Why free speech advocates oppose a law to battle sex trafficking

The 1996 law Section 230 is widely seen as a foundation of the Internet economy.

Read the whole story

 

[Rookie_MIB]

The article is reasonably nuanced but the title is crap. Free speech advocates oppose a law which purports to battle sex trafficking but will really do little to stop it and will likely cause substantial harm. The title suggests that free speech advocates believe free speech trumps sex trafficking, which isn't generally the case. Personally, I'd be willing to place some limits on free speech if it actually was effective at limiting child abuse and trafficking. I just don't believe this law will be effective at doing that.

Any laws concerning sexual trafficking and/or abuse written by the sexual miscreants who inhabit DC should automatically be suspect.

IMHO, give the recent changes to the law time to work. Building a case doesn't happen overnight, see how it goes from there.

 

[Rookie_MIB]

Of course, the obvious answer is to simply legalize and regulate prostitution in general. If a woman has a service she wants to offer, she can get licensed, tested regularly for STDs, verified for her age, and of course since she's putting herself in the 'market', she's generally going to be considered a willing participant and not a sex slave.

Agencies who provide services could likewise be regulated, licensed, subject to regulations and inspections, hold records for testing, signed contracts for the girls who work for them, verified documents proving age etc.

Men would be happier. Women would be happier. State and federal agencies would get more money from taxing since income can then be 'over the table', and licensing fees. Crime would go down as these acts wouldn't be illegal anymore. Police and law enforcement could then go after real criminals.

Sounds like win/win. Of course, it'll never happen because the religious right would scream bloody murder.