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
I'm not sure I follow...the proposed text makes no mention of hate speech, slander, libel, etc. and I honestly haven't heard that discussed as a talking point, but I'm interested to hear more.
If I copy/paste the proposed changes to the bill would you mind clarifying?
My post on /politics that I linked to this original post contains it but happy to post on this sub as well if convenient...
carmencita ago
After all the researching most of us have done on here regarding our Govt. and politicians being caught up in the trafficking, organ trafficking, drugs, etc. Most of us don't just believe something like the Communications Decency Act. We start immediately getting into the weeds and looking for the catch. The Catch is usually that it means exactly the opposite of what it says. They have twisted and turned so many Acts and Bills including the one that allows CPS to now take away children from their parents. We have been Caught in their Traps Hook Line and Sinker before and now must analyze everything they put forth. They are masters at Just Plain Old Lying.
lawrieraja ago
Agreed, but please hear me out -
You are referring to ASFA (1997), which contains an ENORMOUS amount of loopholes and wordy shenanigans that have effectively allowed CPS to fraudulently charge parents with neglect/abuse/ect. and STEAL CHILDREN under the guise of 'in the best interest of the child,' and then get a cash bonus on top of it! Nancy Scheafer gave her life trying to expose this corruption and it still continues horrendously today. It harkens back to a 1973 article Hillary published titled 'Children Under the Law' in which she argues that the children are wards of the state, and only under provisional care of parents (who must answer to the state), and therefore the state may step in at any time it chooses to take over control of the child. At the time, AFSA was widely lauded as a 'broad, sweeping reform' of an archaic system, 20 year later - we are able to easily see how the cash bonuses stimulate greed which in turn stimulates increased intervention on the part of CPS which in turn stimulates the number of children separated from parents which in turn stimulates criminal trafficking.
Consider also that the Communications Decency Act is part of the Telecommunication Act of 1996, passed by Bill Clinton. Also riddled with loopholes and ALSO, at the time, heralded as a wide, sweeping reform of THAT archaic system. I think there is circumstantial evidence that indicates that the Clintons (as lawyers and scumbags) were completely aware of the technicalities in wording and language that have since been used to foster trafficking and were instrumental in using that language in an intentional way.
I share your well-reasoned skepticism of politicians 100%, but frankly, we have already been caught for 20 years! If we are forever mistrustful of legislation then how can we be instruments of change? Our politicians, whether we like it or not, are the ones with the vested power to enact change.
Not sure if you read my post on /politics (it got downvoted within the first minute of me posting) but it is my attempt to put forth my analysis of the language proposed. Please try not to correlate my 'unseasoned username' with a lack of information, or naiveté. Unlike 20 years ago, this is not a broad, sweeping reform of the system. It is a maybe 40-50 word modification to a full title law that is almost 300 pages. Unlike 20 years ago, I think we HAVE the time to go through each individual word to try an assess any unintended future consequences.
If you have time I ask you to check out my post. Even if you don't agree it with it, I think the topic is one that definitely merits more of a discussion and I would be interested to hear your analysis of the language.