Post by Scumhunter on Apr 26, 2018 0:35:06 GMT -5
The following post, as the administrator of a fan site for America's Most Wanted, and John Walsh shows in general, is one of the toughest posts I've ever had to make, since it means disagreeing with my hero, and in effect, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Basically, last month, congress passed the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), known in a previous form as SESTA, or the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act). Essentially it holds websites such as backpage.com (which is now gone) and internet service providers liable for any sex trafficking and prostitution that may occur as a result of users using their platform. Although the law may not actually take effect until January of next year, many adult websites are already shutting down and/or limiting their site to users outside the United States.
You would think someone like me would be all for this. There is nothing I hate more than sex traffickers. Alfonso Diaz-Juarez and Darrick Bell, two fugitive cases we've covered here, are among the worst of the worst. Of course, no little girl should be sex trafficked. But I find fundamental flaws with this bill:
1. It may make it harder to track sex traffickers- I think that is my main concern. Yes, the owners of Backpage may have been slimeballs but many of the sex traffickers captured over the years were as a result of Backpage stings. If you drive pimps away from the internet, then they will be driven to the street, where it will be harder to track them. For example, Alfonso Diaz-Juarez's operation was in a hole-in-the wall cantinas in the outskirts of Houston. Senator Ron Wyden (Democratic Senator from Oregon, one of only two Senators to vote against FOSTA- the other being Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul) explains this www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-statement-on-fosta-sesta-passing-house
2. It puts "legitimate" sex workers in danger- I realize that prostitution is technically illegal in the United States, but not every girl that is a prostitute/escort/etc... is doing it because she's being forced. There are a ton of adult females offering escort services by choice for whatever personal reasons they have. I am not condoning illegal activity, however, if these girls are going to do it anyway, taking away their resources will (like pimps) drive them to the streets where they may be in even more danger. It puts them more at risk at meeting dangerous pimps, customers etc... On the internet, if some guy calls them and he sounds creepy or some guy emails them and says offputting things, they at least can use common sense and discernment to say no thank you or ignore such men from the safety of whatever apartment hotel room etc they're staying in. If on the street, even if they didn't want to meet a guy, all they would have to do is stick a gun out their car and force the woman into the vehicle to abduct her. (We saw the Paul Jackson/Vance Roberts case on AMW/The Hunt which was somewhat similar). I'd rather have young females doing something illegal and (relatively) safe than illegal and unsafe.
3. It sets a precedent for free speech on the internet- including punishing sites "retroactively" before the law takes effect. I look at it this way- a lot of crime has happened as a result of various websites. People getting murdered answering an ad for a bike on craigslist, women being assaulted as the result of Uber, women or men being murdered after being set up on online dating sites and apps. As far as I know, these websites have never been deemed criminally responsible but perhaps this bill may lead there and it could lead to a slippery slope of online censorship. Especially the part where websites could seemingly be punished even if they dont know about illegal activity going on. Basically, any website can be misused for criminal activity in some form.
4. Sort of a 3A) the vague wording "facilitates" sex trafficking could set up a myriad of issues and websites could be paranoid and overly censor content as a result to avoid lawsuits, charges etc..
In summary, John Walsh is still my hero, and I feel it's ok to agree to disagree from time to time. It is just I fear him and others are being tricked and this bill will not do what it claims to do, and in the future may make it harder to track pimps and keep female adult sex workers safe from pimps and random stranger abductions off the streets.
Sex trafficking is among the worst of human atrocities and needs to be eradicated. But it needs to be eradicated in a way that is smart and doesn't inadvertently put some people more at risk.
I know not everyone here will agree with me and that's fine, but I felt the need to post this because I feel without revisions this bill may unfortunately, although possibly well-intentioned, accidentally create the opposite effect of what it is trying to combat.
Some links about what I referred to and/or with expanded detail on the controversy:
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailydot.com/debug/what-is-sesta-fosta-bill/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_Act
www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=J13hWpGLJoSc_Qb48oqwBg&q=what+is+fosta&oq=what+is+fosta&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.3..0l5.929.5001..5300...4....207.2107.5j11j1..........1..mobile-gws-wiz-hp.....2..41j0i131j0i10j0i70i249.6GZACZwRQbw%3D
www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/sesta-fosta-war-sex-workers-needs-to-stop-w519076
Basically, last month, congress passed the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), known in a previous form as SESTA, or the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act). Essentially it holds websites such as backpage.com (which is now gone) and internet service providers liable for any sex trafficking and prostitution that may occur as a result of users using their platform. Although the law may not actually take effect until January of next year, many adult websites are already shutting down and/or limiting their site to users outside the United States.
You would think someone like me would be all for this. There is nothing I hate more than sex traffickers. Alfonso Diaz-Juarez and Darrick Bell, two fugitive cases we've covered here, are among the worst of the worst. Of course, no little girl should be sex trafficked. But I find fundamental flaws with this bill:
1. It may make it harder to track sex traffickers- I think that is my main concern. Yes, the owners of Backpage may have been slimeballs but many of the sex traffickers captured over the years were as a result of Backpage stings. If you drive pimps away from the internet, then they will be driven to the street, where it will be harder to track them. For example, Alfonso Diaz-Juarez's operation was in a hole-in-the wall cantinas in the outskirts of Houston. Senator Ron Wyden (Democratic Senator from Oregon, one of only two Senators to vote against FOSTA- the other being Republican Kentucky Senator Rand Paul) explains this www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-statement-on-fosta-sesta-passing-house
2. It puts "legitimate" sex workers in danger- I realize that prostitution is technically illegal in the United States, but not every girl that is a prostitute/escort/etc... is doing it because she's being forced. There are a ton of adult females offering escort services by choice for whatever personal reasons they have. I am not condoning illegal activity, however, if these girls are going to do it anyway, taking away their resources will (like pimps) drive them to the streets where they may be in even more danger. It puts them more at risk at meeting dangerous pimps, customers etc... On the internet, if some guy calls them and he sounds creepy or some guy emails them and says offputting things, they at least can use common sense and discernment to say no thank you or ignore such men from the safety of whatever apartment hotel room etc they're staying in. If on the street, even if they didn't want to meet a guy, all they would have to do is stick a gun out their car and force the woman into the vehicle to abduct her. (We saw the Paul Jackson/Vance Roberts case on AMW/The Hunt which was somewhat similar). I'd rather have young females doing something illegal and (relatively) safe than illegal and unsafe.
3. It sets a precedent for free speech on the internet- including punishing sites "retroactively" before the law takes effect. I look at it this way- a lot of crime has happened as a result of various websites. People getting murdered answering an ad for a bike on craigslist, women being assaulted as the result of Uber, women or men being murdered after being set up on online dating sites and apps. As far as I know, these websites have never been deemed criminally responsible but perhaps this bill may lead there and it could lead to a slippery slope of online censorship. Especially the part where websites could seemingly be punished even if they dont know about illegal activity going on. Basically, any website can be misused for criminal activity in some form.
4. Sort of a 3A) the vague wording "facilitates" sex trafficking could set up a myriad of issues and websites could be paranoid and overly censor content as a result to avoid lawsuits, charges etc..
In summary, John Walsh is still my hero, and I feel it's ok to agree to disagree from time to time. It is just I fear him and others are being tricked and this bill will not do what it claims to do, and in the future may make it harder to track pimps and keep female adult sex workers safe from pimps and random stranger abductions off the streets.
Sex trafficking is among the worst of human atrocities and needs to be eradicated. But it needs to be eradicated in a way that is smart and doesn't inadvertently put some people more at risk.
I know not everyone here will agree with me and that's fine, but I felt the need to post this because I feel without revisions this bill may unfortunately, although possibly well-intentioned, accidentally create the opposite effect of what it is trying to combat.
Some links about what I referred to and/or with expanded detail on the controversy:
www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailydot.com/debug/what-is-sesta-fosta-bill/
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_Act
www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=J13hWpGLJoSc_Qb48oqwBg&q=what+is+fosta&oq=what+is+fosta&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.3..0l5.929.5001..5300...4....207.2107.5j11j1..........1..mobile-gws-wiz-hp.....2..41j0i131j0i10j0i70i249.6GZACZwRQbw%3D
www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/sesta-fosta-war-sex-workers-needs-to-stop-w519076
