EDIT2: Possible alternative/2birds1stone reason for this push by @CrustyBeaver52
The (temporary?) legalization of the crimes (were they crimes?) of Google, Twitter, and Facebook
EDIT: Interpretation provided that could be a danger to the site Please post your thoughts on the issue.
On the one hand, fuck those that knowingly and with intent host and publish trafficking shit. On the other, government overreach is always a bad thing. I leave it to the court of Voat.
After actually reading through the bill, I've come to a conclusion about it. Link acquired from stickied post
Stickied post itself
TL;DR The amendment clarifies that content hosts that knowingly host and facilitate sex trafficking are liable and not protected by the already-on-the-books bill. Putt has rules against it, and has a record of removing that content and letting the authorities know. If he has documentation of his actions with his legal counsel, the only way to get rid of Voat is to GITMO the place - and the ones with the power to do so were not limited by the previous wording.
Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017
Suggesting states and victims are not allowed to do such a thing. We should hold our legislators' feet to the fire on this Orwellian doublespeak shit, no matter what it applies to.
"Hello, this is the office of X, how may I help you?"
"Yeah, I'd like to know if states and victims are currently not allowed to fight online sex trafficking."
"Of course they are!"
"Why is bill H. R. 1865 suggesting they aren't allowed to do so?"
"That's not..."
"Yes, it is. You know it is. Send it back until something more accurate can be used as a title."
"A Bill" whatever the fuck it's called -- foreword, perhaps?
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.
Clarifying that a previous act applies to providers and users of computer services relating to sexual exploitation of children or sex trafficking, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Dangerously vague at the end there.
Sec. 1. Short title
This Act may be cited as the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017.
Yeah, yeah, we get it. Currently not allowed by law for them to fight it. Got it.
Sec. 2. Sense of congress
It is the sense of Congress that--
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;
Below the double lines, a dissection of section 230:
47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
Basically protecting censorship.
(a) seems decent.
(b) number 5 is fucking snowflake bullshit.
(c)
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
No user or host will be guilty by association of another on the same service publishing or writing something illegal.
(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
Providers and users are not liable for:
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
Censorship. Subjective "in good faith" snowflake bullshit.
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
[1]
Providing information to facilitate censorship.
Jewtube and Jewgle aren't liable for their censorship. Nice slip-in there.
(d)
Obligations of interactive computer service
Putt's obligations according to this bill.
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections.
Putt must tell new users that parental control protections are commercially available that can censor this place from their kids. (I hope he has this already @Puttiout)
(e)
Effect on other laws
What this changes about other laws: (tl;dr nothing)
(1) No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, or any other Federal criminal statute.
(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4) No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(f)
Definitions as used in this section:
Mostly useless info. Interesting loophole for hosts. Seems to specifically delineate Information Content Provider from a sharer of said information. (memes won't get you liability in this bill)
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
Seems ok.
clarification of such section is warranted to ensure that such section does not provide such protection to such websites.
All right.
Sec. 3.Promotion of prostitution and reckless disregard of sex trafficking
Promotion of prostitution.—
Chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 2421 the following:
(a)
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.
Intent needs to be shown, it seems.
(b)
Fines and imprisonment for egregious violations of promoting or facilitating prostitution and reckless disregard of sex trafficking. Sec 2421A.
acts in reckless disregard of the fact that such conduct contributed to sex trafficking, in violation of 1591(a),
"Contributed" may or may not include what everyone's freaking out over. Need to check on 1591(a). Either way, it's already on the books.
(c, d, e)
Consequences of violating the above. Not really interesting unless we're actually violating anything
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.
https://kek.gg/i/ttfVQ.png
Sec. 5. Savings clause
Bill doesn't apply to shit happening before it's enacted.
view the rest of the comments →
CrustyBeaver52 ago
It would be best to remove the term from 2) Policy c) 2) a) "whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;"
The rest of this entire law might as well not exist - as it falls within existing law for the most part, and appears otherwise of little consequence.
The 2) Policy c) 2) a) & b) can be interpreted as trying to give legal cover for the highly illegal recent crimes of Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. by making these illegal acts now legal.
If the law passes it may, (and most likely will,) prove to be unconstitutional when tested in a courtroom - however, it will provide temporary legal cover for these crimes to continue for now, until this new issue can be decided. That may be the intent of passing this law.
Crensch ago
I think you may be right.
CrustyBeaver52 ago
Thanks - good work by the way:)
Crensch ago
You're welcome. Made a second edit above linking to this.
What highly illegal crimes are you referring to that would be covered there?
Also, the bill specifically is not retroactive, so is it likely they'll just ramp up the illegal activities after this?
CrustyBeaver52 ago
I'm not sure what will happen after this - there are already lawsuits started and incoming based on the violations that have already occurred. These will largely be vrs individuals and will likely settle financially, eventually. As far as their open opposition to the government, the government has not acted on any of this so far as I am aware of - but they are certainly well within their legal authority to do so at any time. I'm pretty sure the Federal agencies have wide jurisdiction over corporations regarding this sort of thing.
Trump generally walks softly and carries out enforcement through others - as a good leader should - but I also think they need to draw the line - there is more than enough activity to warrant a more thorough investigation of these recent censorship activities, before others also think they can just walk all over the law.
CrustyBeaver52 ago
The highly illegal crimes are the deliberate censorship of the user's constitutionally protected political speech. These companies all have lawyers who have told them the speech is protected, and these companies have all decided to deliberately violate this law anyways - in open defiance of the state. This actually puts their corporate charters at risk as well - incorporation is a privilege, not a right, and said corporations are not allowed to deliberately violate the laws of the state - which is exactly what they are doing - never mind the potential shareholder liability.
This action is not only a deliberate challenge to the legal authority of the duly democratically elected state government, (see treason,) it is also a deliberate interference in a basic constitutional pillar of the democratic society itself, (see treason.) It can, and should, be seen as nothing less than an attempt to overthrow the United States of America.