Saw something posted by you the other day that wasn't half bad, too; I could hardly believe it was the same username as before. Meant to say something but got distracted before doing so.

I may, indeed, tell you so again for another good post because that's all that really matters here.

Cheers, niggerfaggot.

That may be the intent of passing this law.

I think you may be right.

I'm not sure I understand the question(s).

Not 100% picking up what you're laying down, sir.

Not really.

We fucking need to stifle leftist free speech and ban leftist ideology at all cost.

Commies and cultural marxists don't deserve free speech.

What free speech is this amendment bill stifling?

Great work comping the info, but they still deserve to die for many prior infringements.

These are all stopgap measures designed by stopgap leaders. This is all Gladiator legislation designed for the spectacle of moral hand-wringing and will accomplish nothing in the long run.

If we really wanted to end sex trafficking, we'd start at the source not the symptoms, which of course would bring to light the real problem that no politician wants to deal with: shitty fucking unaccountable parenting. because shitty fucking unaccountable parenting eventually produces shitty fucking unaccountable leadership aka "politicians". In other words, the politicians (parents) are busy blaming the citizens (children) to draw attention away from their poor leadership.

As far as making this into a censorship issue, libtards have already demonstrated that they will go to any lengths and use any law already on the books to legally restrict free speech. As previously stated, if we continue to run around like chickens with our heads cut off, trying to play whack-a-mole with every new version of a censorship bill that rears its ugly head, we will eventually wear ourselves out through cynicism and apathy. Our energy is better spent actively championing the type of free speech we desire instead of passively waiting around for it to be restricted. Our energy is better spent debating the principles we haven't yet codified so that we have something to actually rally around rather than passively waiting like we always do for a libtard to start legislating against our way of life. I mean it's a fucking joke at this point that the NRA doesn't know how to properly position their Second Amendment argument as the protection of one's life, not merely the future threat of government tyranny. The former argument is a thousand times more meaningful to the average American than the ladder. The fact that we haven't already fleshed this out is a major part of why we're still fighting to protect it today.

Conclusion: I'm glad I'm not @Puttiout, this seems like a lot of work. That being said, he has a legion behind him. He needs only to speak up and give sensible instructions and we'll be behind him.

If you find an interpretation of the wording that would jeopardize Voat more than the stuff already on the books, let me know and I'll edit my OP.

Thanks for spreading the word!

What is this thread and why does it not link to the actual text itself.

Above is listed H. R. 1965 - Land Act of 115TH congress. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1965

Then following your text:

H.R.1865 - Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 115th Congress (2017-2018)

That text is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865/

It is disingenuous to Voat when there is no link to the Actual bill. I value the opinion of goats but please along with your opinion, provide the link so we can formulate thoughts for ourselves. Let me know if I am off here, H.R. 1965 is different than H.R. 1865 and if the link had been provided, it would have been recognized as a typo. Not having it, it is open for misintrepretation.

The text of the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865/text?format=txt

The text but I reccomend you looking at it for yourself. It's not long, i've posted it below.

A BILL


 
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify that section 230 of 
such Act does not prohibit the enforcement against providers and users 
  of interactive computer services of Federal and State criminal and 
     civil law relating to sexual exploitation of children or sex 
                  trafficking, and for other purposes.


 


    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Allow States and Victims to Fight 
Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
        U.S.C. 230; commonly known as the ``Communications Decency Act 
        of 1996'') was never intended to provide legal protection to 
        websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution 
        and contribute to sex trafficking;
            (2) websites that promote and facilitate prostitution have 
        been reckless in allowing the sale of sex trafficking victims 
        and have done nothing to prevent the trafficking of children 
        and victims of force, fraud, and coercion; and
            (3) clarification of such section is warranted to ensure 
        that such section does not provide such protection to such 
        websites.

SEC. 3. PROMOTION OF PROSTITUTION AND RECKLESS DISREGARD OF SEX 
              TRAFFICKING.

    (a) Promotion of Prostitution.--Chapter 117 of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2421 the following:
``Sec. 2421A. Promotion or facilitation of prostitution and reckless 
              disregard of sex trafficking
    ``(a) In General.--Whoever uses or operates a facility or means of 
interstate or foreign commerce or attempts to do so with the intent to 
promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person shall be fined 
under this title, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
    ``(b) Aggravated Violation.--Whoever uses or operates a facility or 
means of interstate or foreign commerce with the intent to promote or 
facilitate the prostitution of another person and--
            ``(1) promotes or facilitates the prostitution of 5 or more 
        persons; or
            ``(2) acts in reckless disregard of the fact that such 
        conduct contributed to sex trafficking, in violation of 
        1591(a),
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 25 years, 
or both.
    ``(c) Civil Recovery.--Any person injured by reason of a violation 
of section 2421A(b) may recover damages and reasonable attorneys' fees 
in an action before any appropriate United States district court. 
Consistent with section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
U.S.C. 230), a defendant may be held liable, under this subsection, 
where promotion or facilitation of prostitution activity includes 
responsibility for the creation or development of all or part of the 
information or content provided through any interactive computer 
service.
    ``(d) Mandatory Restitution.--Notwithstanding sections 3663 or 
3663A and in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties 
authorized by law, the court shall order restitution for any offense 
under this section.
    ``(e) Affirmative Defense.--It shall be an affirmative defense to a 
charge of violating subsection (a) where the defendant proves, by a 
preponderance of the evidence, that the promotion or facilitation of 
prostitution is legal in the jurisdiction where the promotion or 
facilitation was targeted.''.
    (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for such chapter is 
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 2421 the 
following:

``2421A. Promotion or facilitation of prostitution and reckless 
                            disregard of sex trafficking.''.

SEC. 4. COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT.

    Section 230(e) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(e)) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) No effect on state laws conforming to 18 u.s.c. 
        1591(a) or 2421a.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
        to impair or limit any charge in a criminal prosecution brought 
        under State law--
                    ``(A) if the conduct underlying the charge 
                constitutes a violation of section 2421A of title 18, 
                United States Code, and promotion or facilitation of 
                prostitution is illegal in the jurisdiction where the 
                defendant's promotion or facilitation of prostitution 
                was targeted; or
                    ``(B) if the conduct underlying the charge 
                constitutes a violation of section 1591(a) of title 18, 
                United States Code.''.

SEC. 5. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

    Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be 
construed to limit or preempt any civil action or criminal prosecution 
under Federal law or State law (including State statutory law and State 
common law) filed before or after the day before the date of enactment 
of this Act that was not limited or preempted by section 230 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230), as such section was in 
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act.
                                                 Union Calendar No. 432

115th CONGRESS

   2d Session

                               H. R. 1865

                      [Report No. 115-572, Part I]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify that section 230 of 
such Act does not prohibit the enforcement against providers and users 
  of interactive computer services of Federal and State criminal and 
     civil law relating to sexual exploitation of children or sex 
                  trafficking, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           February 20, 2018

     Reported from the Committee on the Judiciary with an amendment

                           February 20, 2018

   The Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged; committed to the 
 Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to 
                               be printed

Amazing work Crensch. I am going to start reading through all of this right away. I have noticed lots of stories lately about CP flooding social media, and even one about the FBI running a CP website. There is definitely something odd in the works. Thank you for all that you do, you glorious niggerfaggot.

Whoa, I'm honored to be included. I will look this over in more detail, after I finish dinner. But my first impressions is that its more unnecessary legal nonsense to enlarge government powers.

If some one is posting CP they should be the target not the host. If there really is no way to deal with a site that is dedicated to hosting this kind of shit then I could see this bill being necessary but I find it hard to believe that there is not laws on the books to deal with site that willingly host CP.

As always the way they title these bills always worries me, if they seem disingenuous then TPTB are up to something.

I had you pegged as an radicalizing agent... But I think you have changed my mind Crensch. No hard feelings I hope, lets butt heads sometime.