Abuse and exploitation do, in fact, have different legal definitions in Utah.
Livestreaming a sexual act without the consent of the 2nd party wouldn't be covered under sexual abuse, as the party is consenting to the sexual act. But, would be covered as exploitation, if the party doesn't consent to the distribution of their image [2].
I'm a huge critic of the church's influence on our legislature, but it's not an extension to porn and/or prostitution. If anything, it's a strengthening of privacy.
[Edit] spelling, sources, and clarification [1] https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S406.html [2] https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5B/C76-5b-P2_180001...
In Utah the Church has a large (usually indirect) influence over politics. They don't often pick sides, but with some social issues like Gay marriage and legalized Cannabis they have specifically reached out to members encouraging them to vote a certain way.
This can be disputed.
The legislator wasn't even coerced - he would just regularly report back to church leaders and ask for guidance on which way he should lean on specific issues.
If the church has that kind of direct influence out of state, it stands to reason they at least have a similar level in Utah where most of the legislature and politicians are Mormon.
Salt Lake City for example was the first major US city I encountered the audible cross-walk indicators for the visually impaired. And not just here and there, but all over the city. Salt Lake City has had popular gay and lesbian mayors and a vibrant and resilient collection of various sub-cultures that may not be desirable to the LDS Church but persist nonetheless.
Mostly I was just trying to point out that while the media and popular culture reduces parts of the world to simple caricatures, usually the particulars are more complex and nuanced.
Where does it say this?
It doesn't take much effort to make the porn and prostitution peg fit into that hole.
Thus, we can say that the "human trafficking" exemption is really a prostitution exemption, and not what it sounds like.
I don't think slavery, sex slavery, or sexual assault are good reasons for removing safe harbor from sites that host user generated content. Instead, such sites have been, and could continue to be valuable resources for law enforcement.
> Sexual assault and rape are bad enough on their own, of course. So why the need to force these cases into a framework that doesn't fit?
> Because the sex trafficking framework allows for a lot more prosecutorial possibilities.
> Plus, sex trafficking is such a buzzword that cases employing it are guaranteed to get more attention.
“Smelling marijuana” is easy to push with plausible deniability.
Claiming there is imminent risk of sexual abuse is really difficult to justify on the fly. It may happen, but that’s going to be a tough edge case for cops to abuse.
In my jurisdiction, the coroner gets called for every 10th expected death in a nursing home just to ensure some accountability.
Or is it a free for all with sealed records unless they get presented as evidence?
To identify and locate underage camwhores (who are presumed to be put up to the task).
Being forced to simply flirt with men all day constitutes exploitation, not abuse.
The nature of livestreams mean there is little to go on unless they're broadcasting, hence the exception.
My guess is to prevent internet-based sex-tourism: watching stuff that's illegal where you are, streamed from somewhere else, like another country or continent.
A fairly reasonable exception which is then randomly extended to also cover prostitution and porn. Oh well.
I do have to question why they needed a specific emergency exemption for "livestreamed sexual exploitation" when that "exploitation" would not qualify as "sexual abuse". (If it were abuse, then it would already be covered under the exemption for sexual abuse!)