
House Vote on FOSTA Is a Win for Censorship - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/house-vote-fosta-win-censorship
======
saas_co_de
Reading the text of the bill (which is short) I find it difficult to
understand the EFF's complains.

[https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-
bill/1865...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-
bill/1865/text)

This law is specifically focused on allowing the victims of sex trafficking to
seek restitution from companies that profit from their enslavement. I find it
difficult to see how that is a bad thing.

This law is limited to parties acting with "intent to promote or facilitate
the prostitution of another person."

If a victim of sex trafficking can prove that you were acting with intent to
facilitate prostitution and that they were damaged as a result it seems
reasonable that they should have a cause of action.

~~~
craftyguy
I guess it all comes down to how 'intent' is interpreted. If someone is
offering prostitution on craigslist, but craigslist doesn't catch it, is
craigslist liable because they "didn't do enough" to prevent it from
happening? That was probably a silly example because I _think_ craigslist is
fairly active in policing themselves, but there are lots of websites that are
not as stringent, because of resourcing, etc.

Are there cases where the fine line between unintentional negligence (if it
can be proven at all?) and intent is blurred?

~~~
slededit
"Intent" has a long history in case law and it requires proving a state of
mind. Negligence would handle the case where a person "didn't do enough" but
didn't intend the outcome.

~~~
craftyguy
If that's true, then I agree with GP in that the EFF has fallen off their
rocker.

