Facebook Sued for Human Trafficking

[Graybeard]

not really more like

If you are peddling dating website memberships; either that are located in the USA or you are a USA person (or entity) -- you should be concerned. Same with webcams or any other interactive platform --FOSTA & SESTA are US Criminal Code 5 to 25 year felonies
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4996380/Doe-v-Facebook.pdf

Thanks FOSTA & SESTA

>>>
That said, one of the reasons why so many people who rely on the protections of Section 230 were opposed to SESTA/FOSTA was the deterrent effect of the safe harbor. So long as civil litigators around the country knew there was a serious barrier in place to making specious claims against websites in connection with the misdeeds of their users (as opposed to misdeeds by the website’s operators themselves), a lawsuit like Doe v. Facebook was substantially less likely to be filed in the first place.

As one attorney put it to me in a recent off-the-record conversation, the complaint filed in Texas is the sort of suit Section 230 used to prevent, which was a good thing because it meant platforms like Facebook “did not have to defend claims with tenuous liability theories.”

Even if Facebook manages to get the claims against it tossed out in the current case, my sense is it won’t be the only or last of its kind filed against the social media giant. And if Facebook settles or is eventually found liable in the case (which I greatly doubt it will), similar cases will be filed by virtually every potential plaintiff who can find an attorney who thinks their claim has potential merit.<<<
^ Doe v. Facebook: The Leading Edge of a FOSTA Lawsuit Tidal Wave? | YNOT

I do really hope this case is dismissed as it would set some precedent to a very disturbing change in the Safe Harbor that the Internet has had. Knowingly means willingly and mens rea (the criminal mind [or capacity]) needs to be proven < hopefully, this argument will prevail as it should.

 

[azgold]

Does this affect you, @Graybeard ? I don't know for sure if you're currently working with cam sites, etc.

 

[Graybeard]

I was just reading this thread at Twitter yesterday ...

Twitter
this thread shows the problems, and confusion, these laws are creating, real or not, for persons with some USA nexus (citizenship, business entity domicile or in rem server locations).

When reading this law literally it should only affect {real world physical} prostitution or 'escort' services. However, the definition of prostitution is accepting monetary remuneration for some sex act. So, some court, probably is some more conservative US State, might rule that virtual sex --a non-contact sex like a webcam show-- would meet the minimal standard of the crime --a sex act for money.

Prostitution laws are state laws not federal laws --however a person could sue in a federal district when they can prove that some state citizens in that federal district have been harmed under some related US federal statute.

In other words: A state prosecuting attorney in Oklahoma prosecuted the website operator for knowingly accepting advertising for prostitution -- like backpage.com did. Then using that conviction to seek some relief in the US Federal courts. FOSTA sets a criminal penalty of imprisonment up up to 25 years.

This is why social media is running like hell from any possible liability under this law. Tumblr is just the latest. Youtube is freaking out censoring. Reddit and Craigslist have ended any sections or forums that might implicate them as actively allowing any posting that could violate this law.

Personally, a project I was going to develop --an adult oriented social media-- is in limbo until there is some clarification by the federal courts. I think this law may be ripe for a facial constitutional challenge
The US Justice Department has offered some clarification but it reads rather murkily causing just more FUD IMHO.

Anyone that offers social media or some forum that allows user posted content placed at risk. Many countries outlaw real-world prostitution and some make virtual sex acts illegal too. So extradition is a real possibility.

I know a guy in Winnipeg that has to have a city license (that is rather expensive) to lawfully run an escort website (Escort - Business Licence - Licence Services - Community Services Department - City of Winnipeg) seems to be. However, if he uses a web hosting service in the USA he will be in violation of this FOSTA statue. Subject to criminal penalties. I doubt Canada would extradite -- this is legal in Canada and he is a Canadian citizen. What if he was in the Philippines and he was a Filipino -- web cam sex is illegal there

However, if he visits the USA he could be arrested on federal charges (in theory).

 

[azgold]

I doubt Canada would extradite

We do have extradition treaties with some other countries, including the U.S., however I'm not sure they'd send a Canadian with a Canadian based business doing business in his home country.

This is all too convoluted, IMO. Basically, this is people crossing virtual borders in a global environment. Who's going to be the border patrol, anyway?

However, if he visits the USA he could be arrested on federal charges (in theory).

I don't doubt that.

Personally, a project I was going to develop --an adult oriented social media-- is in limbo until there is some clarification by the federal courts.

Oh yeah, I remember you mentioning that a while back. Too bad if you have to scrap it.

 

[Graybeard]

In order to extradite both countries have to have a parallel crime with similar penalties.
That is why Canada would not extradite.

However, if someone operates a webserver in the jurisdiction it can be seized in rem (as property).

 

[Graybeard]

Extradition

>>>Many countries now refuse to extradite fugitives to retentionist states in the absence of assurances that the death penalty will not be sought. This practice derives from two separate, but related developments. First, international tribunals and national courts have issued a series of decisions condemning the extradition of suspects from abolitionist countries to retentionist countries. Second, inter-governmental organizations such as the European Union ("EU") and individual nations such as Mexico have long opposed the death penalty as a matter of principle. The EU, Mexico, and many other abolitionist nations have made abolition of the death penalty one of the key items on their foreign policy agenda.

this would apply toward extradition for 1st degree murder ...