August 3, 20197 yr Active Members 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 Edited August 3, 20197 yr by SolaceSoul
August 3, 20197 yr Active Members It's American, so my possibly inadequate take on it is: Boise is in Idaho. Boise not be, like, Idaho.
August 3, 20197 yr Active Members 43 minutes ago, tassojunior said: But we're still up. You cannot say that in a thread with images!
August 4, 20197 yr Author Active Members “[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/
August 4, 20197 yr Active Members So a local strip up here IT IS RUMOURED charges, or perhaps a third party business does, site membership to view the dancers' stage and camroom shows. Members also can digitally tip (no pun intended) a specific performer. Technically, both aspects illegal since 2014. For the corporation and the consumer. However, it seems that you can pay a cover charge and enter the establishment for stage show viewing, all with impunity. Lap dance borderline allowable with no genital contact or simulated intercourse. You would need to be caught red-handed with the dancer's unmentionables exposed. "How many songs was that?" Not "how much do I owe you?" You can stage-show cash tip into the panties pulled down with the schlong an inch from your face. This is not to say onsite strip club raids have never historically occurred up here. They are a thing of the past and the evidentiary requirements were perhaps trickier to satisfy. The postmodern obsession with all things digital, and development/expansion thereof, was bound to spill over into the vice domain. Enormous related capital expenditures have to be justified. Punitive consequences may be a long shot, but one does not want to be on the losing end of the reverse lottery.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.