Calling out SESTA Propaganda for what it is ( pizzagate )

submitted by lawrieraja

I saw a piece of infuriating propaganda posted on /politics today regarding the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act and posted this rebuttal to call it out: https://voat.co/v/politics/2142156

Relates to PG as it pertains to legislative efforts to reign in some of the immunities claimed by trash such as Backpage. There are some blatant lies being pushed to generate grassroots momentum against SESTA and I am hoping readers on this sub can help continue to spread the truth.

lawrieraja

I will explore further but I think the logic is flawed. I we accept that states have a long history of trying to enact broad censorship laws in the name of sex trafficking then it follows that states will continue trying to enact laws in the name of sex trafficking, regardless of whether the amendment is passed or not.

Ultimately we have no control over what states can and cannot do with their sovereign power but isn't that exactly the point of the tenth amendment?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I still fail to see how state power is a bad thing. It is a basic tenet of the Constitution. It our country is so far gone that we are struck by fear at the thought of 'runaway states' abusing a sex trafficking clause for nefarious pursuits of mass censorship then it is a depressing day indeed. To me that seems like a fear tactic.

lawrieraja

Right but the link insinuates that the proposed bill bill requires sites to censor users content and affects the good samaritan clause.

The amendment doesn't make ANY changes to the good samaritan clause, nor does it propose any censorship of content. The only changes pertain to criminal investigations of sex trafficking of children and trafficking by force, fraud, etc.

The argument then is 'oh well everyone and their mother will then file lawsuits and it will wreak havoc on the system' but I think its dangerous to think along these slippery slope lines because honestly, we don't know if that would happen.

And to take that argument to the next step, if there are SO many people just waiting in the shadows to file lawsuits of alleged damages as they pertain specifically to sex trafficking of children then isn't that argument in itself an acknowledgment that there are massive amounts of people that admittedly have no current legal recourse to the online trafficking epidemic? How is doing nothing better?

lawrieraja

I agree with you there. I wrote a post last week about the effects of Clinton legislation in enabling trafficking: https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2130449

I think I see what you mean now about slander/libel, etc. but if I am understanding correctly that argument has existed since the initial passage of the law in '96...

The proposed changes with SESTA are very specific in regards to specifically "sex trafficking of children" and "sex trafficking by force, threats of force, fraud or coercion" so I still don't think I'm quite catching the cross-over between the two. To me there are many faults/loopholes in the original act but I think the trojan horse argument may be conflating two separate outcomes that have arisen over the years due to being poorly written? One being defamation, other being trafficking?

lawrieraja

Ah, thank you for this. I actually addressed a number of these points in my /politics post, as well as the EFF directly...

I posted in PG hoping for upvote visibility to maximize support for SESTA but am honestly intrigued with the trojan horse rhetoric as I had not heard it before.

You can check out my point by point breakdown and see the actual proposed text changes to the law here: https://voat.co/v/politics/2142156

It is actually a very short law (6 sections with some A's and B's mostly)

lawrieraja

I'm not sure I follow...the proposed text makes no mention of hate speech, slander, libel, etc. and I honestly haven't heard that discussed as a talking point, but I'm interested to hear more.

If I copy/paste the proposed changes to the bill would you mind clarifying?

My post on /politics that I linked to this original post contains it but happy to post on this sub as well if convenient...

carmencita

After all the researching most of us have done on here regarding our Govt. and politicians being caught up in the trafficking, organ trafficking, drugs, etc. Most of us don't just believe something like the Communications Decency Act. We start immediately getting into the weeds and looking for the catch. The Catch is usually that it means exactly the opposite of what it says. They have twisted and turned so many Acts and Bills including the one that allows CPS to now take away children from their parents. We have been Caught in their Traps Hook Line and Sinker before and now must analyze everything they put forth. They are masters at Just Plain Old Lying.

lawrieraja

Agreed, but please hear me out -

You are referring to ASFA (1997), which contains an ENORMOUS amount of loopholes and wordy shenanigans that have effectively allowed CPS to fraudulently charge parents with neglect/abuse/ect. and STEAL CHILDREN under the guise of 'in the best interest of the child,' and then get a cash bonus on top of it! Nancy Scheafer gave her life trying to expose this corruption and it still continues horrendously today. It harkens back to a 1973 article Hillary published titled 'Children Under the Law' in which she argues that the children are wards of the state, and only under provisional care of parents (who must answer to the state), and therefore the state may step in at any time it chooses to take over control of the child. At the time, AFSA was widely lauded as a 'broad, sweeping reform' of an archaic system, 20 year later - we are able to easily see how the cash bonuses stimulate greed which in turn stimulates increased intervention on the part of CPS which in turn stimulates the number of children separated from parents which in turn stimulates criminal trafficking.

Consider also that the Communications Decency Act is part of the Telecommunication Act of 1996, passed by Bill Clinton. Also riddled with loopholes and ALSO, at the time, heralded as a wide, sweeping reform of THAT archaic system. I think there is circumstantial evidence that indicates that the Clintons (as lawyers and scumbags) were completely aware of the technicalities in wording and language that have since been used to foster trafficking and were instrumental in using that language in an intentional way.

I share your well-reasoned skepticism of politicians 100%, but frankly, we have already been caught for 20 years! If we are forever mistrustful of legislation then how can we be instruments of change? Our politicians, whether we like it or not, are the ones with the vested power to enact change.

Not sure if you read my post on /politics (it got downvoted within the first minute of me posting) but it is my attempt to put forth my analysis of the language proposed. Please try not to correlate my 'unseasoned username' with a lack of information, or naiveté. Unlike 20 years ago, this is not a broad, sweeping reform of the system. It is a maybe 40-50 word modification to a full title law that is almost 300 pages. Unlike 20 years ago, I think we HAVE the time to go through each individual word to try an assess any unintended future consequences.

If you have time I ask you to check out my post. Even if you don't agree it with it, I think the topic is one that definitely merits more of a discussion and I would be interested to hear your analysis of the language.