
EFF Sues to Invalidate FOSTA, an Unconstitutional Internet Censorship Law - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/06/eff-sues-invalidate-fosta-unconstitutional-internet-censorship-law
======
Ritsuko_akagi
Many legal sex workers have been hit by the takedown of sites like Backpage(1)
and its sister cracker(2). These sites were the primary sources to advertise
or find their services. It was heavily used by independent sex workers.

1\. [https://www.thecut.com/2018/04/7-sex-workers-on-what-it-
mean...](https://www.thecut.com/2018/04/7-sex-workers-on-what-it-means-to-
lose-backpage.html)

2\. [https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/sex/sex-
work...](https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/sex/sex-workers-in-
australia-say-american-law-is-creating-devastating-losses-back-home/news-
story/09139a2f0d631cd7284090d2336ca517)

~~~
saas_co_de
Yes, and they will have to "suffer" so that the scum owners of backpage who
actively promoted child sex trafficking can no longer make millions selling
children.

If platforms keep child sex traffickers off their sites they won't get
touched. If they don't they will get shut down.

It really isn't that hard.

~~~
Ked_Ki
But FOSTA doesn't make it illegal for sites to promote child trafficking
specifically, it makes it illegal for a site to promote any prostitution.

~~~
saas_co_de
Here is the text:
[https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1865/BILLS-115hr1865enr...](https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr1865/BILLS-115hr1865enr.pdf)

FOSTA does make it explicitly illegal to operate a web site "with the intent
to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person" ... but that is
not new. It has always been illegal to _intentionally_ promote prostitution.

The EFF said the same thing arguing against FOSTA: that there was no need for
a new criminal statute because existing criminal statutes already covered the
same conduct.

The substantive change with FOSTA is: "CIVIL RECOVERY.—Any person injured by
reason of a violation of section 2421A(b) may recover damages and reasonable
attorneys’ fees in an action before any appropriate United States district
court."

Before prostitutes couldn't sue a pimp because they were engaged in illegal
activity (same reason a drug user can't sue a drug dealer). Criminalizing
prostitution creates a legal immunity for pimps.

FOSTA changes that and now anyone who gets pimped on any of these escort sites
can sue the owners. That is what will put them out of business. Not any police
action.

A lot of liars out there spreading false info about how this is "bad for sex
workers" ... but pimps are good at lying so that should be no surprise.

~~~
mhuffman
You didn't really answer the question posed to you by OP. You just crowed
about how awesome it is to be able to sue backpage now.

This doesn't specifically target child-prostitution. It easily could have, but
doesn't. It targets all sex-work, which does have consequences.

So if the (I'm assuming) tiny fraction of child-prostitution is moved
elsewhere (probably pimping them on the streets) then the grown adult sex-
workers are now being forced to maybe go work for a pimp in dangerous
situations vs. being independent and in control of when, where, and who they
work with.

This law could very easily have been worded to make these companies
responsible for any child-prostitution, but let adults be responsible for
themselves.

~~~
saas_co_de
> You didn't really answer the question posed to you by OP

I very specifically answered that first. Intentional promotion of prostitution
has always been criminal. FOSTA didn't change that, which the EFF repeatedly
said themselves when they were arguing against it.

------
dooglius
IANAL, but do the plaintiffs actually have standing to sue given that they
have not been charged under the act? The problems seem to stem from
uncertainty and ambiguity in how people think the law may be enforced, not
based on any actual enforcement.

~~~
otterley
Good question. (I am a lawyer but this is not legal advice.)

As recently as 2014, the Supreme Court held that “a plaintiff satisfies the
injury-in-fact requirement where he alleges ‘an intention to engage in a
course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but
proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution
thereunder.’” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. __ (citing Babbitt
v. Farm Workers, 442 U. S. 289, 298 (1979)).

This is but the latest in a consistent thread of case law holding that an
actual criminal indictment need not be made against a plaintiff for them to
have standing. As long as there’s a credible threat of enforcement and they
can show intent to commit the proscribed act, that’s sufficient to satisfy the
standing requirement.

~~~
comex
For the First Amendment in particular there's also a concept of a "chilling
effect" on speech, which can make it a bit easier to establish standing.

------
kuon
I will never understand why the USA, while producing so much porn, is so
strict with sex. Here prostitution is legal and you can buy sex toys at the
drug store.

~~~
murjinsee
It's because our politicians are hypocrites who use morality as prestige, all
the while engaging in the very behavior they decry.

I guess there's also less of a paper-trail when prostitution is illegal, and
girls are less willing to come forward about beatings and nonpayment, so...

------
8bitsrule
The word 'promote' used in the sense 'to contribute to the progress or growth
of' is inappropriate in connection with prostitution, since it has been around
quite a while.

Therefore, I conclude, use of the word 'promote' is a Victorian dog-whistle.

