Trafficking and free speech

25 comments

• shailynn

  •

  7 years ago

  Well fuck, nice knowing you guys, Founder is gonna shut this site down next week.
• RandomMember

  •

  7 years ago

  SA recently sent out messages to everyone stating that pay-per-meet is not allowed. Clearly they're trying to stay ahead of this bill. I think it's unconstitutional and won't pass in the end
• Papi_Chulo

  •

  7 years ago

  Human trafficking is the "we're tough on crime" card of choice for politicians these days.
  
  They wanna make a 1:1 correlation b/w sex-work and human-trafficking, in their minds most women that have sex for $$$ is b/c she's being trafficked.
  
  These antiquated anti-P4P laws need to be done away with but it seems it's getting worst instead of better and who the hell is gonna stand-up for P4P.
• Huntsman

  •

  7 years ago

  Yeah, there is no constituency for consensual p4p and it’s an easy issue for politicians to grandstand about. Unfortunately, this sort of thing has bipartisan support that we don’t see on other issues.
  
  One would think that this bill would fail in court but even being the test case is expensive and a pain.
  
  
• Cashman1234

  •

  7 years ago

  Huntsman - isn’t consentual p4p prostitution? Not trying to be obnoxious. I’m thinking these SA type sites work around it as they avoid a direct correlation of sex for money.
  
  The term trafficking is one of those hot button terms - and it seems to have traction amongst lawmakers. They seem to loop trafficking and illegal immigration together - so they think they are killing two birds with one stone.
  
  It’s very difficult to determine the origin of certain illicit and illegal content - so they are tightening things up considerably to hold more folks accountable.
  
• skibum609

  •

  7 years ago

  When I hear that anything was passed by a bi-partisan vote I assume it is illegal, unconstitutional and useless; just like Congress.
• twentyfive

  •

  7 years ago

  Funniest thing about this is the most vocal of the folks pushing this are the anti abortion crowd, and those strict constitutionalists, that seem to want to adhere verbatim to a document that is over two hundred and fifty years old and written at a time when it took 5 days to travel 350 miles, average lifespan was under 50 years. Your constitutional democracy in full glory.
• Huntsman

  •

  7 years ago

  Cashman, prostitution is generally defined by state law and I won’t claim to know every state’s law. But in my state, it covers a wider range of things than one might expect and even the offer or solicitation of sexual contact or sexual penetration is a crime when money is involved.
  
  Then add in the federal changes regarding trafficking that Mark94 was describing in the OP and it makes things tougher for online stuff, which is where almost every P4p is nowadays except ITC and streetwalkers.
  
  Men won’t stop being horny and women won’t stop being available so I don’t know that things will change a great deal. But it will have some effect. For instance, a couple years ago P411, which is based out of Canada, stopped listing the specific services available from escorts due to tightening of Canadian law. P411 still exists and is widely used but it’s less explicit. For instance, a provider there used to be able to say she did Greek and P411 described Greek as anal sex. Now she can describe herself as a Greek goddess with no explanation of what that means. Kinda funny but I imagine online stuff will just get more vague while just as much activity keeps happening.
• Cashman1234

  •

  7 years ago

  Huntsman that’s a good point. There can be a broad range of services and acts included in p4p. Weeding through state laws would be confusing at best.
  
  As long as guys are horny - and the internet exists - there will be a marketplace for some wild depictions of p4p services.
• FTS

  •

  7 years ago

  I'm moving to Canada.
• skibum609

  •

  7 years ago

  Twenty-Five. If the Constitution can be changed to reflect the current "value system" then get rid of it because every right in it would be meaningless. If the issues you raise were actually important enough why has no one called a Constitutional convention or submitted an amendment to Congress? The Constitution can be changed, but not by popular internet opinion. Sex trafficking is a scam to deny rights and so is the school shooting issue, since more kids have died of the flu than been shot. A mentally ill guy got a gun and the system failed. Why is the solution to punish 100 million people for the acts of one? That's why we have Constitutional rights: to protect us against simplistic, knee jerk reactions, from both ends of the spectrum.
• twentyfive

  •

  7 years ago

  @Skibum there you guys go again, you are putting words in my mouth, I never suggested getting rid of the constitution, it does require updating, like it or not the founders, put forth ways to do that in an equitable fashion.
  It's red herring to say i want to ban guns, I want to see common sense appliied to the gun laws, This argument is as stupid as SJG saying, there is no such thing as mental disorders.
  No one is suggesting punishing 100 million people. Sheesh you guys are something else, you support the constitution when it works in favor of what you like but you deny others the same right. If you wat to compare the flu to school shootings, your values are seriously messed up. I thought you were an independent thinker, but you have closed your mind, big time here.
  It's absolutely insane to to think doing the same thing is going to produce different results, yet we keep doing the same things over and over.
  You keep saying progressives are stupid, well dinosaurs are extinct.
  
• skibum609

  •

  7 years ago

  So the argument is that despite almost 1,200 gun laws just one more will cure the problem? I deny no one their Constitutional rights and don't support the bill, so not sure where that is coming from. The difference is that you view a ban as common sense and I view it as collective punishment. I am comparing the astounding hysteria that certain deaths create. I am offended by the idea that "victims", especially children who are victims, gain some intelligence and insight duet o their status that requires us to listen to them and make changes based on their emotions. If you do the research, far more "children" have been shot and killed in Chicago since January 1, 2018 than in this incident and they get a paragraph, once, not 24/7 chest beating. My mind is closed to laws that violate the Second amendment. I suggested what could be done, but Progressives simply use victims to further their politics and their politics run opposite to everything I believe in. I am glad I am a dinosaur. I agree that we're going to be extinct. I have been on my own for almost my whole life, while children of today can barely make a sandwich at 18. We lost what made us great and when all of us dinosaurs are extinct, the loss will be permanent. Like it or not I am consistently against bans that intrerfere with Constitutional rights and that was obvious from my prior post, which you should reread. I do enjoy the repartee`.
• twentyfive

  •

  7 years ago

  Like I said stop putting words in my mouth I am not for anything like banning guns you are going to great length to overreach. There is nothing in the second amendment (an amendment remember) that overrides the right to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which happens to be the premise on which the constitution is based, that says the rights of incompetents, that is people who are judged to be insane by one standard or another be allowed to have free reign to do whatever they want. In other words quite simply your right to swing your arms ends well before the tip of my nose. You don’t have the right to go out on a crowded street on New Year’s Eve and just pop off a few rounds, if you do you will lose your rights. Yes the constitution provides for taking individual rights away if the common good demands it. As a lawyer you should know this. You need to let some light into the recesses of your head, it sure is hard reading of our constitution in the dark.
• Array

  •

  7 years ago

  #twentyfive - “...you support the Constitution when it works in favor of what you like but you deny others the same right...” Sounds like a lot of liberals. And, sounds like a lot of conservatives. And, it particularly sounds like a lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle!
• twentyfive

  •

  7 years ago

  ^^ 100% seems like everyone try’s to use the same argument to prove their point, doesn’t it?
  I’m saying come at it from the middle I am a true centrist, problem is the righties and the lefties haven’t solved a fucking thing, actually they keep making it worse with this total gridlock.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  7 years ago

  This is a lifeboat only. Join now. At least save the address on paper and in emails to yourself.
  http://testosteronelifeboat.freeforums.n…
  
  When RB went down there was no warning. And remember, the people who ran it were proud of what they were doing, and had no warning, and would not go along with LE's interpretation. But they force people to plead guilty just due to the weight of the charges.
  
  https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-off…
  
  I think maybe Founder nixed the tag lines for safety reasons. Some of them went too far, in my opinion.
  
  SJG
• twentyfive

  •

  7 years ago

  ^^^ the taglines are at the bottom of the page Hey moron look before you shit the bed.
• san_jose_guy

  •

  7 years ago

  There were rotating tag lines which used to be at the top of the page. I think some of them might have gone to far.
  
  SJG
  
  Here, Italian women taking off their clothes. I approve fully! Even though many are rather thick, I still like them.
  https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/25-itali…
• realDougster

  •

  7 years ago

  From the text of the bill:
  
  § 2421A. Promotion or facilitation of prostitution and reckless disregard of sex trafficking
  
  “(a) In General.—Whoever, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (as such term is defined in defined in section 230(f) the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f))), or conspires or attempts to do so, with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
  
  “(b) Aggravated Violation.—Whoever, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (as such term is defined in defined in section 230(f) the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(f))), or conspires or attempts to do so, with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person and—
  
  “(1) promotes or facilitates the prostitution of 5 or more persons; or
  
  “(2) acts in reckless disregard of the fact that such conduct contributed to sex trafficking, in violation of 1591(a),
  
  shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for not more than 25 years, or both
• realDougster

  •

  7 years ago

  Do you think I could get a reward for turning in the originator of "The System"?
• Papi_Chulo

  •

  7 years ago

  That's fucked-up if it became law - one would think it would def affect extras-clubs.
• Papi_Chulo

  •

  7 years ago

  "... or conspires or attempts to do so, with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person shall be fined under this title ..."
  
  They use "prostitution" in the text rather than "sex trafficking" - this can either mean:
  
  + it's really just an anti P4P bill
  
  + or they know that human-trafficking is a small % of the sex industry and they gotta wipe out P4P to make it look like they are actually accomplishing something
• 79terrier

  •

  7 years ago

  The issue won't be Founder shutting the site down, it's whoever is hosting the site won't be willing to take the risk and shutting us down.
• twentyfive

  •

  7 years ago

  Going back to what I was speaking to earlier, we know that most of what the political hacks we have making laws for all of us yet exempting themselves from, is about to be overridden by the real government, yes I’m talking about business interest in this country, hitting the NRA where it really hurts them, their pocketbooks.
  All of a sudden the largest gun sellers in the marketplace are refusing to sell military style weapons, reducing magazine sizes, and voluntarily raising the age minimum to buy to 21. Other companies are ending affiliations with the NRA, which is going to cost them, it’s going to take some time, but the “times they are a changing”