3 ms·
Reading the text of the bill (which is short) I find it difficult to understand the EFF's complains. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/18
by saas_co_de 9y ago
Reading the text of the bill (which is short) I find it difficult to understand the EFF's complains.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865...
This law is specifically focused on allowing the victims of sex trafficking to seek restitution from companies that profit from their enslavement. I find it difficult to see how that is a bad thing.
This law is limited to parties acting with "intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person."
If a victim of sex trafficking can prove that you were acting with intent to facilitate prostitution and that they were damaged as a result it seems reasonable that they should have a cause of action.
- craftyguy 9y agoI guess it all comes down to how 'intent' is interpreted. If someone is offering prostitution on craigslist, but craigslist doesn't catch it, is craigslist liable because they "didn't do enough" to prevent it from happening? That was probably a silly example because I think craigslist is fairly active in policing themselves, but there are lots of websites that are not as stringent, because of resourcing, etc. Are there cases where the fine line between unintentional negligence (if it can be proven at all?) and intent is blurred?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]