Quote Originally Posted by Lovinglifeinaustin View Post
I think it’s much ado about nada. Like Y2K, Mayan calendar. Good analogies Loxly. More like last April, when BP and eccie went down. Panic ensued. OH2 stepped up and filled the gap...thank you CK. And eccie came back, at least a semi-sanitized version of it.

FOSTA/sesta was in effect on the day it was signed into law back in April. No reason to believe that Armageddon will happen on January 1.
This is all very true as well. See, the law is already in effect - it was on April 11th 2018 just as Loving said above. Nothing special happens on Jan 2019. No reason to believe some Y2K type thing is happening.

Really though the further issue is like I said before you cannot just shut them down in a "Y2K" type manner due to a bug or b/c a law enforces it. Most of the places that now operate (if they are smart) are not on american soil which means there is no jurisdiction for the US to shut the servers down. Even with a lengthy process working with foreign federal governments it would be extremely difficult. There is no way to "push a button" or even to block a section of IP's (the way we do with certain IP's like things from China or Russia or North Korea and so on to our major internet provider backbones in the US). I won't go into the details of why that's not possible but trust me when I tell you it's impossible from a technical perspective.

The real question becomes whether some, such as P411, this very site, Eccie, and others, will decide on their own to just fade away and shutdown over time due to "perceived pressure". That's possible. It's definitely possible.

Even with the updated SESTA/FOSTA language the issue is still somewhat murky and unclear with regard to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which provided immunity to website operators). Just take a look at a site like this one: CDS 230 Major Legal Acts. That link points you to major actions by many, many large corporations and well known proprietors of services that have been targeted for various reasons over the years. That's just a sampling by the way.

With regard to SESTA and the safe harbors act (section 230 CDA) amendment it reads as follows per the new federal legal statutes that took effect on April 11th 2018:

Congress finds the following:

(1) Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) (as added by title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104; 110 Stat. 133) (commonly known as the “Communications Decency Act of 1996”)) was never intended to provide legal protection to websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims.

That's just the bill text. You will find the actual amendments in Ch 5 of U.S.C 47 (broadly known as the communications decency act) under 2018-Subsec. (e)(5). Pub. L. 115–164 added par. (5).
US Constitutional Code Ch.5 of U.S.C 47 (search for "trafficking" and you will find the actual 2018 amendment wording at about the 2/7 entries under: e.5)

The main loophole is the underlined and bold portion I highlighted above in the bill text. And many freedom of information groups are fighting those items (such as the EFF).
Read about sex trafficking here: Wikipedia Sex Trafficking

Sex trafficking indicates a victim of sexual exploitation. For example, a minor/child, engaging in child pornography, or a non-minor sold into sex slavery, performing sexual services under duress, at the direction of a "pimp", drug/cartel ring, or someone forced into a slave type prostitution ring, etc...
In order to be "trafficked" you have to be the victim of sexual exploitation.

That's the biggest legal loophole in SESTA. However, it's not even a loophole IMO. Why? Because I believe the intent was simply to do exactly what I've said before: protect victims of sex trafficking and sexual exploitation. Backpage, for example, was a place that needed to go away (for all of those reasons). It was unsafe. And it was a hotbed for criminal rings and enterprises.

If you are a provider using any forum, or any medium for that matter, and you are not doing it as a result of someone ordering you, you are not forced into it under some form of slavery or as a result of being exploited with drugs, you are not a minor, you are not under any duress to perform sexual acts, etc... then you are *NOT* the target audience of this bill/law.


-mg