How will proposed national legislation affect Eccie?

Darth, search the eccie forums for some discussion of that state law passed last year. I remember several threads (here is one I started). Most of the lawyers contributing to this board seemed to think at the time it was not likely to be impactful to your average hobbyist. I'd be curious if any suits have yet been filed under that law.

Perhaps the same may be said of whatever legislation eventually gets signed into law on the national level. It bears watching, however, since the HT activists seem to be making real headway into getting the feds behind their cause.

Like I said at the outset, that wouldn't bother me so much, but the collateral damage to the rest of us is what has me keeping an eye out for how this develops.

Tin, thanks for raising the issue's potential.

We (figurative we) have already traveled this road a bit, and I think some of the cases trailing into a few Supreme Court decisions: mainly pornography and human sexuality (consenting adults) activity might show what could happen if feds/states attempt (yes, attempt) to hold websites accountable for what others may post on them.

viz., on-line "prostitution" ads on backpage, craigslist, etc., et. al:

Some well known (or it should be) background:

-- States' attorney generals threats to Craigs List over "prostitution" ads
-- Ditto - backpage.com
-- The bust(s) of BigDoggie and TER, etc. (Albuquerque N.M., aside, different issues at base)

After separating all issues of P4P (prostitution) from trafficking, and note that the P4P transaction$ are not processed by the website itself, one can then consider the existing Federal Communications Decency Act and its related case law.

Essentially the statute (and case law) provides that web sites are not responsible for unlawful material posted by users.

= = = = =
Caution, ck1942 is not a lawyer nor an attorney, so what follows is practical business-related counsel:

None of the above can or will prevent the feds, the states, or subdivision LEOs from attempting to compromise any website or any of a website's users.

Threats of lawsuits, and actual warrants/indictments/arrests have happened and will continue to happen as law enforcement authorities try to show constituents (and media) that they are taking action to curb trafficking and/or "what amounts to open prostitution." Goal of such efforts, of course, is both to impress the public, and, worse, to harass websites (and their owners, operators and users) with both real and prospective financial costs, if not outright arrests.

So, for example, if LE mounts backpage stings, enticing johns, or janes, into successful arrest situation and, if LE succeeds in making those stings stick, and if LE trumpets loud enough those successes, well, continued paid advertising likely may diminish.

No doubt LE could also mount such attacks on national or local sites, too.

= = = = =

All that said, very unlikely much successful LE action will happen on the P4P sites in terms of trying to control the P4P activity. But my bottom line guesstimate is that certain sites and definitely certain users of those sites (think pimps, agencies, spas) will be targeted by LE.

Mounting (grin!) **occasional stings** on backpage is relatively easy.

Definitely media attention getting, which is what LE really wants, in the end.

But that's just my humble opinion.

= = = = =

jmho also that **occasional stings** of on-line sites are just that, occasional, since vice LEOs have other areas on which they must concentrate, such as drugs, underage alcohol, kiddie porn, street prostitution, etc. And, vice must also crank up certain activities to address vocal community concerns, and, also election campaign seasons.

= = = = =

The Communications Decency Act is what tries to criminalize the sending of porn to persons under 18.

Section 230 of the Act (quoting now from wikipedia)

immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts committed by others using their website or online forum, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving actual notice of the harmful or offensive content.

and

also protects ISPs from liability for restricting access to certain material or giving others the technical means to restrict access to that material.

Attorneys general asked Congress to remove those provisions and the ACLU objected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act

= = = = =

Some states (Oklahoma for example) have criminalized certain internet (and use of computers, cell phones, etc.) behavior (quoting below from an OK attorney's website)

"The Oklahoma Legislature has created specific provisions pursuant to the “Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act” to combat individuals who use the internet to violate Oklahoma law:

"No person shall communicate with, store data in, or retrieve data from a computer system or computer network for the purpose of using such access to violate any of the provisions of the Oklahoma Statutes.
"Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of not more than five (5) years, or by a fine of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine.
"Furthermore, the Oklahoma Statutes have expanded criminal liability to the use of “computer devices” such as cell phones and other forms of digital communication. As such, the majority of internet sex crimes in Oklahoma are those sex crimes which are accomplished by solicitation."
Some states have enforced these types of statutes, and while I am confident that solicitation conviction, for example, could be successfully appealed in federal court (CDA coverage), most if not all defendants probably lack the financial ability to do so.

Why speculate about the potential consequences of bills that haven't even been signed into law yet? Originally Posted by ShysterJon

I would think that the potential for convincing your representative to vote against a bill–preventing the bill from becoming law–is greater than that of having a law repealed after it has been written. Isn't it? Isn't an ineffective law less likely to be rescinded than it is to be allowed to languish on the books when it fails to satisfy its intended purpose? It seems like an inefficacious piece of legislation would be easier to manipulate than one that solves the intended problem. Isn't it?

(Please disregard if the question was rhetorical.)

~sweetness~

Again please explain ... my understanding is that is in full effect in Texas where "we" live? ...

DDV,

yes, the bills were signed into law and are on the books in Texas.

Compelling prostitution is a crime.

"Publishing an ad" about someone who is a victim of compelling prostitution was made a crime in Texas.

imo, regardless of the intent of the legislation, per the federal act cited above, the "publisher" is defined as the website host or the ISP; the state legislation appears to cite the person who posted the ad as the publisher.

Difference being that the ISP/webhost is not one and the same as the person(s) who posted the ad(s).

Again, the above doesn't mean sh*t -- if LE wants to prosecute, they can. But, again, imo, most state judges likely would toss out prosecution of ISPs and of websites, based on the federal act and existing federal case law.

As for Legislators, e.g. politicians putting laws on the books that they know won't survive either state or federal judicial scrutiny.... think recent attempts to bar gay marriage, abortion rights, etc.

= = = = =

imo, doesn't matter where the "publication" happened. The Okie prosecutors have declared that using a phone or a computer to post an ad on backpage in Oklahoma is a crime, even if the web host is not based in Oklahoma nor if the ad was posted while on I-35 south of the Red River.

Then, I dont understand your comment to not worry Shyster Jon if its already signed in Texas ...

ps .. Im not be a lawyer but I sit in a company's board and Im used to question lawyers ...

on the books doesn't necessarily mean it will be or can be enforced.

However, on the books means LEOs or prosecutors can and will initiate warrants, arrests, indictments if they need to do so.

Still, I believe it's worth watching, not ignoring. Originally Posted by TinMan

I'm not against watching. I'm not for ignoring. I'm against speculating about laws that aren't in effect.

I would think that the potential for convincing your representative to vote against a bill–preventing the bill from becoming law–is greater than that of having a law repealed after it has been written. Isn't it? Originally Posted by Caitie Mae

Are you arguing the best way to lobby a member of Congress is to post on an Eccie thread? That's novel. I think a more effective way would be to contact the member.

Then, I dont understand your comment to not worry Shyster Jon if its already signed in Texas ...

ps .. Im not be a lawyer but I sit in a company's board and Im used to question lawyers ... Originally Posted by DarthDVader

Well, you must not be used to reading English, because: (1) the title of this thread is "How will proposed national legislation affect Eccie?" Contrary to what you may have heard, Texas is a state, not a nation. (2) It's been mentioned in this thread that the Texas law has been discussed in other threads. Ask somebody to read those threads to you.

I would think that the potential for convincing your representative to vote against a bill–preventing the bill from becoming law–is greater than that of having a law repealed after it has been written. Isn't it? Isn't an ineffective law less likely to be rescinded than it is to be allowed to languish on the books when it fails to satisfy its intended purpose? It seems like an inefficacious piece of legislation would be easier to manipulate than one that solves the intended problem. Isn't it?

(Please disregard if the question was rhetorical.)

~sweetness~ Originally Posted by Caitie Mae

On a similar vein of thinking. So nice for the elegant and intelligent CME to make an appearance. Truly, you were a unique visit.

on the books doesn't necessarily mean it will be or can be enforced.

However, on the books means LEOs or prosecutors can and will initiate warrants, arrests, indictments if they need to do so. Originally Posted by ck1942

And CK takes to to it's logical conclusion.

There is a difference between legislation and enforcement of a law. and the the bill has to be adequately funded to make a difference.

I have no problem if a girl wants to work for an agency, studio, pimp, whatever.. as long as she is free to leave and quit at any time without threat of violence or other intimidation or indentured agreement.

Are you one of this type of lawyers that pretend to know everything?
I know your type and believe me, I don't hire them, a waste of time and money ...

Im not a lawyer and I was wanting to learn about the topic, reason why I was asking ...
I was hoping to hear an interesting answer and not your uncalled sarcasm ...

Thanks for the advise ... I will certainly ask a "professional" that is willing to share ...

Have a good day ...

Well, you must not be used to reading English, because: (1) the title of this thread is "How will proposed national legislation affect Eccie?" Contrary to what you may have heard, Texas is a state, not a nation. (2) It's been mentioned in this thread that the Texas law has been discussed in other threads. Ask somebody to read those threads to you. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Are you one of this type of lawyers that pretend to know everything?
I know your type and believe me, I don't hire them, a waste of time and money ...

Im not a lawyer and I was wanting to learn about the topic, reason why I was asking ...
I was hoping to hear an interesting answer and not your uncalled sarcasm ...

Thanks for the advise ... I will certainly ask a "professional" that is willing to share ...

Have a good day ... Originally Posted by DarthDVader

Who said I'd work for you, asshole? Why would Latka Gravas need a lawyer, anyway?

Down boys. Don't detail the thread . SJ that was a funny remark though. Personally, I always thought Latka was far smarter than he let on. Just a very diffrent perspective on life.

I'll try not to detail the thread with uncalled sarcasm.