News guide AP: bill to fight online trafficking sex

0
290

AP News Guide: Bill to fight online sex trafficking

In 1996 a law that protects online services from liability for what their users will not be weakened from the sex trafficking signed a bill awaiting President Donald trump.

The law allows that Facebook, Google and other leading companies in the provision of telecommunications services. Companies that the owners of the blogs don’t have to worry about being sued for libel, for example, when the user sends bad things about someone. In addition, Facebook will not have to worry if someone shares advice that is harmful. In both cases, it is the user who is responsible.

But the same situation can get-advertising websites such as protecting the cover against accusations that they are promoting sexual exploitation of minors, prostitution.

Here’s a look at a bill that will remove this protection. It passed Congress with wide support, despite concerns about the right to freedom of speech.

PUSH

The legislation grew out of frustration that the group-advertising sites may claim that they are not a Publisher of questionable content, and not just the transmission of the content posted by others.

One of the main authors of the bill, Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, said in January the Senate colleagues that the sites trade “the ability to say ‘You can’t touch us. You can’t follow us.”

In 1996, the provision does not bar Federal criminal prosecution. A Federal indictment unsealed Monday accuses the creators of the cover, and the remaining five in the promotion of prostitution is a sexual service and hiding their income. Federal law enforcement agencies seized Backpage.com’s domain name on Friday.

But people looking for a civil claim for compensation of damage from the sites were disappointed with the release of 1996. The act also restricts the ability of States from their own criminal cases. The new legislation will make it easier to bring civil and public Affairs in relation to these sites.

SUPPORT

Leading technology companies, through an industry Association Group network, and celebrities such as Amy Schumer and Seth Meyers expressed support for the new legislation. So trump’s daughter, Ivanka.

While the benefits of Facebook to a large extent on protection 1996, its chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg, wrote that the bill “will allow platforms to combat the commercial sex trade, giving the victim a chance to seek justice against those companies that do not”.

Despite the contentious political climate, both houses of Congress passed the bill by an overwhelming majority — 388-25 in the house and the Senate 97-2.

“Any bill on the suppression of the sex will be hard to resist,” said Eric Goldman, a law Professor at the University of Santa Clara, the critics of the bill.

CONCERNS ABOUT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Critics fear that without protection, 1996, sites may decide not to offer their services at all or may be too aggressive in censorship message, to avoid lawsuits. They say that the impact is beyond the scope of sex-related content, although account must stay immune to other posts.

Now for the classifieds site Craigslist killed him Dating section. “Any tool or service can be used. We cannot accept this risk, without jeopardizing all of our other services,” Craigslist wrote.

Another possible outcome, critics say that the company will cease to temper their services to abuse in General, not just sex trafficking. The new bill adds language to expand sex trafficking includes “knowingly aiding, supporting, or facilitating” it. The fear is that the website can “know” about this behavior, if you come across it at moderation services for something else. It is best to close your eyes, the thinking goes.

The greatest effect will be on smaller services without the resources to navigate the intricacies of the new rules, said Emma Llanso, Director of the expression project of the Center for democracy and technology, one of several civil rights groups that oppose the legislation.

The Ministry of justice supports the bill, but expressed concerns that it may be unconstitutional, because the changes will be applied retroactively.

Sourse: abcnews.go.com

No votes yet.
Please wait...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here