I saw a piece of infuriating propaganda posted on /politics today regarding the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act and posted this rebuttal to call it out: https://voat.co/v/politics/2142156
Relates to PG as it pertains to legislative efforts to reign in some of the immunities claimed by trash such as Backpage. There are some blatant lies being pushed to generate grassroots momentum against SESTA and I am hoping readers on this sub can help continue to spread the truth.
view the rest of the comments →
lawrieraja ago
Right but the link insinuates that the proposed bill bill requires sites to censor users content and affects the good samaritan clause.
The amendment doesn't make ANY changes to the good samaritan clause, nor does it propose any censorship of content. The only changes pertain to criminal investigations of sex trafficking of children and trafficking by force, fraud, etc.
The argument then is 'oh well everyone and their mother will then file lawsuits and it will wreak havoc on the system' but I think its dangerous to think along these slippery slope lines because honestly, we don't know if that would happen.
And to take that argument to the next step, if there are SO many people just waiting in the shadows to file lawsuits of alleged damages as they pertain specifically to sex trafficking of children then isn't that argument in itself an acknowledgment that there are massive amounts of people that admittedly have no current legal recourse to the online trafficking epidemic? How is doing nothing better?