SolaceSoul

As loquacious as your comment may be, to be very clear, the OP also stated succinctly and clearly in his original comment: “I had safe sex with many boys on a two day trip i recently made to Colombia”. This wasn’t about the colloquial use of the term “had”, but the literal meaning of “sex with boys”. It’s hard to defend that from an overzealous investigator / prosecutor post-script. “But every other reader knew what I meant!” is not a very good defense. Clearer language is much more preferable.

What you fail to understand — whether willingly or not — is that it’s not about what you mean or what other readers understand you to mean, but how it can be interpreted by outside forces and ultimately used to punish not only the individual poster, but this entire website and message board. Especially in an era where the future of sites like this one are precarious, words need to be chosen much more wisely.

The new law was already challenged in court. The judge threes out the challenge on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not have proper standing to sue — citing no “direct harm” by the law. These plaintiffs are supposedly appealing that ruling, but a better group of plaintiffs should re-file. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/09/fosta-case-update-court-dismisses-lawsuit-without-ruling-whether-statute https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/fosta-already-leading-censorship-we-are-seeking-reinstatement-our-lawsuit

It seems that (per usual) non-Americans understand what’s going on in the USA more than most Americans. i would add to your post that “the idea of FOSTA-SESTA is to curtail porn as well as escorting online as much as possible because the thinking is the more porn, the more prostitution and the more sex trafficking.” The anti-porn, anti-sex work activists have successfully convinced U.S. politicians from both parties (the law passed overwhelmingly bipartisan!) and the influential parts of American society than porn and sex work are equivalent to human trafficking. Thinking people understand that this is sex panic, hyperbole and overreach, but we currently don’t live during a thinking, science-based, research-based body politic. We are living during a reactionary one. Studies have shown that legalized and regulated prostitution reduces harm to sex workers and clients, and lessens sex trafficking because it brings potential victims out of the shadows. Yet, here we are, anyway. As for why the law has not yet been used — it HAS been used already. It has been used to force websites and message boards to shut down. It has been used to seize banking assets of sex workers and webmasters / bloggers accused of “facilitating prostitution”.

It’s 57 total dead, and 16 of those dead were decapitated. Perhaps this will clear it up for you. “At least 57 prisoners were killed by other inmates during clashes between organized crime groups in the Altamira prison in northern Brazil Monday with 16 of the victims being decapitated, according to prison officials.” https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1035991

Oh, Jeez. Most of those websites / boards listed above also focused on paid encounters with legal age consenting providers. And a few of those cases were BEFORE FOSTA-SESTA — which is a much more strenuous federal law! NOW, all it requires is a finding that the website or message board “facilitates prostitution” in order to fall under the heading of sex trafficking! “Facilitates” is a very broad definition. The word means “to make easier or less difficult; help forward (an action, a process, etc.); to assist the progress of (a person).” This says nothing about the legal age requirement; however, it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) take a genius to surmise that suspicions of child sex facilitation would make law enforcement harassment or the threat of investigation far WORSE. Therefore, when referring to sex or the sex trade, why even use colloquialism like “boy” that could easily be interpreted literally?

“[E]ven though crimes such as murder and sex trafficking have undoubtedly been planned in Facebook groups, posts, or messages, Facebook could not be held criminally liable for the murders or sex trafficking. Now all that has changed: Any website that is used to facilitate prostitution can be prosecuted for sex trafficking.” https://thecrimereport.org/2018/06/04/the-deadly-consequences-of-the-anti-sex-trafficking-law/

This might be a wise move for you. Vertical stripes probably wouldn’t look so good on you, anyway.

I really don’t have the time or the energy to play your little game. Operation Delego targeted and prosecute the 72 charged defendants and more than 500 additional individuals around the world for their participation in Dreamboard – a private, members-only, online bulletin board that was found, according to prosecutors, promoting pedophilia and encouraging the sexual abuse of very young children, in an environment designed to avoid law enforcement detection. The sweep called “Operation Innocence Lost” used Congressionally-approved FBI funds to combat child human trafficking to, among other things, cast as wide a net as possible scourge websites and message boards for users that posted about sex with minors. The Review Board — a message board designed like this one where men reviewed and posted details about sex workers and became an online community of buyers — resulted in the investigation, arrests and prosecution of dozens of mostly professional, upper middle class men in the Pacific Northwest. Police got search warrants to go after their email accounts and the ISP addresses that linked their pseudonyms to their real names. P411, a similar members-only site, was infiltrated by law enforcement and members cooperated with authorities to turn in other members suspected of sex trafficking and facilitating prostitution. There are others, but as I mentioned, I’m not here to play silly games with you. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

It doesn’t require anyone to track down the ISP of every individual user here — only the ones who have posted certain remarks that it believes are violative of federal laws. It isn’t very different from how federal investigators can ultimately bring charges against posters who make terrorist threats on anonymous message boards or admit to hacking info banking systems on 4chan.

Is every ISP that logs on to this forum domiciled in Thailand?

Some legal options already exercised in similar cases: Shutting down websites. Demand for federally required documentary evidence of legal age requirements of subjects in pornographic images under USC 2257. Securing warrants for the IP addresses of individual offending posters. Closing down back accounts of suspected offenders. Arrest warrants. Extradition.

A good communicator knows his audience.

Many posters do not seem to understand how unreasonably broad this new law (passed almost unanimously in Congress and signed into law by Drumpf in 2018), intended to curb internet sex trafficking and child sexual exploitation, was intentionally written. This thread is to discuss that and educate other posters who are either previously unaware or willfully ignorant of the law’s potential reach. ”FOSTA makes it illegal to post content on the Internet that “facilitates” prostitution and also strips Internet sites from legal protections provided by 47 U.S.C. Section 230, part of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 afforded websites liability only for content they themselves create and publish, shielding websites from liability for speech contained in comments and opinions submitted to them by third parties. FOSTA, which stands for Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, was purported to fight sex trafficking by outlawing ads or other content involving sexual exploitation of minors. But instead of focusing on the perpetrators of sex trafficking, FOSTA goes after online speakers, imposing harsh penalties for any speaker that may use the Internet to “facilitate” prostitution or “contribute to sex trafficking.” Within days of its passage, Craigslist took down its personals section, saying it couldn’t take the risk that someone in the section could be accused of violating FOSTA without jeopardizing other services.” https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/02/fosta-already-leading-censorship-we-are-seeking-reinstatement-our-lawsuit

That’s great for OZ, but it doesn’t exonerate / insulate anyone from US federal prosecution or harassment that has conducted any deemed questionable activities on US territory — including posting from the USA to a foreign message board through an ISP located in the USA.

Adult-oriented sites and message boards that discuss the commerce of sex, or post pornographic images of models that cannot be proven to be adults have been shut down after FOSTA / SESTA — either voluntarily or by the feds. These include not only sites that actually do traffic in child porn or sex trafficking, but also sites that merely contain message boards where individual users have inadvertently posted something that could be interpreted broadly as a federal sex crime. Good luck convincing a federal prosecutor that the “intent” for the use of the word “boy” was simply just an adult after it was used sexually. Perhaps after months or years and tens of thousands of dollars spent by the webmaster as a defendant (because under FOSTA / SESTA, they now hold the website owner criminally liable for the words of an individual message board posted), the feds will drop the harassing case. There are many reports of adult and sex worker websites being harassed under the new law are being posted on the Internet. Google is your friend: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180614/08352740037/doj-lets-cops-know-sesta-fosta-is-shutting-down-websites-not-busting-sex-traffickers.shtml You honestly have no idea who monitors this site or how the information posted here is disseminated to law enforcement. And based on your comment, it seems that you might not even understand how the internet works. The “FBI” doesn’t need to sit around and monitor individual websites. Once something is posted onto the internet, it never truly goes away and can be saved, screen shot, tracked or recovered. I would much rather be “extra” than a fool.

You were a pioneer. Online, this clear adult phrasing is appropriate and necessary in a FOSTA/SESTA world (for any US-based or US-operating website or message board). Adult-oriented websites and message boards are now being shut down for MUCH less! ”Previous to the bill, individual web users were legally responsible for what they posted. Now, any number of company employees could face up to 10 years in federal prison if their platform hosts anything that “facilitates sex work or sex trafficking.” It’s a broadly written law that could affect any adult-oriented businesses, including those that market sexual films (another form of “sex work”) and forums advocating sex work legalization. The law essentially allows state and federal governments to shut down any sites it doesn’t like in the name of preventing trafficking. Companies don’t have the time or technology to effectively filter out all of this potentially illegal content. It would take an expensive and powerful form of artificial intelligence to detect it, and teams of lawyers to handle any potential lawsuits if anything slips through. Instead of paying for these exorbitant costs, most businesses have just opted to shut down any forums for sex or dating. Others have banned any and all “adult content” (including discussion boards) and created rules forbidding sexual comments.” https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/03/sesta-fosta-turning-web-g-rated-minefield-dan-savage-pals-know-2-ways-destroy/?amp

I bow to Thee.

Thank you, @paborn! Finally, some common sense.

Huge sigh. It’s not about what “EVERYONE” here knew what the poster meant, but about what it states in plain language to those who may read / monitor the site. Asking a question in print about “having sex with boys” — in an age of FOSTA / SESTA where websites are being shut down for promoting underage sex and pornography with minors is a really, really bad idea. Under the sweeping new FOSTA / SESTA federal law, the feds are looking for ANY reason to shut down websites that they view promote child sex trafficking. Therefore, precise language regarding consensual sex with adults is very important. Some more flippant and cavalier posters may not care if this website — like others already have — gets shut down and the webmaster catches a federal charge that he will have to spend all his resources defending. I happen to like the place and want it to stick around The OP seemed to understand this when it was pointed out to him.

You should just give him the URL to this message board.

Is that at once or total in one night?

I am over 40 and don’t refer to sexual partners as boys. Sorry. Also, there is a big difference between someone using the term “boys” with a group of adult guys they are already familiar or friendly with (“hanging out with the boys”, “having drinks with the boys”, etc.”), and staying, in clear language and in print, “having sex with boys”.

“Boys”? I hope you are referring exclusively to young men that are over the age of 18. Because a “boy” is a child. In Brazil, the term “boy” is used (in both its Portuguese “garoto” and the English “boy”) to refer to an adult male who prostitutes himself, whether at a sauna, as a “kept man”, or as a self-contractor through ads or on the streets. I am not familiar with the term “boy” used that way in Spanish-speaking (as is Colombia) or in English-speaking countries. But in the USA, calling a black or brown man a “boy” is considered offensive and can be fighting words. Regarding the question of how many working adult-age MEN (or garotos) I have had in one day in Brazil, my record might be five in one day (separately). Non-working, three.

Seriously. What does he want? Microscopic views of penises and anuses? That’s about the only detail that hasn’t been shared here publicly!