[Lnc-business] URGENT - Request for ExCom meeting to add LP's voice opposing FOSTA (HR 1865) and SESTA (S. 1693)

[Elizabeth Van Horn]

I see both the attachments and the links. (Attachments are pdfs)

I also agree with Starchild on this issue.

---
Elizabeth Van Horn
LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
http://www.lpcaucus.org/

On 2018-02-26 19:40, Starchild wrote:
> I'm requesting that the LNC Executive Committee hold a special meeting
> ASAP for the purpose of voting to add the Libertarian Party as a
> signatory to the following attached letter in opposition to two bad
> pieces of legislation currently in Congress which would further
> criminalize consensual prostitution, and related online speech
> including sharing harm reduction and safety tips for sex workers, in
> the name of fighting sex trafficking (which they would do nothing to
> stop).
> 
> 	This harmful legislation was just brought to my attention. The House
> bill, the "Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking
> Act" or FOSTA, may be voted on in the House as soon as TOMORROW
> (Tuesday, February 27), which makes this a time–sensitive matter that
> lacks the time for a vote of the full LNC.
> 
> 	I've reviewed the letter and did not notice anything substantive in
> it that is objectionable from a libertarian perspective, but I
> encourage others to review it as well. Due to our screwed-up email
> list, I have copied the text of the letter below as well as attaching
> it as a PDF file. Also attached is a graphic detailing some of the
> provisions of these two bills (which may not come through).
> 
> 	The libertarian-oriented Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) also
> has a page devoted to stopping FOSTA for its Internet censorship
> provisions –
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1693 .
> Another website with additional information detailing what's bad about
> both bills is
> https://medium.com/@EngineOrg/myth-vs-fact-what-you-need-to-know-about-sesta-fosta-850e74f3b8c4
> .
> 
> 	The actual text of the bills can be read at
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 (FOSTA)
> and https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1693
> (SESTA).
> 
> Love & Liberty,
> 
>                                      ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                           RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                    (415) 625-FREE
>                                      @StarchildSF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TEXT OF LETTER FOR LP TO SIGN ONTO:
> 
> 
> February 25, 2018
> 
> As organizations which support the rights, health and wellbeing of
> individuals who trade sex, the undersigned are firmly against the
> passage of “Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act” SESTA (S. 1693) and
> “Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act” FOSTA (H.1865). This legislation
> will cause harm without improving anti-trafficking efforts. Passage of
> this legislation will put the most vulnerable in our communities at
> higher risk of violence and victimization. We reject legislation that
> threaten the lives and safety of individuals trading sex - people who
> are disproportionately LGBTQ, immigrant, and people of color trying to
> survive. This legislation will target peers and communities who use
> the internet for harm reduction and anti-violence work, and isolate
> people who trade sex, increasing vulnerability to violence and
> victimization.
> 
> Meaningful anti-trafficking work should not make those in the sex
> trade more susceptible to violence and exploitation. After the closure
> of RedBook or Rentboy.com, sex workers became even more vulnerable and
> economically precarious. Both FOSTA and SESTA promote the closing of
> those websites and chill the possibility for organizations to create
> internet-based platforms which service providers and communities use
> to distribute and access harm reduction and safety information and
> techniques.
> 
> Under the current language in the Communications and Decency Act,
> prosecutors have every tool required to go after third parties,
> including websites, who have engaged in trafficking in persons. The
> proposed changes made by SESTA open this to a wider civil liability
> without clear guidelines for how to obey the law. These costly
> lawsuits could easily imperil any website which caters to, or even
> acknowledges, people who trade sex. This including websites which:
> 
> - Host ads, enabling safer conditions and screening for violence
> - Host harm reduction information and mechanisms, including safety and
> health tips for workers
> - Create community for people who trade sex to share information
> 
> We anticipate that this will have a chilling effect on websites and
> organizations providing valuable safety information, community and
> peer support. Denying these resources exacerbate the risk of violence
> and victimization of sex workers, including those experiencing
> exploitation.
> 
> Websites which hold that information are also vital resources for
> trafficking investigations. Pushing the sex trade further underground
> means that it will be harder to identify potential victims, find an
> electronic trail for which to build cases, and resurrect information
> to access post-conviction relief. SESTA disincentivizes websites from
> holding or creating a digital footprint, destroying these valuable
> tools for law enforcement and service providers.
> 
> Further, shutting down websites that sex workers use to screen clients
> more safely through ads does not deter people from trading sex. To the
> contrary, this only drives sex workers to find clients through
> street-based work where they face higher rates of violence, HIV, Hep C
> and STI transmission, and exploitation. And those with fewer options
> will inevitably be the most impacted. The impact of this legislation
> is that trafficking victims will see more trauma and violence and have
> fewer opportunities for identification by law enforcement.
> 
> The House-backed bill, FOSTA, takes this one step further and
> criminalizes anyone using those platforms - including sex workers and
> trafficking victims - and expands this to prostitution, as opposed to
> the narrower crime of sex trafficking. By expanding the Mann Act,
> which criminalizes the transportation of a person across state lines
> for the purpose of prostitution, to encompass all of the internet
> means that all harm reduction tools, which almost always involve
> connecting to peers and community for safety and information, makes
> people criminally liable for up to ten years in prison. Under FOSTA,
> sharing information about violence, victimizers, HIV/STI transmission
> when engaged in sex work would put a person at risk for criminal
> prosecution. We have already seen these activities criminalized to the
> detriment of those trading sex, and very often criminalizing
> trafficking victims themselves. Improving anti-trafficking efforts
> does not mean expanding the umbrella to crimes which require no force,
> fraud or coercion, and this expansion undermines the original intent
> of the law.
> 
> Currently, there are no standards for what is expected of
> internet-based platforms when trafficking in the sex trade is
> suspected. This legislation does not get us closer to that goal, and
> instead makes it harder for trafficking investigators, prosecutors or
> service providers to connect with potential victims and sex workers
> better able to protect themselves from exploitation. Meaningful
> legislation would empower stakeholders - sex workers, internet
> platforms, law enforcement, the legal community and service providers
> - to come together and build those expectations in a way which
> mitigates harm.
> 
> As organizations which believe in supporting the safety and lives of
> those engaged in the sex trade, we condemn these efforts and encourage
> Congress to focus their efforts on harm reduction. These moves
> criminalize the survival of our communities, especially those with
> compounding marginalizations which make resources even more difficult
> to obtain.
> 
> Sincerely,