Can someone explain why the reporting requirements of 18 US 2258A aren't sufficient? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2258A
Why cannot they be simply amended to include sex trafficking?
Why cannot they be simply amended to include sex trafficking?
The obvious conclusion is, it's all intentional. The DOJ has been told to stand down, so the SESTA pushers can build up a case for the need for new legislation, new levers of power & control over the Internet.
[1] "CDA 230 does not shield platforms from federal prosecution. The law very clearly outlines that exception to the liability shield, anticipating that crimes like child pornography and child exploitation would be prosecuted by the federal authorities. The US Department of Justice, for whatever reason, has not shown any inclination to pursue sites like Backpage."
https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/14/16308066/sex-trafficking-...
That means that Backpages has had other substantial legitimate uses, besides adult services. Craigslist also had adult services section, that it voluntarily shut down [2]. This begs the question: why is Backpage prosecuted, but Craigslist was not? What has changed between 2009 and now?
1. https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/backpage.com#trafficstats
2. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/craigslist-gives...
Are we to believe that the DOJ & Co couldn't have smashed Backpage for knowingly allowing trafficking years ago? They couldn't have scooped up proof that the operators knew about that activity, a dozen different ways given the tools at their disposal? They could destroy Silk Road and get Ross Ulbricht, but they couldn't get the Backpage guys on anything? Bullshit of course, it's beyond obvious those guys knew what their site was facilitating, they were making a vast fortune off of it.
It all reeks of being allowed to continue as an enemy number one to facilitate legislation like SESTA.
> Mr. Obama, Tear Down This Liability Shield
https://techcrunch.com/2015/09/29/mr-obama-tear-down-this-li...