Re:Proponents of sex trafficking bill urge Silicon Valley to...
by shkkmo on Tuesday September 19, 2017 @05:15PM
(#15288874)
"it's genuinely fucked up that they can't be prosecuted for it."
They can and are being prosecuted for it:
> "Based on the August ruling in Sacramento, he said he had been left to prosecute Backpage.com on charges of conspiracy and money laundering"
It seems to me that this crime is already a crime. Actively encouraging/cloaking and profiting from the commission of a crime is conspiracy to commit and is illegal.
What appears to be the new illegality added by this amendment is being aware that your platform is being used to facilitate human trafficking (e.g. you saw an ad for human trafficking in your blog's comments) and doing nothing.
Would it also cover deleting that one ad/comment, but not engaging in active monitoring of all future comments or installing some sort of comment filter?
This is my problem with the vagueness of the law and the idea that we don't need the blanket immunity provided by the CDA. Small operators especially need this blanket immunity, because going to trial to litigate intent is simply not an option for them.
If we do remove blanket immunity, we should do so with a less board law that much more clearly lays out the standards for knowledge.
> Civil penalties are not sufficient for slavers.
The goal here is not moral rectitude, but the reduction/elimination of human trafficking. Ideally while preserving as much freedom and creating as little friction as possible.
Given that slavery and conspiracy to commit slavery are crimes already, can't we just increase the penalties for those crimes to the appropriate level?
They can and are being prosecuted for it:
> "Based on the August ruling in Sacramento, he said he had been left to prosecute Backpage.com on charges of conspiracy and money laundering"
It seems to me that this crime is already a crime. Actively encouraging/cloaking and profiting from the commission of a crime is conspiracy to commit and is illegal.
What appears to be the new illegality added by this amendment is being aware that your platform is being used to facilitate human trafficking (e.g. you saw an ad for human trafficking in your blog's comments) and doing nothing.
Would it also cover deleting that one ad/comment, but not engaging in active monitoring of all future comments or installing some sort of comment filter?
This is my problem with the vagueness of the law and the idea that we don't need the blanket immunity provided by the CDA. Small operators especially need this blanket immunity, because going to trial to litigate intent is simply not an option for them.
If we do remove blanket immunity, we should do so with a less board law that much more clearly lays out the standards for knowledge.
> Civil penalties are not sufficient for slavers.
The goal here is not moral rectitude, but the reduction/elimination of human trafficking. Ideally while preserving as much freedom and creating as little friction as possible.
Given that slavery and conspiracy to commit slavery are crimes already, can't we just increase the penalties for those crimes to the appropriate level?