Many legal sex workers have been hit by the takedown of sites like Backpage(1) and its sister cracker(2). These sites were the primary sources to advertise or find their services. It was heavily used by independent sex workers.
Yes, and they will have to "suffer" so that the scum owners of backpage who actively promoted child sex trafficking can no longer make millions selling children.
If platforms keep child sex traffickers off their sites they won't get touched. If they don't they will get shut down.
IANAL, but do the plaintiffs actually have standing to sue given that they have not been charged under the act? The problems seem to stem from uncertainty and ambiguity in how people think the law may be enforced, not based on any actual enforcement.
Good question. (I am a lawyer but this is not legal advice.)
As recently as 2014, the Supreme Court held that “a plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement where he alleges ‘an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.’” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. __ (citing Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U. S. 289, 298 (1979)).
This is but the latest in a consistent thread of case law holding that an actual criminal indictment need not be made against a plaintiff for them to have standing. As long as there’s a credible threat of enforcement and they can show intent to commit the proscribed act, that’s sufficient to satisfy the standing requirement.
That's one of the reasons for the broad array of plaintiffs. Maybe some of them don't have standing, but as long as one of them does, they can continue.
I will never understand why the USA, while producing so much porn, is so strict with sex. Here prostitution is legal and you can buy sex toys at the drug store.
It's because our politicians are hypocrites who use morality as prestige, all the while engaging in the very behavior they decry.
I guess there's also less of a paper-trail when prostitution is illegal, and girls are less willing to come forward about beatings and nonpayment, so...
The word 'promote' used in the sense 'to contribute to the progress or growth of' is inappropriate in connection with prostitution, since it has been around quite a while.
Therefore, I conclude, use of the word 'promote' is a Victorian dog-whistle.
Readit News
1. https://www.thecut.com/2018/04/7-sex-workers-on-what-it-mean...
2. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/sex/sex-work...
Dead Comment
If platforms keep child sex traffickers off their sites they won't get touched. If they don't they will get shut down.
It really isn't that hard.
As recently as 2014, the Supreme Court held that “a plaintiff satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement where he alleges ‘an intention to engage in a course of conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder.’” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. __ (citing Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U. S. 289, 298 (1979)).
This is but the latest in a consistent thread of case law holding that an actual criminal indictment need not be made against a plaintiff for them to have standing. As long as there’s a credible threat of enforcement and they can show intent to commit the proscribed act, that’s sufficient to satisfy the standing requirement.
Deleted Comment
I guess there's also less of a paper-trail when prostitution is illegal, and girls are less willing to come forward about beatings and nonpayment, so...
Therefore, I conclude, use of the word 'promote' is a Victorian dog-whistle.