Gigi Sohn is Joe Biden’s pick to fill a vacant seat on the FCC. Sohn once retweeted a post that referred to Donald Trump as a “raggedy white supremacist.” That is a pretty standard statement from someone on the Left these days, So that’s no eye-opener. But Sohn is also a member of the board of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF).
Depending on how closely your ulcer lets you follow politics, you may or may not be aware of two pieces of legislation that were packaged together, passed, and signed into law during the Trump Administration in 2018. The package was made up of the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act and the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (SESTA and FOSTA, respectively). It sailed through the House 388-25 and handily passed the Senate 97-2.
Briefly put, the law states that websites that sell goods and services or someone who hosts third-party content that has the intent to promote prostitution will face federal criminal and civil liabilities. It also creates liabilities for any platform that “assists, promotes or facilitates human trafficking,” according to Fox News. As you can see by the votes above, most people in Congress agreed that human trafficking is a bad thing. Fox said that the bill has the support of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, Polaris, Rights4Girls, Shared Hope International, FAIR Girls, and the National Fraternal Order of Police. Polaris said the bill was critical in attacking human trafficking.
Not everyone was on board. Among those was the EFF. When the bill passed, the group declared it a “dark day for the internet” and equated it to internet censorship. Why? The EFF says that sex workers are claiming that online platforms have saved their lives.
The EFF filed a federal lawsuit seeking to have the bill ruled unconstitutional. The suit stated in part:
FOSTA calls into serious question the legality of online speech that advocates for the decriminalization of sex work, or provides health and safety information to sex workers,” the group stated after filing the legal challenge.
FOSTA muzzles online speech that protects and advocates for sex workers and forces well-established, general interest community forums offline for fear of criminal charges and heavy civil liability for things their users might share.”
EFF lost the suit and filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. It has also bemoaned the fact that SESTA-FOSTA has helped close down sites like Craigslist’s “personals” section, which has been accused of promoting trafficking, and a “furry” dating website. Not surprisingly, EFF has also voiced its opposition to a 2020 bill by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). Named the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act, it would “end blanket immunity for violations of laws related to online child sexual abuse material.”
So Biden’s nominee for the FCC is a part of a group that opposes laws designed to stop human trafficking and protect children on the web. Let that sink in. After it does, well, I’m sure you all have senators you could be calling right now.
On a related note, yesterday Abigail Shrier published a piece called “A Predator’s Paradise.” It is well worth the read. In it, she talks about how some of the new laws in California enable human trafficking. The piece covers a lot of ground. But noteworthy is a trip by Shrier through an area known for prostitution that highlighted the potential effect of California’s new law, SB 357. The law eliminates the penalties for loitering for prostitution and was authored by state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11th district).
Essentially, if a police officer were to see someone dressed in a provocative style loitering on a street corner during the evening, they no longer have probable cause to stop and question them. And talking to prostitutes was one of the ways that cops could identify and help victims of human trafficking, including underage victims. Anti-trafficking advocate Stephany Powell talked with Shrier:
“As a police officer, you need probable cause to stop and investigate,” Powell explained. “So if I have a law that says you can’t loiter in this area, with pasties and a G-string, flagging down cars, I could stop you for that because you’re loitering. But if I just say I’m stopping you because you look kind of young, that’s a little weak. So, it takes away a tool.” Without the statute, police hands were suddenly tied. Henceforth, questioning the girls—and potentially provoking a violent confrontation with pimps—came to seem a Pyrrhic gamble, one that California’s police officers would now avoid.
One has to wonder, do people like Sohn and Wiener understand the ramifications of their positions? Do they not realize the potential for the collateral damage that can come with advancing these agendas? Or do they just not care? I know that the leftists are hard at it, re-working themselves into lathers over Trump, DeSantis, white supremacy, and whatever else about which they are perpetually enraged. But would it be possible for them to put down the signs, take off the Handmaid’s Tale costumes, and set aside the hysterics for oh, say, five or ten minutes and decide if they are for or against human trafficking? No “buts,” no excuses, no “what about so-and-so?” Are Democrats comfortable with this or not?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member