4 ms·
Remember the Communication Decency Act I and II from the 90s? Or the Clipper Chip? Back then it was child porn online and the like which justified web publishin
by cromwellian 9y ago
Remember the Communication Decency Act I and II from the 90s? Or the Clipper Chip? Back then it was child porn online and the like which justified web publishing regulation.
This time it's sex trafficking as the excuse.
It seems whenever it's time to try internet regulation again, dip deep into the jar of sex related justifications.
- Iv 9y agoThe rationale is simple: opposing this makes you a defender of pedoporn or of sex trafficking. Fortunately serious NPOs have protested being used as excuses for inefficient regulations. I wish we made a constitutional amendment to protect online freedoms. Every two years there is a new attack on those, it gets tiring.
- philipov 9y agoAre you suggesting we should tell the people who are attacking online freedoms to make an amendment to protect them? Who do you think would get to be in charge of writing and passing such an amendment?
- rayiner 9y agoThe CDA turned out ironically. The courts struck down the “decency” parts, leaving mainly the safe harbor for online providers.
- 1001101 9y agoSeems to me like a relative of a fallacious appeal to emotion. It's got some 'ick factor' (for the many puritans, lowercase 'P,' out there) to it which probably limits its spread. Sex trafficking seems to be an almost universal taboo, so, who can be against that? Good on the EFF for trying.