
    Too lazy to set a custom title
    • Oct 2002
    • 30135

    #2
    Curious to see how that would be enforced WORLDWIDE ....
    I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !

    But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

    Comment

    • Bladewire
      StraightBro
      • Aug 2003
      • 56228

      #3
      Originally posted by directfiesta
      Curious to see how that would be enforced WORLDWIDE ....
      Just like the UK, block offending sites from U.S. surfers


      Skype: CallTomNow

      Comment

      • directfiesta
        Too lazy to set a custom title
        • Oct 2002
        • 30135

        #4
        Originally posted by Bladewire
        Just like the UK, block offending sites from U.S. surfers
        So you say that foreign countries will start enforcing for them their local laws ?

        A bit like asking China to settle NK issues ... others doing the job ...

        It would be more to the US providers to prevent foreign sites to be seen , just like China does ...
        I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT !

        But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

        Comment

        • Barry-xlovecam
          It's 42
          • Jun 2010
          • 18083

          #5
          https://www.capito.senate.gov/imo/me...ll%20Text).pdf

          Try reading the ACTUAL BILL ...

          I don't really think it is tantamount to 'the sky is falling' the bill's wording says with knowledge that is a rather high burden of proof. Of course there will be SODDI and TODDI defense aplenty.

          They are not going after porn or free speech.
          There are no ridiculous extraterritorial actions.
          There is no alluding to blocking DNS resolution.

          Comment

          • Bladewire
            StraightBro
            • Aug 2003
            • 56228

            #6
            Originally posted by directfiesta
            So you say that foreign countries will start enforcing for them their local laws ?

            A bit like asking China to settle NK issues ... others doing the job ...

            It would be more to the US providers to prevent foreign sites to be seen , just like China does ...
            China, the U.K. & Russia all block access to sites so why shouldn't we when the site is hosting stolen content?

            If Americans only see legal sites without stolen content, they buy downloads or memberships.


            Skype: CallTomNow

            Comment

            • The Porn Nerd
              Living The Dream
              • Jun 2009
              • 19784

              #7
              The Feds really want Backpage don't they?
              Like they wanted Craig's List.....
              My Affiliate Programs:
              Porn Nerd Cash | Porn Showcase | Aggressive Gold

              Over 90 paysites to promote!
              Now on Teams: peabodymedia

              Comment

              • Bladewire
                StraightBro
                • Aug 2003
                • 56228

                #8
                Originally posted by The Porn Nerd
                The Feds really want Backpage don't they?
                Like they wanted Craig's List.....
                Yeah Backpage really fucked up evidently


                Skype: CallTomNow

                Comment

                • blackmonsters
                  Making PHP work
                  • Nov 2002
                  • 20961

                  #9
                  Originally posted by directfiesta
                  Curious to see how that would be enforced WORLDWIDE ....
                  International agreements are possible for many things.
                  Copyright protection is recognized by other nations so there could be lots of cooperation in
                  bringing charges abroad.
                  Free Open Source Live Aggregated Cams Script (FOSLACS)

                  Comment

                  • bns666
                    Confirmed Fetishist
                    • Mar 2005
                    • 11553

                    #10
                    that cant work worldwide...
                    CAM SODASTRIPCHAT
                    CHATURBATEX LOVE CAM

                    Comment

                    • pornlaw
                      Confirmed User
                      • Feb 2007
                      • 1902

                      #11
                      The worst bills are always pushed under the guise of "let's protect the children."

                      You never know how this will be implemented until its passed and signed into law.
                      Michael

                      www.AdultBizLaw.com

                      Comment

                      • onwebcam
                        Fake Nick 1.0
                        • Oct 2005
                        • 27689

                        #12
                        Originally posted by pornlaw
                        The worst bills are always pushed under the guise of "let's protect the children."

                        You never know how this will be implemented until its passed and signed into law.
                        That's any bill. If Washington is calling it one thing. Expect the complete opposite.
                        PLEASE WAIT WHILE BIDEN ADMIN UNINSTALLS ITSELF.....
                        ██████████████████▒ 99.5% complete.

                        Comment

                        • Barry-xlovecam
                          It's 42
                          • Jun 2010
                          • 18083

                          #13
                          https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591
                          USC 18 §1591
                          Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation

                          This is just including law already existing.
                          United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988)
                          UNITED STATES v. KOZMINSKI | FindLaw

                          http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.h...e=129&page=238

                          http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-10...106publ386.htm

                          ' and other commercial sexual services.' is the problem -- well this law is from 2000 and this has never been tried to be enforced toward hiring and shooting model or other forms of commercial porn or explicit adult entertainment as it would not meet the standards set forth by the SCOTUS in United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988).

                          barry@paragon-DS-7:/media/barry/5...../hmantraff$ egrep -i 'servitude' victims_of_trafficking_and_violence_protection_act _of_2000
                          slavery, and involuntary servitude, to reauthorize certain Federal
                          involuntary servitude, peonage, and other forms of forced labor
                          market. Within the context of slavery, servitude, and labor or
                          conduct that amounts to a condition of servitude, victims are
                          (13) Involuntary servitude statutes are intended to reach
                          cases in which persons are held in a condition of servitude
                          absent a definition of involuntary servitude by Congress. As a
                          servitude that is brought about through use or threatened use of
                          involuntary servitude is among those unalienable rights.
                          involuntary servitude in 1865, recognizing them as evil
                          involuntary servitude, violence against women, and other
                          (5) Involuntary servitude.--The term ``involuntary
                          servitude'' includes a condition of servitude induced by means
                          for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude,
                          servitude, or forced labor
                          servitude, or forced labor
                          servitude, or forced labor.
                          peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor.
                          of peonage, involuntary servitude, slave trade offenses, and
                          servitude, and slave trade offenses; and
                          involuntary servitude, being held hostage or being
                          involuntary servitude; slave trade; kidnapping;
                          continued below

                          Comment

                          • Barry-xlovecam
                            It's 42
                            • Jun 2010
                            • 18083

                            #14
                            continued from above

                            barry@paragon-DS-7:/media/barry/....../hmantraff$ egrep -B25 -A100 -i 'porn' victims_of_trafficking_and_violence_protection_act _of_2000

                            https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-1...106publ386.htm

                            SEC. 101. <<NOTE: 22 USC 7101 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

                            This division may be cited as the ``Trafficking Victims Protection
                            Act of 2000''.

                            SEC. 102. <<NOTE: 22 USC 7101.>> PURPOSES AND FINDINGS.

                            (a) Purposes.--The purposes of this division are to combat
                            trafficking in persons, a contemporary manifestation of slavery whose
                            victims are predominantly women and children, to ensure just and
                            effective punishment of traffickers, and to protect their victims.
                            (b) Findings.--Congress finds that:
                            (1) As the 21st century begins, the degrading institution of
                            slavery continues throughout the world. Trafficking in persons
                            is a modern form of slavery, and it is the largest manifestation
                            of slavery today. At least 700,000 persons annually, primarily
                            women and children, are trafficked within or across
                            international borders. Approximately 50,000 women and children
                            are trafficked into the United States each year.
                            (2) Many of these persons are trafficked into the
                            international sex trade, often by force, fraud, or coercion. The
                            sex industry has rapidly expanded over the past several decades.
                            It involves sexual exploitation of persons, predominantly women
                            and girls, involving activities related to prostitution,
                            pornography, sex tourism, and other commercial sexual services.

                            The low status of women in many parts of the world has
                            contributed to a burgeoning of the trafficking industry.
                            (3) Trafficking in persons is not limited to the sex
                            industry. This growing transnational crime also includes forced
                            labor and involves significant violations of labor, public
                            health, and human rights standards worldwide.
                            (4) Traffickers primarily target women and girls, who are
                            disproportionately affected by poverty, the lack of access to
                            education, chronic unemployment, discrimination, and the lack of
                            economic opportunities in countries of origin. Traffickers lure
                            women and girls into their networks through false promises of
                            decent working conditions at relatively good pay as nannies,
                            maids, dancers, factory workers, restaurant workers, sales
                            clerks, or models. Traffickers also buy children from poor
                            families and sell them into prostitution or into various types
                            of forced or bonded labor.
                            (5) Traffickers often transport victims from their home
                            communities to unfamiliar destinations, including foreign
                            countries away from family and friends, religious institutions,
                            and other sources of protection and support, leaving the victims
                            defenseless and vulnerable.
                            (6) Victims are often forced through physical violence to
                            engage in sex acts or perform slavery-like labor. Such force
                            includes rape and other forms of sexual abuse, torture,
                            starvation, imprisonment, threats, psychological abuse, and
                            coercion.
                            (7) Traffickers often make representations to their victims
                            that physical harm may occur to them or others should the victim
                            escape or attempt to escape. Such representations can

                            [[Page 114 STAT. 1467]]

                            have the same coercive effects on victims as direct threats to
                            inflict such harm.
                            (8) Trafficking in persons is increasingly perpetrated by
                            organized, sophisticated criminal enterprises. Such trafficking
                            is the fastest growing source of profits for organized criminal
                            enterprises worldwide. Profits from the trafficking industry
                            contribute to the expansion of organized crime in the United
                            States and worldwide. Trafficking in persons is often aided by
                            official corruption in countries of origin, transit, and
                            destination, thereby threatening the rule of law.
                            (9) Trafficking includes all the elements of the crime of
                            forcible rape when it involves the involuntary participation of
                            another person in sex acts by means of fraud, force, or
                            coercion.
                            (10) Trafficking also involves violations of other laws,
                            including labor and immigration codes and laws against
                            kidnapping, slavery, false imprisonment, assault, battery,
                            pandering, fraud, and extortion.
                            (11) Trafficking exposes victims to serious health risks.
                            Women and children trafficked in the sex industry are exposed to
                            deadly diseases, including HIV and AIDS. Trafficking victims are
                            sometimes worked or physically brutalized to death.
                            (12) Trafficking in persons substantially affects interstate
                            and foreign commerce. Trafficking for such purposes as
                            involuntary servitude, peonage, and other forms of forced labor
                            has an impact on the nationwide employment network and labor
                            market. Within the context of slavery, servitude, and labor or
                            services which are obtained or maintained through coercive
                            conduct that amounts to a condition of servitude, victims are
                            subjected to a range of violations.
                            (13) Involuntary servitude statutes are intended to reach
                            cases in which persons are held in a condition of servitude
                            through nonviolent coercion. In United States v. Kozminski, 487
                            U.S. 931 (1988), the Supreme Court found that section 1584 of
                            title 18, United States Code, should be narrowly interpreted,
                            absent a definition of involuntary servitude by Congress. As a
                            result, that section was interpreted to criminalize only
                            servitude that is brought about through use or threatened use of
                            physical or legal coercion, and to exclude other conduct that
                            can have the same purpose and effect.
                            (14) Existing legislation and law enforcement in the United
                            States and other countries are inadequate to deter trafficking
                            and bring traffickers to justice, failing to reflect the gravity
                            of the offenses involved. No comprehensive law exists in the
                            United States that penalizes the range of offenses involved in
                            the trafficking scheme. Instead, even the most brutal instances
                            of trafficking in the sex industry are often punished under laws
                            that also apply to lesser offenses, so that traffickers
                            typically escape deserved punishment.
                            (15) In the United States, the seriousness of this crime and
                            its components is not reflected in current sentencing
                            guidelines, resulting in weak penalties for convicted
                            traffickers.
                            (16) In some countries, enforcement against traffickers is
                            also hindered by official indifference, by corruption, and
                            sometimes even by official participation in trafficking.

                            [[Page 114 STAT. 1468]]

                            (17) Existing laws often fail to protect victims of
                            trafficking, and because victims are often illegal immigrants in
                            the destination country, they are repeatedly punished more
                            harshly than the traffickers themselves.
                            (18) Additionally, adequate services and facilities do not
                            exist to meet victims' needs regarding health care, housing,
                            education, and legal assistance, which safely reintegrate
                            trafficking victims into their home countries.
                            (19) Victims of severe forms of trafficking should not be
                            Much ado about nothing

                            Advertising on the Internet sex for hire and when crossing state lines to perform prostitution is a violation of The Mann Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 2421 et seq.)https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2421
                            https://prostitution.uslegal.com/federal-mann-act/
                            Federal Mann Act

                            The Mann Act is a federal statute that prohibits interstate or foreign transportation of an individual with the intention of engaging such individual in sexual activity or prostitution. The Mann Act is also known as the White Slave Traffic Act. The Act made it a felony to transport knowingly any person in interstate commerce or foreign commerce for prostitution, or any other immoral purpose. It also made it a felony to coerce an individual into such immoral acts.

                            Under the Mann Act, transportation for the purpose of prostitution need not be with a commercial intention to be made liable. If a person is transported for non-commercial for sexual activity, it will amount to an offense under Mann Act[i]. The Act also applies when a male takes his under-age girlfriend to a neighboring state, or a female transports an underage boy across the state line for sexual purposes.
                            Backpage fucked the porn business up by trying to make a fast buck advertising prostitution and trying to use safe harbor as an internet entity -- mia no culpa for reason of safe harbor SODDI

                            Comment

                            • Paul Markham
                              Too old to care
                              • Jun 2001
                              • 52942

                              #15
                              This could be interesting for Tubes.



                              Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
                              PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

                              Comment

                              • JuicyBunny
                                So Fucking Banned
                                • Jun 2010
                                • 2145

                                #16
                                Originally posted by directfiesta
                                Curious to see how that would be enforced WORLDWIDE ....
                                Its done through trade deals. Country A + Country B make a deal. Components of all the FTA's stipulate each country must help the other when it comes to illegal activity happening in the other country etc. If you have 12 countries making a deal. They all must work together. Thank you one world globalization.

                                Ashley Madison got banged by the FTC because the US DOJ threatened to sue or did sue Canada for assistance. For example.

                                Hopefully they won't fuck this up and actually help out kids and content owners.

                                Comment

                                • Barry-xlovecam
                                  It's 42
                                  • Jun 2010
                                  • 18083

                                  #17
                                  This has everything do do with to do with sex trafficking and marketing/advertising prostitution over the Internet.

                                  It has nothing to do with copyright, intellectual property, tubes or any of your agendas.

                                  As long as "porn" remains as an object that is a speech issue, with first amendment protections, the courts *should* not infer any meaning towards what is precedented legal conduct.

                                  'trafficking' from what I see, is a criminal and territorial issue in the USA. The dictionary and legal meaning is not the same IMO.

                                  Comment

                                  • Paul Markham
                                    Too old to care
                                    • Jun 2001
                                    • 52942

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by Barry-xlovecam
                                    This has everything do do with to do with sex trafficking and marketing/advertising prostitution over the Internet.

                                    It has nothing to do with copyright, intellectual property, tubes or any of your agendas.

                                    As long as "porn" remains as an object that is a speech issue, with first amendment protections, the courts *should* not infer any meaning towards what is precedented legal conduct.

                                    'trafficking' from what I see, is a criminal and territorial issue in the USA. The dictionary and legal meaning is not the same IMO.
                                    It can make a difference if it's stolen content. There's no free speech on that.



                                    Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
                                    PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

                                    Comment

                                    • mce
                                      Confirmed User
                                      • Jun 2012
                                      • 3915

                                      #19
                                      Backpage = the last refuge of ewhoring marketing tactics (circa 2003)

                                      Pay Virtual Assistants Based on RESULTS instead of TIME
                                      STOP getting FUCKED IN THE ASS by your VA

                                      Comment

                                      • Bladewire
                                        StraightBro
                                        • Aug 2003
                                        • 56228

                                        #20
                                        Originally posted by Barry-xlovecam
                                        This has everything do do with to do with sex trafficking and marketing/advertising prostitution over the Internet.

                                        It has nothing to do with copyright, intellectual property, tubes or any of your agendas.

                                        As long as "porn" remains as an object that is a speech issue, with first amendment protections, the courts *should* not infer any meaning towards what is precedented legal conduct.

                                        'trafficking' from what I see, is a criminal and territorial issue in the USA. The dictionary and legal meaning is not the same IMO.
                                        I think you're overlooking how laws are utilized past their initial intention.

                                        Remember the 2257 raids? I do.

                                        Raids over checking paperwork to "save the children"

                                        But you think this bill will be used strictly for sex trafficking in the strictest sense


                                        Skype: CallTomNow

                                        Comment

                                        • Barry-xlovecam
                                          It's 42
                                          • Jun 2010
                                          • 18083

                                          #21
                                          Remember what the US Appeals Court did with §2257?

                                          I don't think this proposed change in the CDA will have any affect on lawful porn notwithstanding an possible effect on porn shooters-- and that is a big maybe. If you are shooting in the USA and have a permit for the production, like in California ... Using this statute to somehow restrict porn advertising or services is an overreach.

                                          The law with the wording *activities related to prostitution, pornography, sex tourism, and other commercial sexual services.* has been on the books since 2000 so ... in 17 years there has been no attempt at any prosecution, to the best of my recall -- why is that?

                                          Only sites advertising prostitution, and in most cases that includes escorts also, should have real worries. Servers could be seized in rem theoretically if they are operated by persons foreign to the USA.

                                          Comment

                                          • Matt 26z
                                            So Fucking Banned
                                            • Apr 2002
                                            • 18481

                                            #22
                                            Should McDonalds be liable for hosting drug dealers in their parking lot?

                                            Comment

                                            • Bladewire
                                              StraightBro
                                              • Aug 2003
                                              • 56228

                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by Barry-xlovecam
                                              Remember what the US Appeals Court did with §2257?

                                              I don't think this proposed change in the CDA will have any affect on lawful porn notwithstanding an possible effect on porn shooters-- and that is a big maybe. If you are shooting in the USA and have a permit for the production, like in California ... Using this statute to somehow restrict porn advertising or services is an overreach.

                                              The law with the wording *activities related to prostitution, pornography, sex tourism, and other commercial sexual services.* has been on the books since 2000 so ... in 17 years there has been no attempt at any prosecution, to the best of my recall -- why is that?

                                              Only sites advertising prostitution, and in most cases that includes escorts also, should have real worries. Servers could be seized in rem theoretically if they are operated by persons foreign to the USA.
                                              So tube sites where escorts have channels showing their videos with clients are violating that law. And the tubes that charge memberships fee to view those channels are accessories.

                                              See how easy that was?

                                              Every tube site I've been to has those kinds of channels.


                                              Skype: CallTomNow

                                              Comment

                                              • Bladewire
                                                StraightBro
                                                • Aug 2003
                                                • 56228

                                                #24
                                                Originally posted by Matt 26z
                                                Should McDonalds be liable for hosting drug dealers in their parking lot?
                                                They should be arrested for giving 39 cents worth of beef in a $3 burger! Bastards


                                                Skype: CallTomNow

                                                Comment

                                                • Barry-xlovecam
                                                  It's 42
                                                  • Jun 2010
                                                  • 18083

                                                  #25
                                                  Originally posted by Bladewire
                                                  So tube sites where escorts have channels showing their videos with clients are violating that law. And the tubes that charge memberships fee to view those channels are accessories.

                                                  See how easy that was?

                                                  Every tube site I've been to has those kinds of channels.
                                                  Take it to court and see ...

                                                  Comment

                                                  • Paul Markham
                                                    Too old to care
                                                    • Jun 2001
                                                    • 52942

                                                    #26
                                                    Originally posted by Matt 26z
                                                    Should McDonalds be liable for hosting drug dealers in their parking lot?
                                                    Yes, if they know it's going on and do nothing to prevent it.



                                                    Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
                                                    PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

                                                    Comment

                                                    • Barry-xlovecam
                                                      It's 42
                                                      • Jun 2010
                                                      • 18083

                                                      #27
                                                      No, businesses have very limited control over their parking lots -- that is just foolishness.

                                                      Businesses have been known to lose their liquor licenses for the reason of drug dealing or alcohol consumption on the property when it becomes a criminal nuisance.

                                                      Landlords have the same status. They are not responsible for the illegal acts of their tenants that they are not party to. Dealing drugs in rented premises are grounds for civil eviction.

                                                      I am sure they execute the landowner, for whatever happens on his property, that is against the law in North Korea or some other fascist state ...

                                                      Comment

                                                      • Phoenix
                                                        BACON BACON BACON
                                                        • Nov 2002
                                                        • 35475

                                                        #28
                                                        as it should be....there are a lot of businesses in business hosting stoeln and worse content and pretending they don't know what is up
                                                        Telegram PhoenixBrad
                                                        https://quantads.io

                                                        Comment

                                                        Working...