|
|
|
|
|
|
by saas_co_de
2915 days ago
|
|
|
Here is the text: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1865/BILLS-115hr1865enr... FOSTA does make it explicitly illegal to operate a web site "with the intent to promote or facilitate the
prostitution of another person" ... but that is not new. It has always been illegal to intentionally promote prostitution. The EFF said the same thing arguing against FOSTA: that there was no need for a new criminal statute because existing criminal statutes already covered the same conduct. The substantive change with FOSTA is: "CIVIL RECOVERY.—Any person injured by reason of a violation of section 2421A(b) may recover damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees in an action before any appropriate United States district court." Before prostitutes couldn't sue a pimp because they were engaged in illegal activity (same reason a drug user can't sue a drug dealer). Criminalizing prostitution creates a legal immunity for pimps. FOSTA changes that and now anyone who gets pimped on any of these escort sites can sue the owners. That is what will put them out of business. Not any police action. A lot of liars out there spreading false info about how this is "bad for sex workers" ... but pimps are good at lying so that should be no surprise. |
|
|
This doesn't specifically target child-prostitution. It easily could have, but doesn't. It targets all sex-work, which does have consequences.
So if the (I'm assuming) tiny fraction of child-prostitution is moved elsewhere (probably pimping them on the streets) then the grown adult sex-workers are now being forced to maybe go work for a pimp in dangerous situations vs. being independent and in control of when, where, and who they work with.
This law could very easily have been worded to make these companies responsible for any child-prostitution, but let adults be responsible for themselves.