But Sex Trafficking is defined so broadly that that probably is unconstitutional. But I would not want to be someone who gets hit with it. I am totally then opposed to FOSTA SESTA.
^^^ Because of Fosta Sesta, the operators of Portland's Xotispot bailed out, they got scared. That was a huge loss. and there was no trafficking there. It was just like a facebook for strippers, and where the club's pages could show the roster and be linked to the girls' profiles.
No, what constitutes trafficking is defined way too broadly, not defined at all. Same for the Traficking and Violence Against Women act from the Dubya Bush era.
SJG
Daniel Castro - I'll Play The Blues For You youtube.com
Slow Blues/ Blues Ballads 1 - A two hour long compilation youtube.com
No it is not. Read in a book about this, a stock broker spends 1/2 his time in the US, doing his trading. Then the other half cashed out and resting in India. Is he a trafficking victim? And if he talks with people on an online forum about all this, is the forum operator a criminal?
SJG
Trump's separation families at US-Mexico border amounts to torture, doctors say thehill.com
No, the Trafficking laws are only applied when there is somehow sex. The Mann Act criminalized anyone who transports a woman, not their wife, "for immoral purpose". The Trafficking laws and the online version, Fosta, is the same thing.
Show me a case where the Trafficking and violence against women act is being enforced which is not sexual.
And the basic form of trafficking, according to that law, does not have to involve mnrs, force, fraud, or coercion. And there are no specified lines you have to cross. It carries a 10 year penalty, and sex workers will be encouraged to claim it to get their T and U Visas. They only have to claim moderate distress, not anything extreme.
4 part series, and she had to claim nearly nothing. sfgate.com
The Mann Act was used completely recklessly, trying to regulate adult consensual sexual behavior, used against Charlie Chaplin. Started with totally unsubstantiated rumors of "White Slavery", mostly just driven by anti-Chinese prejudice.
Comments
last commentTroll.
Log in to vote
Well it did bring FSSW into strip clubs right?
Log in to vote
No hookers have always worked in clubs. But is fosta sesta a reason many of you support Trump so much?
Log in to vote
Lets get more hookers
Log in to vote
Is Trump the one who set up FOSTA SESTA, nothing like that before he?
SJG
Log in to vote
There were always anti trafficking laws but Trump is responsible for fosta sesta
Log in to vote
en.wikipedia.org
But Sex Trafficking is defined so broadly that that probably is unconstitutional. But I would not want to be someone who gets hit with it. I am totally then opposed to FOSTA SESTA.
SJG
TJ Street
tuscl.net
tuscl.net
Log in to vote
^^^ Because of Fosta Sesta, the operators of Portland's Xotispot bailed out, they got scared. That was a huge loss. and there was no trafficking there. It was just like a facebook for strippers, and where the club's pages could show the roster and be linked to the girls' profiles.
SJG
Log in to vote
It was more than that. There are very specific precepts imvolved with trafficking and yes it is complex akd goes beyond just sexual exploitation.
Log in to vote
But the crime has no read definition, so Fosta is a huge problem.
SJG
Log in to vote
There are clear definitions. Its only a problem to those trying to do something illegal.
Log in to vote
Not true, there are no clear definitions, and it is about trying to know what is in someone's head.
Really abusing people is already unlawful. It is a redundant bully law.
SJG
Log in to vote
It's pretty clear. Legislation always is.
Log in to vote
No, what constitutes trafficking is defined way too broadly, not defined at all. Same for the Traficking and Violence Against Women act from the Dubya Bush era.
SJG
Daniel Castro - I'll Play The Blues For You
youtube.com
Slow Blues/ Blues Ballads 1 - A two hour long compilation
youtube.com
Log in to vote
A lot of things fall under trafficking to make it broadly enforceable. But the law is pretty straightforward
Log in to vote
No it is not. Read in a book about this, a stock broker spends 1/2 his time in the US, doing his trading. Then the other half cashed out and resting in India. Is he a trafficking victim? And if he talks with people on an online forum about all this, is the forum operator a criminal?
SJG
Trump's separation families at US-Mexico border amounts to torture, doctors say
thehill.com
Full Report
phr.org
Daniel Castro - I'll Play The Blues For You
youtube.com
Slow Blues/ Blues Ballads 1 - A two hour long compilation
youtube.com
TJ Street
tuscl.net
tuscl.net
Log in to vote
Thats a ridiculous example. The law clearly states what trafficking is
Log in to vote
Show me
SJG
Log in to vote
congress.gov
You can look the act up and read it
Log in to vote
"relating to sexual exploitation of children or sex trafficking"
Sex trafficking means whatever they want it to mean, like driving a stripper GF to work, or using online to tell her about a new club.
SJG
Log in to vote
It means what the law prescribes
Log in to vote
Nigga.
Prostitution is amazing and I want it to be more widespread 😋😋😋😋
Log in to vote
Its already everywhere
Log in to vote
You know what the Trafficking Law is, its our version of the Mann Act.
en.wikipedia.org
The last person they tried to prosecute under it was Charlie Chaplin.
They are just making sex and sexual liaisons unlawful.
Now with the "Trafficking" concept, no state lines or national borders need to be crossed.
And with Fosta, the entire crime can be in cyberspace.
They can bust whom ever they want anytime.
SJG
TJ Street
tuscl.net
tuscl.net
tuscl.net
tuscl.net
tuscl.net
tuscl.net
Graham Bond ✪ Holy Magick [full album]
youtube.com
Grahame Bond - Love Is the Law [full album / bonus tracks]
youtube.com
M Davis Bitches Brew 1970 Full Album
youtube.com
Log in to vote
Its not about sex though and even if prostitution were decriminalized solicitation wouldn't be
Log in to vote
No, the Trafficking laws are only applied when there is somehow sex. The Mann Act criminalized anyone who transports a woman, not their wife, "for immoral purpose". The Trafficking laws and the online version, Fosta, is the same thing.
SJG
Log in to vote
Trafficking applies to people trafgicked for cheap labor domestic servitude adoption etc as well. Its not just about prostitution and sex slavery
Log in to vote
The laws are never enforced unless it is sexual.
And then I gave the example of the bi-national stock broker. People only get exercised about it when it is sexual.
It is really the same thing as the Mann Act, trying to legislate sexual morality.
SJG
Log in to vote
No theyre enforced even when it isn't. Your example wasn't human trafficking
Log in to vote
No one enforces trafficking laws when they are not sexual.
And the Mann Act amounted to the same thing. Fortunately now thrown into the trash bin of our history.
SJG
Log in to vote
They do. Slavery is addressed
Log in to vote
Show me a case where the Trafficking and violence against women act is being enforced which is not sexual.
And the basic form of trafficking, according to that law, does not have to involve mnrs, force, fraud, or coercion. And there are no specified lines you have to cross. It carries a 10 year penalty, and sex workers will be encouraged to claim it to get their T and U Visas. They only have to claim moderate distress, not anything extreme.
4 part series, and she had to claim nearly nothing.
sfgate.com
The Mann Act was used completely recklessly, trying to regulate adult consensual sexual behavior, used against Charlie Chaplin. Started with totally unsubstantiated rumors of "White Slavery", mostly just driven by anti-Chinese prejudice.
SJG
Log in to vote
General anti trafficking laws do it.
Log in to vote
Yes, but these laws are really just based on prejudice and sexual moralisms. Like the Mann Act they could be found to be unconstitutional.
SJG
Log in to vote
The Mann act was amended. Its not what it was in the early 1900s
Log in to vote
It is no longer used. I think the last was Charlie Chaplin.
But it, like Fosta was always a bum deal, stupid law, just bullying.
Saying that adult women cannot consent to sex work.
Then anyone who has contact with them could be charged.
SJG
Log in to vote
You can't consent to illegal labor.
Log in to vote
People can consent to anything. But if you mean that some rights are considered so basic that they cannot be signed away, true.
But FOSTA SESTA is just stupid law, giving LE great power when no crime has been defined.
T-RUMP was spreading ass for the Right of his own party.
SJG
Log in to vote
But it clearly defines the crime.
Log in to vote
Negative, Fosta Sesta is far removed from actual prostitution. It is totally unclear who is and who is not subject to the law.
SJG
Log in to vote
It is clear
Log in to vote
Negative, anyone who is communicating with mobile sex workers could be charged with a major federal felony.
SJG
Log in to vote