Craiglist Personals Axed

Where am I going to get my imitation crab meat and mutual masturbation now?


hqp9NrD.jpg
 
People are making jokes of this but this is not a good thing. Do you know what section 230 of the communications decency act is? It essentially protects the internet that we have today and not some censored version of it. These pieces of shit in congress just strung together idiotic legislation that has the potential for high censorship because "FOSTA" is too vague and you can see it by the mass removal of multiple sections that have nothing to do with selling sex.

You would have to be an idiot to be for this bill unless you like your internet like China has. Gross overreach by government using children as the decoys.
 
bubbleboyjones said:
People are making jokes of this but this is not a good thing. Do you know what section 230 of the communications decency act is? It essentially protects the internet that we have today and not some censored version of it. These pieces of shit in congress just strung together idiotic legislation that has the potential for high censorship because "FOSTA" is too vague and you can see it by the mass removal of multiple sections that have nothing to do with selling sex.

You would have to be an idiot to be for this bill unless you like your internet like China has. Gross overreach by government using children as the decoys.
Click to expand...
Correct!
This is no laughing matter.

FOSTA is not a matter of substituting some free-speech rights for a better
ability to stop sex trafficking. Rather, it's imposing serious burdens while at best doing nothing for trafficking victims and quite likely making their lives worse.
 
bad seed said:
the government is not making them remove personals- the new law making sites liable for sex trafficking is what scared Craigslist to VOLUNTARILY end it.

And because sites like Craigslist and Reddit became such huge sources of sex trafficking, it was in their best interest to ban it. Motivated moreso to retain advertisers than a moral imperative, but sometimes capitalism can work in the public's interest.

lol@"government should not have any say in this".
Click to expand...

This is all great, but police power is granted to the states, not Congress. 10th Amendment. This is a Congressional overreach and I assume the Feds base it here on the power to regulate interstate commerce (which is what they laughably employed to justify Obamacare, of which justice Roberts shit on. Seriously how did a "constitutional expert" such as Barack Obama whore himself out for that fiction. And this isn't a partisan thing. See the Patriot Act

Government should have a say in this, but it has to be state government
 
Last edited:
How will the local police lure the pedos now?
 
In my area it was just a bunch of gay dudes and fake ads
 
How will super conservative Christian men meet there secret underage boy toys now?
 
Brampton_Boy said:
Where am I going to get my imitation crab meat and mutual masturbation now?


hqp9NrD.jpg
Click to expand...

<{cruzshake}>
Build a life for yourself man. Get your own imitation crabmeat and son with a trainset to have people kick.
 
This explains why my inbox isn't flooded full of dick pics anymore.
 
Robocok said:
Go on...
Click to expand...
We ended up meeting up and it let to 3rd base. Wasn't awkward or anything (if anything, if i knew she was into that then it would of happened much sooner). I still see her and nothing is weird, just two adults that share a common interest.

The best part of the personal section was you could just search bar whatever interest or fetish you had and instantly get matched with people that had the same interest or desire. Almost everyone i hooked up with responded well after i posted the ad, they found me via searching wrestling or mixed wrestling on the search bar
 
bad seed said:
the government is not making them remove personals- the new law making sites liable for sex trafficking is what scared Craigslist to VOLUNTARILY end it.

And because sites like Craigslist and Reddit became such huge sources of sex trafficking, it was in their best interest to ban it. Motivated moreso to retain advertisers than a moral imperative, but sometimes capitalism can work in the public's interest.

lol@"government should not have any say in this".
Click to expand...
The government just made it harder for law enforcement to track traffickers. Taking down the ads only hurts the people being exploited not the people doing the exploiting.
 
TeTe said:
Damn, that's going to hurt my best friend's sister-in-law's business. Half the time she didn't even fuck the guys she met off of there.. she's met them outside the hotel, take half the money, give them a non working hotel room key, then split.
Click to expand...


That's why the first thing I do, after the hooker says "yes", is to put her in an armlock or a standing guillotine and march her straight to a bed.
 
faustian said:
This is all great, but police power is granted to the states, not Congress. 10th Amendment. This is a Congressional overreach and I assume the Feds base it here on the power to regulate interstate commerce (which is what they laughably employed to justify Obamacare, of which justice Roberts shit on. Seriously how did a "constitutional expert" such as Barack Obama whore himself out for that fiction. And this isn't a partisan thing. See the Patriot Act

Government should have a say in this, but it has to be state government
Click to expand...
this bill changes nothing in regards to prosecution of participants in prostitution. It merely holds the site advertising the service vulnerable to civil liability.

I dont actually support this bill, merely arguing against the knee-jerk anti-government reactions to it.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865
Its very poorly worded and open to abuse.
 
Only Here for Attachments said:
When I say, "cuckservative," I'm specifically referred to those old limp-dicks in Washington.
Click to expand...
Only Here for Attachments said:
Oh, and I had no clue that the way to defeat childhood trauma and negative feedback loops was healthy eating and exercise! So next time my parents say I'm a retarded failure I should just start doing pushups and show them!
Click to expand...
<21>
Sounds like those limp-dicks in Washington would fuck your girl while you sobbed in the corner.
 
TribalDrumz said:
I can't be the only loser who saw this

US Congress just passed HR 1865, "FOSTA", seeking to subject websites to criminal and civil liability when third parties (users) misuse online personals unlawfully.

Any tool or service can be misused. We can't take such risk without jeopardizing all our other services, so we are regretfully taking craigslist personals offline. Hopefully we can bring them back some day.

To the millions of spouses, partners, and couples who met through craigslist, we wish you every happiness!
Click to expand...
I saw this yesterday, and wondered, "Are the print newspapers subject to the same liability?"
 
bad seed said:
this bill changes nothing in regards to prosecution of participants in prostitution. It merely holds the site advertising the service vulnerable to civil liability.

I dont actually support this bill, merely arguing against the knee-jerk anti-government reactions to it.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865
Its very poorly worded and open to abuse.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't about whether it's prosecuted, it's about who prosecutes it. Police power over intrastate activity is reserved for the states

It's not limited to civil liability

(Sec. 3) The bill amends the federal criminal code to add a new section that imposes penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both—on a person who, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (or attempts or conspires to do so) to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.

Additionally, it establishes enhanced penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 25 years, or both—for a person who commits the offense in one of the following aggravating circumstances: (1) promotes or facilitates the prostitution of five or more persons, or (2) acts with reckless disregard that such conduct contributes to sex trafficking.
Click to expand...

But even if it was, civil liability for criminal acts still falls under the umbrella of police power. See: United States v. Morrisson

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/598/case.html
 
Last edited:
I guess this explains why the number of Tinder matches over the weekend had doubled for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,314
Messages
55,482,417
Members
174,789
Latest member
surveyppv

Share this page

Back
Top