It will be a hearing with the judge at 4pm today.
should a restraining order actually be issued.
Let's hope so.
There is no reason why they shouldn't. Even if the trial eventually went the other way, the time period that the Preliminary Injunction is in place would be protected by the ban on ex post facto's.
and I can only believe that this is what TER has been waiting for as well.
Ironically, the fact that FOSTA contains an Ex Post Facto law is one of the reasons I think this will make it all the way to the Supremes and eventually be overturned, only to be replaced by a better written, but equally onerous bill some day in the future.
Or to engage in golden showers? Wouldn't you agree such activities, while less than typical, are legal? Also, that it's highly unlikely that trafficked people engage in them?
I'm pretty sure you are "still not a lawyer" but as a devotee I am sure you have "standing."
Excelsior!
this law would be knocked down, but these are crazy times.
https://avn.com/business/articles/legal/lawsuit-to-stop-fosta-gets-court-hearing-but-nothing-happens-787734.html
So again I say, if TER is waiting on something like this to happen, they (and we) will be waiting a hellva long time. Their efforts would be better spent making sure they have ZERO ties to the US and move forward from there!
Steph
your TER handle, your post made me curious to look at your link. Are these REALLY your idea of fashion models, or are you fucking with us? Sometimes I'm a little slow to realize I'm being spoofed.
vipgirlfriend is the same thing as switter, but made by women who realized that switter was full of backpage refugees and their tricks and didn't want that nonsense associated with their good names.
There's not much activity there, but what is there is generally high quality.
on the same page on just about every topic here, but this girl is the one with the most ads on that site. This is not MY idea of a "high-quality" provider. Please tell me that you just failed to look past the first few shill ads. Lol
You know, now that I'm looking through the general listings, it's pretty rough.
The listings I'm looking for are basically just Vegas/SD/LA, which at a glance fair much better, and they don't seem to be fake ads, at least the ones I've checked. I guess there's a possibility that the ads are just faked duplicate profiles from Switter to try and legitimize the service.
On one hand, faking listings so your site looks more legit is a scummy move (if it's happening), on the other, switter is run by a man hating tranny who is very much a part of the Anti-Review/TER crowd.
All that said, I've been using the new socal board that has reviews/ads/etc. I'll PM you about it because they'll take down this post if I talk about it.
There are loopholes in the new laws and once the other side hears the others sides rebuttle they will go and write a new law and shut the ladies down again.
Loopholes, which can be corrected by new legislation, are different from potentially unconstitutional provisions.
Or at least how I see it working in regards to FOSTA/SESTA.
The so-called "loophole" of course is the fact that the FOSTA/SESTA laws plainly have a provision that creates an ex post facto law which is clearly unconstitutional that will almost certainly be struck down by SCOTUS, but once FOSTA/SESTA is struck down there is nothing to prevent them from immediately writing a new law without the offending ex post facto provision, just like SS says they will.
I think you are just arguing semantics, that unconstitutional provisions are hardly "loopholes" in both your and my opinion, but from a practical standpoint it doesn't really matter, once FOSTA/SESTA is struck down it will be all of fifteen minutes before a bill is introduced (and passed by both the left and the right) without the unconstitutional ex post facto provisions.
-- Modified on 8/4/2018 6:13:34 PM
and sure you can say I'm arguing semantics if that provision was the only issue up for debate, but the deeper issue is freedom of speech, which allowed ads for a potentially unlawful act to be published. If the high court were to determine that BP, CV, and other malls have no liability for the ads that they accept, it would be very difficult for the legislature to craft any new version that has the same teeth.
The ex post facto provision is clearly unconstitutional, as applies to criminal charges. Does this also apply to civil lawsuits? Not a lawyer, so what do I know? Also, would the ex post facto provision be subject to being struck down only, or would the entire law be struck down as well under this? As I see it, only the retroactive provisions are inapplicable...the rest of act would have to be struck down under 1st Amendment protections, which I see as being less certain, even doubtful.
on whether the offending conduct is continuous past the date of the change in the law where it creates a legal civil liability. For instance, if you wanted to support Joe Biden for President in 2020 and you put a sign in your front yard today that says, "Make America Poor Again - Vote for Joe," and then next year the Republicans pass a law that says such a sign would earn you a $10,000 civil fine, your liability would depend on whether you pulled the sign before the law's effective starting date or left it up after the new law went into effect. Of course, most here would agree that such a law, like FOSTA/SESTA, has some constitutional hurdles it must withstand, which, as we see, take time to sort out. There can't be retroactive penalties or liability for things you do where there was no law against doing it at the time you did it, and so you were not doing anything wrong under the law at the time. Civil liability is similar to criminal liability in this respect.
Under the doctrine of severability, the court can strike the ex post facto provision while leaving the balance of the law in place since the ex post facto section was not the foundation on which the statute was based.
This is true with laws, and with contracts and agreements. PARTS of a law or agreement that are unconstitutional, contrary to existing Codes, or against public policy, can be severed out by the courts while the rest remains in place and enforceable. Its very possible that the challenge to FOSTA/SESTA would result in the ex post facto provision being stricken out while the rest remains enforceable, but I think the first amendment issues could not be severed without taking the teeth out of this new law.
In their Rule 57 filing challenging FOSTA, the plaintiffs argue that the law’s regulated speech is “content based.” They further argue that content-based speech requires “strict scrutiny” review as established in Reed v Town of Gilbert. Given the law’s over reach and ambiguous language, it is unlikely it could survive the narrowly focused compelling state interest that strict scrutiny demands. If FOSTA falls, so do the amendments to the CDA as well as 18 USC 2421A. There would be nothing to salvage.