How will proposed national legislation affect Eccie?

Since this forum gets more exposure than the National Coed board where I originally posed this question, I'll start the topic here, too.

I would post a link if I could find a single source that adequately describes what is going on in Congress this week. Google "human trafficking legislation" and you'll find ample articles that cover the issue.

On Tuesday (5/20), the House passed a slew of bills relating to the subject. There is an expectation that much of this will pass the Senate and get signed into law. Of interest to the membership here is the attempt to hold advertisers accountable for the ads they post when traffickers of children and adults post on their sites.

I think all of us should be interested in hearing the opinions of those that are knowledgeable about such matters, and who have been following this legislation. Will it be broad enough to force sites such as this one to police their advertisers (paid or not) more closely or else shut down?

Personally, I would be happy if those that prey upon the young and weak were excluded from participating on this site. The question is, how does one go about doing it? If I owned Eccie, a site that serves the entire country and beyond, I sure wouldn't want that responsibility, even if I agreed with these legislative goals.

Most likely, hosting will be moved out of a US jurisdiction, if it hasn't already been.

Are we talking civil or criminal law?

Of interest to the membership here is the attempt to hold advertisers accountable for the ads they post when traffickers of children and adults post on their sites. Originally Posted by TinMan

Did you mean "hold the SITE OWNERS accountable" for the ads that are posted by traffickers?

Whether that is good or bad is obviously subjective, and how it would affect us would have a lot to do with how it's enforced. Laws are passed all the time, whether they really accomplish anything is a different story LOL

If it really is a tough law, tho, it also depends on what the actual intent is. Is it to shut down any and all websites that promote prostitution (i.e. are they looking for any instance of supposed "trafficking" to use an excuse to take the site offline?) or just to go after the "bad guys."

There's only so much a site owner can reasonably be expected to do to keep people in line, but if the owners are taking no action what-so-ever to keep things like this from happening, then that might be different.

Either way, there will be a test case, it'll end up in court for a couple or ten years, then we'll see LOL

(Edit: +1 on what Jarvis said, unless the law is somehow written to account for that)

Enforcement would probably be very similar to the methods used in this article:

http://nypost.com/2014/05/21/71-arre...ild-porn-bust/

Did you mean "hold the SITE OWNERS accountable" for the ads that are posted by traffickers?

Whether that is good or bad is obviously subjective, and how it would affect us would have a lot to do with how it's enforced. Laws are passed all the time, whether they really accomplish anything is a different story LOL

If it really is a tough law, tho, it also depends on what the actual intent is. Is it to shut down any and all websites that promote prostitution (i.e. are they looking for any instance of supposed "trafficking" to use an excuse to take the site offline?) or just to go after the "bad guys."

There's only so much a site owner can reasonably be expected to do to keep people in line, but if the owners are taking no action what-so-ever to keep things like this from happening, then that might be different.

Either way, there will be a test case, it'll end up in court for a couple or ten years, then we'll see LOL

(Edit: +1 on what Jarvis said, unless the law is somehow written to account for that) Originally Posted by Y0yoY0

Yes, I did mean "site owners", although they obviously are chasing the folks taking out the ads, too. And the johns, as Jarvis indicated.

OBSG, I'll have to go back and read some of the summaries again, but unlike the state legislation that went into effect last year, I believe we're talking criminal instead of civil. For example (from a CNN article on these efforts):

"H.R. 4225: Makes it a federal crime to knowingly advertise for the commercial sexual exploitation of minors and trafficking victims."

Very good question Tinman.....

Do the bills specifically mention a site hosting ads or the people posting the ads? Very big difference. Also within specific but broad boundaries sites cannot be help responsible for content posted by others. Thedirty.com is going through a lawsuit right now. How that turns out could have an impact on many sites.

I haven't made the time to dig into them. There were some half dozen that were somewhat related, although some clearly had no connection to the hobby.

The cnn article I read listed all the bills. If you're interested, you could start there. It failed to really analyze those bills (surprise!), which is one reason I didn't link to it. None of the other articles I've read thus far even list all the bills.

Do the bills specifically mention a site hosting ads or the people posting the ads? Very big difference. Also within specific but broad boundaries sites cannot be help responsible for content posted by others. Thedirty.com is going through a lawsuit right now. How that turns out could have an impact on many sites. Originally Posted by OldButStillGoing

Disagree. Sites used for illegal purposes are typically taken down by law enforcement. Sites violating copyrights, money laundering, illegal gambling to name a few...

P2P is a bit more complicated...

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

Your so right SJ. Nothing will be done/signed/passed unless it helps in their re election.
As in defense spending where idk it's what they gotta do to get re elected. Even though it's out of control and misdirected

It's a sad truth that if it weren't for HT and exploitation (by definition), most of these chicks wouldn't be in the hobby.

A lot of these girls start at 15-16. You're not gonna get a parental waiver for hoein, so...I don't know.

A very established provider mentioned on here that she got started in the life at 15 just this week. How do you think she got started...HT and exploitation.

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

Because something is likely to pass, and I'm curious as to the impact.

Although I do appreciate the lawyer's point of view that it's hard to render any opinions on laws that aren't yet reality, since even a word or two that is changed between now and then can be meaningful.

Still, I believe it's worth watching, not ignoring.

I found this timeline of the SB94 and SB92 where it shows already signed in the house, by the governor and effective as 09-01-13 ...
Im not an expert so ... can someone explain?

http://legiscan.com/TX/bill/SB94/2013
http://legiscan.com/TX/bill/SB92/2013