http://www.michiganstandard.com/47933/stop-sesta-fosta-dont-let-congress-censor-the-internet/

The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA, H.R. 1865) might sound appealing, but it would do nothing to fight sex traffickers. What it would do is silence a lot of legitimate speech online, shutting some voices out of online spaces.

How would one bill do so much damage to communities online? Simple: it would scare online platforms into censoring their users.

Online platforms are enabled by a law referred to as Section 230. Section 230 protects online platforms from liability for some types of speech by their users. Without Section 230, social media would not exist in its current form, and neither would the plethora of nonprofit and community-based online groups that serve as crucial outlets for free expression and knowledge sharing.

If Congress undermined these important protections by passing SESTA/FOSTA, many online platforms would be forced to place strong restrictions on their users’ speech, censoring a lot of people in the process. And as we’ve discussed before, when platforms clamp down on their users’ speech, marginalized voices are disproportionately silenced.

Censorship is not the solution to sex trafficking. This is our last chance: call your senators now and urge them to oppose SESTA/FOSTA.

Too Late. The damage has been done.

I see no evidence whatsoever for your alarmist claims and I do see evidence that what you are saying is not correct.

As I asked on the other post. @honeybee , where is your evidence for this claim?

That any content that promotes, aids, references , or has the appearance of sex trafficking or prostitution be completely blocked or deleted.

Those are not synonymous. There's a giant, giant difference between promoting prostitution/trafficking and referencing it. It seems your whole claim is based on conflating these issues. Furthermore that is not what the bill says. Did you actually read the text of the House bill or the Senate bill before promoting your wild claims

Neither mention referencing prostitution or sex trafficking. You can still talk about and report on this. This is obviously first ammendment protected speech. What is being outlawed is far, far, far from this.

The House Bill would outlaw "websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and contribute to sex trafficking."

The Senate Bill says website liability protections do not mean you can't be prosecuting for "sex trafficking of children or sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion."

AND

you can be prosecuting for "knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating" sex trafficking

AND

A civil action can be brought against you for "knowingly participates in the sex trafficking of children or sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion."

It seems to mean your post doesn't deal with the actual proposals whatsoever and pushing (probably unwittingly) an alarmist falsehood.

Furthermore she doesn't seem to be aware of basic lawmaking. She refers to the routine process of the House and Senate conference to iron out differences in a bill which happens all the time to building some sort of Frankenstein bill.

who drafted/passed this bill, is this Obama era or Trump legislation?

This just passed the house and senate and is awaiting Trump's signature. The White House has supported this bill.

I am thrilled to see somebody is reporting on SESTA and was looking into this organization/corporation

This is not an organization or a corporation. You must be confusing this with something.

im not in a place to view the vid right now, TLDR - who drafted/passed this bill, is this Obama era or Trump legislation?

I am thrilled to see somebody is reporting on SESTA and was looking into this organization/corporation a few days ago, but life got in the way. Hope to continue digging. There is defintely more research to do. Some alternative news sites refer to it as "Obama's Army."