3 ms·
The relevant law here is called SESTA-FOSTA. It forces companies to ensure they don't host content that facilitates sexual exploitation. This has impacted full-
by BasilPH 4y ago
The relevant law here is called SESTA-FOSTA. It forces companies to ensure they don't host content that facilitates sexual exploitation. This has impacted full-service workers (i.e., prostitutes). Before SESTA-FOSTA, they could put up ads on specialized websites, chat with the clients and then have them come to a room they had rented. This arrangement gave them basic security.
After SESTA-FOSTA, the pages hosting those ads folded, as they couldn't comply with the new rules. Many full-service workers are now walking the streets again and have to have sex in their clients' cars. It's obvious that this makes them much more vulnurable.
It even goes further: Banks will close your account if they think your business has something to do with "sex", even if what you do is legal. If they feel you might be a risk, they freeze your account.
This law has hurt many sex workers, often people already at the very bottom of society. On the other hand, it's unclear how many lives it saved from sexual exploitation.
Sex workers are vulnerable, and many women are being abused. But the way this law was enacted, I can't help but think that pushing sex work further into illegality was a desired side-effect.
Source: I know a couple of sex workers in NYC.
- AndyMcConachie 4y agoYou're right about SESTA-FOSTA being terrible, but I don't think it's the relevant law here. The relevant code here is 1591(a)(2). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1591 The opinion of the court is that the defendents benefit monetarily from a commercial sex act involving someone below 18 years of age.