A FOSTA Of One's Own: UK Parliament Members Looking To Punish Websites, Push Traffickers Underground
from the FOSTA-Home-Secretary-is-not-a-position-that-needs-to-exist dept
Our government decided to make the internet worse, endanger the lives of sex workers, and make it harder for law enforcement to hunt down sex traffickers. And it was all done in the name of fighting sex trafficking. SESTA/FOSTA's passage immediately contributed to all three problems upon passage, throwing sex workers under the bus along with Section 230 immunity. The upside for the government was obvious: it could now target websites and site owners, rather than sex traffickers, for grandstanding prosecutions.
Violet Blue reports for Engadget that the UK government -- no stranger to terrible laws targeting the internet -- is thinking about copy-pasting FOSTA for its own use. It would also like to do all the things listed above, only without the minimal restraint of the First Amendment.
A self-appointed group of MPs (the "All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade") fronted by Ms. Champion made a call to ban "prostitution websites" during a Wednesday House of Commons debate. Conflating sex work with trafficking just like their American counterparts, they claim websites where workers advertise and screen clients "directly and knowingly" profit from sex trafficking.
Watching British politicians advance something as broken and harmful as FOSTA-SESTA is like watching an animal try to chew its leg off to escape a trap -- while we're all standing outside the glass enclosure shouting "that's the wrong leg!" Champion is apparently OK about the fact that they're parroting Trump and FOSTA-SESTA; she's even joked that it's a special kind of irony. Indeed.
It's not that sex trafficking doesn't exist or shouldn't be addressed. It's that this "solution" does nothing to solve the problem. It only makes it worse. It drives traffickers underground, making law enforcement's job that much more difficult. And it impairs the ability of sex workers -- those who have chosen this line of work freely -- to earn a living. It increases the dangers they face, especially when paired with increased criminalization of those purchasing sex.
The adoption of FOSTA as a blueprint for sex trafficking legislation also ignores the ugly truth about its support stateside. It's not about sex trafficking. It's about punishing those who are easiest to reach: websites and customers. That sex trafficking will hum along under the radar uninterrupted doesn't phase supporters of this law. It's enough that the government will publicly hang a few website owners for content posted by third parties.
It will be worse in the UK where a challenge along civil liberties lines is more likely to fail. UK speech laws are a mess and it's unlikely opponents of the proposed law will find judicial relief from UK FOSTA knockoff. The lives the law endangers are of zero concern to a majority of politicians and the platform the law is built on -- ending sex trafficking -- is something very few feel comfortable taking a stand against.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, fosta, intermediary liability, prostitution, sarah champion, sesta, trafficking, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Cool, we just ban sites that exist solely to push any illegal activity, then. Wait, surely that's covered by existing legislation? If not, there's surely something greater that needs to be done rather than just push for those covering a specific crime?
I'm sure the people involved mean well and are trying to address a real problem, but you don't do that by either introducing new law that's covered by existing legislation or by trying to hold people responsible for the crimes of others. As, sadly, those involved in the US sex industry have apparently already discovered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Innocent bystanders are much easier to find than those trying to evade the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
“And they’re easier to beat, too.” — some cop, probably
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm sure the people involved mean well and are trying to address a real problem, but you don't do that by either introducing new law that's covered by existing legislation or by trying to hold people responsible for the crimes of others.
In which case you're giving them far more benefit of the doubt than I am, especially after the fallout from FOSTA has made clear that such actions increase the risk faced by those that are held up as the justifications for these laws.
Just like it was with FOSTA I suspect that this is nothing more than a cheap PR stunt, with perhaps a dash of moral busybodies trying to cram their sense of 'right' down everyone else's throats, and to hell with any actual victims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But, if this is a truly cross-party group as claimed, I'm more willing to lean toward it being people making the same mistake toward a genuinely held goal than anything malicious. This is the kind of thing that seems obvious to fail in its stated goal to the more informed. But, if you're not well informed about how the internet actually operates, and haven't been following the actual negative effects of the US legislation (which I assume nobody significant at government level is actually admitting yet), then it probably is something that seems like a good idea, until someone knowledgeable tells you why it's horrifically a bad one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At the very least there's a visible pressure piling against this idiotic "morals" thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Decriminalization, rather than legalization, seems like the better goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We need protection against involuntary work, and workers need to be protected from workplace hazards. That's true regardless of the line of work we're discussing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ban "prostitution websites" during a Wednesday House of Commons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ban "prostitution websites" during a Wednesday House of Commons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any reasons??
Prostitution..Anyone have a reason to be one?? I DO..a few anyway.
Human trafficking?? Show me all the times this has been taken to court, NOT as willing prostitution..
The numbers put up by the PRO' side have been looked at and analyzed..by allot of people and groups. They dont add up. and THERE WAS a few solutions to 99% of it.. CREATE a place for runaways. to get them OFF the street, HIDE them, Protect them, GIVE them HELP..
GIVE THEM THE RIGHTS they are supposed to have..IF they are having family problems, Drug problems..ANY PROBLEMS..let them goto someone to TALK TO.. NOT be arrested as a runaway and held until an ADULT WHO ABUSED THEM gets them back..
In out time..
Who do you goto for assistance?
church? They AINT OPEN 24/7, anymore. And in the last 30 years, its NOT a good place.(as seen on TV)
goto the police, (as seen on TV) where do they send them and what do they DO FOR THEM???
Anyone been in the court system or a State system, LATELY?? Prosecutors get paid..DEFENDERS DONT(not often)
Hmm, I wonder..goto a School nurse/counselor?? Can you see the problem here?? THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE(not treated so, in courts) and end up sending you home..
We have gotten to a point that THEY WANT TO HIDE IT..
NO ONE is responsible..(because they can be Sued)
How do we hide incompetence, Neglect..and corruption. the system is overwhelmed and taken advantage of..(when you see 20 kids for 1 adoption person)..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Any reasons??
This is a minor step into CONTROLLING THE INTERNET< IN EVERYDAY..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wasn't there a recent pedophilia scandal in the UK?
FOSTA pushing the traffickers underground would be seen as a feature, not a bug, to people like that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those damned homophones are ruining our way of life!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]