You're going too far ahead and wasting your time analyzing it...I'm not an Attorney btw....SESTA/FOSTA was, is and always be a bugos law...The opposition has not started yet..DOJ and State AG's, Other Law Enforcements, ACLU, etc are already commenting that it is a daunting task , it will take massive amount, personnels, time and taxpayers money to enforce it...to early to tell. it'll take time or maybe it will be frozen in court and be ignored till the next elections.....
It's my understanding that it is NOT illegal for websites to post ads etc of ladies of the night And Websites such as TER and Other known sites are still free to do so without having to worry about prosecution. The problem is these Sites Are Worried That They Are Unable To Police Themselves. In other word they don't spend the money to ensure that all ads and posts are legitimate from individuals who are of Legal Age.
Fosta-Sesta enables lawsuits against sites that allow ads for Sex Traffic Individuals whether or not they were aware or not. It puts the burden on the Site to Insure that this is not occurring and these sites don't have the resources to do so.
If I'm incorrect in my analysis please advise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Enabling_Sex_Traffickers_Act
You're going too far ahead and wasting your time analyzing it...I'm not an Attorney btw....SESTA/FOSTA was, is and always be a bugos law...The opposition has not started yet..DOJ and State AG's, Other Law Enforcements, ACLU, etc are already commenting that it is a daunting task , it will take massive amount, personnels, time and taxpayers money to enforce it...to early to tell. it'll take time or maybe it will be frozen in court and be ignored till the next elections.....
It is NOT just about trafficking. The law explicitly says that. Criminal penalties and civil liability are spelled out for anything that "facilitates" or "promotes" prostitution of another person. Nothing limits it to trafficking or coercion.
And there is no limitation as to "ads" either. If it works to bring in business, it's covered by the law's definition. No amount of code and doubletalk will evade it: if clients call the provider, you're in violation.
Nothing in SESTA/FOSTA prevents a lady from advertising for herself and herself only. Of course pandering and soliciting prostitution is and has been illegal in most states for a very long time, so that is and always has been the violation/risk for advertising.
What SESTA/FOSTA does is it imposes civil and criminal liability on the internet provider that is hosting the advertisement. Nothing under that law would prevent a lady from setting up her own server to host her own ad. Of course that would still be unlawful soliciting, but that hasn’t really stopped any advertising before.
Could they be liable?
And if two or more providers decide to split the cost of setting up the server, does that cross the line?
There are a lot of details yet to be determined.
You can create a website and set up a server on your kitchen table and test it on your local area network (house) ... but you still need a way to connect to the internet. You need an ISP. Rather, a willing ISP.
.
How does the law discriminate between web hosting services (BP, CV, ... TER) and ISPs (Verizon, ATT, Xfinity, ...)?
And if two or more providers decide to split the cost of setting up the server, does that cross the line?
There are a lot of details yet to be determined.
"How does the law discriminate between web hosting services (BP, CV, ... TER) and ISPs (Verizon, ATT, Xfinity, ...)?"
If the language doesn't explicitly do so -- they don't. They will go after web hosting services that don't censor client web pages.
One will need to set up the server at a Web Hosting company and get a domain registered. They will need to manage the server also. Many Web Hosting will allow it and it is no all that expensive.
Being that said, all laws will be applicable.
I wouldn't think that paying a contractor to build a website for you would make the contractor liable. Technically all of the work (in this case, writing code) a contractor does belongs to the provider in this case, so the contractor couldn't be "trafficking" anyone because he's working for them.
Splitting the cost of the server with other providers is probably above board as well. I think the line is likely "creating a site for multiple girls with no affiliation".
The issue is that hosting would have to be kept offshore, so that gets tricky because distance=latency, and some web platforms don't work well as latency increases (aka wordpress and most "web apps"). This probably entails either finding a privacy focused web host, or spinning up your own VPS instance and installing a webserver on it. I wouldn't say these things are "hard" in the classic sense, just a little out of the wheelhouse of most providers.
Hold on, I understood the Trumpster had to sign the bill by 3/31 or it would be a pocket veto. Did he actually sign it? Can't find anything in the news about it at all.
Damn. I was really hoping the monger would let it slide into oblivion.
Pocket veto can only occur if the congress is in recess. Otherwise failure to sign is the same as signing. Must explicitly veto if congress is in session.
But there is no mention that this has been presented to the President. Thus, I don't think a pocket veto is applicable.
Grrr, tomorrow? Fuck fuck fuck, tell him it’s too late his failure to sign in 10 days was an automatic veto and let congress come back to get the 2/3 votes from both houses.
Could be so lucky I guess it’s now up to DOJ and the courts to bitch about it. Grrrr
Unfortunately it looks like your attempt to purchase VIP membership has failed due to your card being declined. Good news is that we have several other payment options that you could try.
We thank you for your purchase!
Membership should be activated shortly. You'll receive notification!
