>A new bill could become the first law to apply criminal penalties to website owners due to posts of that site’s users — or so Silicon Valley and tech advocates fear.
>Ever since a 1996 law, no internet website or company can be penalized for content a user posts. That’s why Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, or Reddit can’t be sued when anybody uses their platform to post hate speech or advocations of violence or terrorism.
>The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act would open a crack in that prohibition. The bill would allow the government to prosecute websites which knowingly help or promote sex trafficking, and also allow users to sue those websites.
>The word “knowingly” is key there, as the legislation was sparked by the results a Senate investigative report in July titled “Backpage.com’s Knowing Facilitation of Online Sex Trafficking” which found that the website consciously allowed advertisements for child prostitution and other similar crimes.
>knowingly
That's a hard thing to prove or disprove, if there's something questionable on a site for more than an hour could they say the site admin aren't taking appropriate steps against this and are therefore knowingly helping do this or that?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/s1693/summary
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 81B380E907CB5ECCD3A1421CCB216FE3-83870.jpg (81.9 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)
I can't help but say I would like to crush pedos, but doing this would compromise what free speech we have left. I hate the 'slippery slope' argument, but I can easily see the precedent set by this kind of bill to have horrific consequences.
>>121998
This is the sort of item that will be the ultimate test of our Republic. We were born into a society where Free Expression was still a thing. If this passes, we will literally see the end of our Republic. Fascinating. We're also pretty screwed because I don't think militancy has reached the level required to push back against Jewish tyranny..
This is the sort of item that will be the ultimate test of our Republic. We were born into a society where Free Expression was still a thing. If this passes, we will literally see the end of our Republic. Fascinating. We're also pretty screwed because I don't think militancy has reached the level required to push back against Jewish tyranny..
File (): D46761D9BF0DEDD15E6C39E56082908D-91393.jpg (89.3 KB, 500x427, TwoWings.jpg)
Does the fact this is a Canadian board make any difference?
But yes, the libertarians were right all along. Whether "right" or "left," there's only one direction the U.S. government takes and that toward more power. And we all know (((who))) controls the power in this country.
But yes, the libertarians were right all along. Whether "right" or "left," there's only one direction the U.S. government takes and that toward more power. And we all know (((who))) controls the power in this country.
It was only a matter of time.
>>121998
>liberals call it The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act
>even though it legalizes punishing any website that has any porn on it
>it sounds abuseable ("Let's spam Korrasami sites with porn!") but will only be successfully abused by liberals
>liberals call it The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act
>even though it legalizes punishing any website that has any porn on it
>it sounds abuseable ("Let's spam Korrasami sites with porn!") but will only be successfully abused by liberals
>>121998
>knowingly
Wouldn't the benefit of the doubt (or what the legal term is), and the fact that this site don't condone cp or pizzas, also that it don't have the resources google, twitter, fb and reddit has prove that it don't condone or help child trafficing.
>knowingly
Wouldn't the benefit of the doubt (or what the legal term is), and the fact that this site don't condone cp or pizzas, also that it don't have the resources google, twitter, fb and reddit has prove that it don't condone or help child trafficing.
>>122101
Don't Bolivia under the rule of its leftist government have next to no free speech left? You probably can't say you support free speech without being thrown in jail there.
Don't Bolivia under the rule of its leftist government have next to no free speech left? You probably can't say you support free speech without being thrown in jail there.
File (): 624CD6F327E95DD828D594A718408A9A-26205.jpg (25.6 KB, 475x473, chiave ayurame.jpg)
>>122105
I don't think they would care about some small yankee imageboard legally, as it is not a direct threat for him or his government. Evo is more concerned about his coke plantations.
Now if /mlpol/ suddenly hosts some regular discussions about how Evo Morales is a wanna-be dictator, things would change.
If you want, I may try luck in hosting it here if things get ugly in Burgerland.
I don't think they would care about some small yankee imageboard legally, as it is not a direct threat for him or his government. Evo is more concerned about his coke plantations.
Now if /mlpol/ suddenly hosts some regular discussions about how Evo Morales is a wanna-be dictator, things would change.
If you want, I may try luck in hosting it here if things get ugly in Burgerland.
What happened to the 8ch.pl servers? Anyone know?
This will be the final breath of US hegemony on the Internet. The one thing that held it was the lack of accountability a website would have. Such platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit will now be held accountable for their negligence. And so, they will move away from the US jurisdiction.
>That's a hard thing to prove or disprove
It's a criminal charge, not civil. It has to be proven by the prosecution, beyond a reasonable doubt.
It's a criminal charge, not civil. It has to be proven by the prosecution, beyond a reasonable doubt.
File (): F0832BED30905CEA61C060D118711A6E-25941.png (25.3 KB, 800x600, 345198__safe_artist-colon-….png)
>>121999
>I can't help but say I would like to crush pedos, but doing this would compromise what free speech we have left. I hate the 'slippery slope' argument, but I can easily see the precedent set by this kind of bill to have horrific consequences.
This. Let me tell you a story about how a very similar law has gone down in Finland:
Government wanted to censor internet. Using pedophiles as the scapegoat was an obvious solution because no one wants to defend them and you could accuse anyone opposing their bill for promoting pedophilia.
There was just one problem with the constitution specifically banning this, but they found a workaround: Instead of banning web sites, they would give ISP's the RIGHT to ban websites from a secret government issued list, and would then punish the ISP's if they don't use their voluntary right to do so. As stupid as that is, it went through and is now the law here.
And what good did it do? NOTHING! After a few years the secret list got leaked, and the whole list of hundreds of sites included three sites involved with child pornography. Instead it involved everything from regular porn sites to company websites, and as anyone could have seen from the start, sites criticizing the internet censorship law itself.
There was opposition against it of course, but it all died the same way:
-Pedophiles are bad, and we must do something to stop them!
-But this isn't doing anything to stop them. It will be infinitely abuseable and doesn't even prevent access to the sites themselves.
-Well I don't want to look that deeply into how pedos work, I just want them banned asap!
This is precisely what I fear will happen in America too. That there won't even be a discussion about the matter because righteous people just want to unambiguously fight the pedos, and actually looking into what the act does would make things much more ambiguous.
>I can't help but say I would like to crush pedos, but doing this would compromise what free speech we have left. I hate the 'slippery slope' argument, but I can easily see the precedent set by this kind of bill to have horrific consequences.
This. Let me tell you a story about how a very similar law has gone down in Finland:
Government wanted to censor internet. Using pedophiles as the scapegoat was an obvious solution because no one wants to defend them and you could accuse anyone opposing their bill for promoting pedophilia.
There was just one problem with the constitution specifically banning this, but they found a workaround: Instead of banning web sites, they would give ISP's the RIGHT to ban websites from a secret government issued list, and would then punish the ISP's if they don't use their voluntary right to do so. As stupid as that is, it went through and is now the law here.
And what good did it do? NOTHING! After a few years the secret list got leaked, and the whole list of hundreds of sites included three sites involved with child pornography. Instead it involved everything from regular porn sites to company websites, and as anyone could have seen from the start, sites criticizing the internet censorship law itself.
There was opposition against it of course, but it all died the same way:
-Pedophiles are bad, and we must do something to stop them!
-But this isn't doing anything to stop them. It will be infinitely abuseable and doesn't even prevent access to the sites themselves.
-Well I don't want to look that deeply into how pedos work, I just want them banned asap!
This is precisely what I fear will happen in America too. That there won't even be a discussion about the matter because righteous people just want to unambiguously fight the pedos, and actually looking into what the act does would make things much more ambiguous.
File (): 626D859D67DE999BF73E983FCF18D585-192334.jpg (187.8 KB, 1024x768, 336432__questionable_arti….jpeg)
>>122300
Laki lapsipornografian levittämisen estotoimista (direct translation: Law of preventative measures against sharing of child-pornography)
Update to the numbers I gave earlier: At this date the list of banned websites includes 1047 pages, out of which nine actually have child pornography in them.
Laki lapsipornografian levittämisen estotoimista (direct translation: Law of preventative measures against sharing of child-pornography)
Update to the numbers I gave earlier: At this date the list of banned websites includes 1047 pages, out of which nine actually have child pornography in them.
>>122252
This is old news in the Jewnited States, Finn. The NSA/CIA/NOR began compiling websites for deletion and suppression back in 2001 while also keeping tabs on radio stations to shut down in the event of a (((high profile incident))) should one be engineered, just like what happened in Las Vegas during the supposed "Route 91 Harvest Festival massacre". Unfortunately there is not much that can be done just yet.
This is old news in the Jewnited States, Finn. The NSA/CIA/NOR began compiling websites for deletion and suppression back in 2001 while also keeping tabs on radio stations to shut down in the event of a (((high profile incident))) should one be engineered, just like what happened in Las Vegas during the supposed "Route 91 Harvest Festival massacre". Unfortunately there is not much that can be done just yet.
22 replies | 5 files | 1 UUIDs | Archived