What exactly is the intention behind this bill? Do they hope the demand for prostitution will drop, and thus trafficker revenues and incentives? That seems ridiculous, as demand for prostitution existed throughout human history and across civilizations, mainly as a cultural artifact.
So we expect the services to simply shift to use other facilitators. Do they hope the new facilitators will be better for the victims? That, again, seems misguided: we know for a fact that traditional, pre-internet facilitators, like pimps and underground brothels, are exceptionally damaging for victims, physically, emotionally and economically. Any underground, high friction market, will have large margins for the traders (traffickers) and make the producers worse off.
Is the intention to drag prostitutes into legality, in supervised establishments where they can be protected by the state? Shouldn't that start with a nation-wide ban of anti-brothel laws that effectively force prostitutes to work underground?
So what exactly is the point of this bill? Denying independent prostitutes autonomy and forcing them in the hands of traffickers? Did they even ask themselves these questions? Do they even understand the purpose is harm-reduction across a whole at-risk social class, not some crusade against a Hollywood vision of innocence abused?
I genuinely don't think any of these questions were asked or discussed in any real fashion.
It really sounds like this was touted as a way to reduce prostitution and sex trafficking and nobody involved ever questioned if it would really do that, because simply questioning a bill like this can get your name in the news about how much you support sex trafficking. And that news story will never go away, 10 years from now people will be bringing that story up about how you once opposed a bill designed to reduce sex trafficking, and how can anyone trust someone that once supported something so vile?
> What exactly is the intention behind this bill? Do they hope the demand for prostitution will drop, and thus trafficker revenues and incentives? That seems ridiculous, as demand for prostitution existed throughout human history and across civilizations, mainly as a cultural artifact.
I'm not a supporter of this bill, but to play devil's advocate: this isn't about eliminating prostitution, which as you said is impossible. It's not about all or nothing, it's about degrees.
Supporters of the bill think that by making prostitution more difficult, it will be more rare. That doesn't contradict what opponents of the bill worry about, that it will make sex work more dangerous: it's possible it will decrease the amount and also increase the risk.
It's similar to the topic of legalizing drugs: for example, it's very possible that legalizing heroin will increase usage (easier to buy, lower prices) but reduce risk (regulated product, less criminal involvement).
It's a tradeoff in both cases, and obviously reasonable people can disagree on whether it's worth it or not.
This is a way to shut down any unmoderated online community using a troll army. The admins on the chans have been warning about this. Notice how this got passed the same week that youtube started banning legal gun and conspiracy videos, etc. It's part of a big online purge against free speech.
There are many unfortunate casualties in the current U.S political cold civil war that's been going on since the last election. They are seeking to eliminate anything that could lead to further unexpected political outcomes by going scorched earth on all kinds of online speech.
> This is a way to shut down any unmoderated online community using a troll army.
Which is nearly every online community. The economics of accurate moderation to legal standards are completely unrealistic.
People see hundred billion dollar companies and assume they're swimming in cash, but most of them have something like ten billion in annual revenue against a billion users. The total is large but the amount per user is not.
There is zero possibility of paying someone with the legal knowledge to make accurate balancing decisions to read and evaluate the legality of every user's posts. And short of that you're going to have huge numbers of false positives or false negatives.
Pass a law that prohibits false negatives and the result is false positives through the roof. Past the point that it will shutter legitimate forums.
It is worth adding that both sides of this political cold war are actively attacking the democratic process. These bills were largely driven by the political establishment, but remember Trump’s response to the recent shootings: He urged everyone to err on the side if reporting suspicious behavior to federal law enforcement.
I noted the same thing earlier; Both Reddit and Youtube started banning stuff while the freedom of speech people were focused on Mark Zuckerburgs statement and Count Dankula verdict.
Beyond that, it's not even really about sexual exploitation at all. That's just a stalking horse for the real purpose of this bill -- to begin the process of eroding and destroying section 230 and normalizing the censorship already taking over the internet.
Indeed. The witch hunts of the Inquisition were in this same vein as well. A major driving force was that of censoring anyone who did not adhere to the official dogmas and doctrines of the state: heretics, blasphemers, etc.
I think it's a confluence of multiple factors. First, lawmakers pass so many bills that they likely get desensitized to the effects of the bills. There is a disconnect between the bill enacting process and the effects on the ground, similar to the "bureaucratic homicide" that occurs during war. Secondly, the types of people that get into office are not the types that get decision paralysis, and are often further along the sociopathy spectrum than most. A third factor is that, other than for a few exceptions like Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, most vote in a block. And if a powerful legislator has twisted religious ideas about prostitutes needing to be punished on earth even before they get to hell, then they can take advantage of this group behavior and get their legislation passed.
Very insightful. I think this bears additional emphasis.
I think you hit the nail on the head. As a society, we've relied on people making shallow surface level laws to correct deep, tangled problems for too long.
Our system of laws is in dire need of a good pruning back and rearchitecting. IANAL, but I have been doing legal research for a while now, and when I'm reading law, it is very clear to me at least that when you start looking at law as something systematic, you run into diagrams that would make any system architect have a heart attack.
The structures I end up at show a lack of "feed-forward" thinking in their implementations. Namely being structured with little or no thought to consequence, or guidance for interpretation or application built in.
For the non-techies who may not be able to understand my comment, imagine implementing something complex like an internal combustion engine, but never writing a manual or communicating it's specifications. That's what I'm getting at.
And yes, I'm aware that the legislature specifies executive branch entities to do the administrative law elucidation. However, there are far fewer release valves for bad law in those cases or means for changing overly restrictive guidance. Entities are given carte blanche to pass unchallengable "iron fist" level directives that have no recourse EXCEPT an already over-taxed legislature.
The intention? Let members of congress brag that they're "doing something" about "sex trafficking." Opposition to "sex trafficking" is a hot button issue in right wing religious congregations these days.
I fear this is very much like anti-immigrant fervor. It's important for legislators to look like they're "doing something." But it's just as important for the measures they take to be ineffective. Why? because systemic hypocrisy.
This measure (along with anti-immigrant measures) creates / maintains an underclass of workers with very few legal rights. Because these measures are wrapped in a mantle of fake righteousness, they satisy both the need to "do something" and the need to keep that underclass going.
So we expect the services to simply shift to use other facilitators. Do they hope the new facilitators will be better for the victims? That, again, seems misguided: we know for a fact that traditional, pre-internet facilitators, like pimps and underground brothels, are exceptionally damaging for victims, physically, emotionally and economically. Any underground, high friction market, will have large margins for the traders (traffickers) and make the producers worse off.
Is the intention to drag prostitutes into legality, in supervised establishments where they can be protected by the state? Shouldn't that start with a nation-wide ban of anti-brothel laws that effectively force prostitutes to work underground?
So what exactly is the point of this bill? Denying independent prostitutes autonomy and forcing them in the hands of traffickers? Did they even ask themselves these questions? Do they even understand the purpose is harm-reduction across a whole at-risk social class, not some crusade against a Hollywood vision of innocence abused?