Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

the Online Safety Bill - new law incoming. "Trolls will be jailed for psychological harm"

prostitutescollective.net/briefing-online-safety-bill/


From the English Collective of Prostitutes -


This clause is a dangerous attempt to criminalise sex workers’ online advertising. Our full briefing is here



Hundreds of letters have been sent, reaching 311 MPs – thank you to those who forwarded the responses to us.



Many MPs responded saying that they are aware of our campaign and concerns. A few MPs have voiced their opposition to Clause 16 vowing to push for its removal.



But both the government and the opposition are backing the inclusion of Clause 16 and we need to counter this misinformation.



►The Shadow Minister for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Alex Davies Jones MP, specifically welcomed Clause 16 saying that ‘Labour was pleased to see new additions to the most recent iteration, including criminal content relating to…inciting or controlling prostitution for gain’.



►The government spokesperson Chris Philip MP (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Tech and the Digital Economy) argued for Clause 16 to be retained as a priority offence as it targeted ‘often identifiable symptoms of modern slavery’, with sexual exploitation being ‘often the manifestation of modern slavery’[ii].



The claim that Clause 16 is needed to target modern slavery is very dangerous. Associating sex work with trafficking and using this to justify a crackdown on sex workers’ online adverts is how the US FOSTA/SESTA laws went through. Sex workers in the US reported that the loss of their online presence made them more susceptible to labour exploitation and trafficking. Law enforcement said that it is now more difficult to locate traffickers since advertising websites have been shut down.



We must also oppose claims by some MPs that Clause 16 poses no real danger to sex workers because it will only target those who are “controlling” others, that is coercing others and profiteering from their work. These claims have been made by Chris Philip MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Tech and the Digital Economy who is on the Online Safety Bill Commons General Committee.[iii]



Offences of “controlling” and “causing or inciting prostitution for gain” are used routinely in the criminal courts against sex workers working together where there is no force or coercion. The very definition of controlling DOES NOT require force and coercion to be proved (see R v Massey[iv]). What guarantee is there that “controlling” won’t be defined in the same way in the implementation of Clause 16? We have worked with hundreds of sex workers fighting these very offences. For example, a sex worker who helped others place adverts online (because she had better English skills than them) has been held under investigation for over a year for trafficking/modern slavery offences. She is one of many targeted in this way.



ACTION NEEDED



If your MP has replied to your initial letter and used any of the issues highlighted above as justification for the retention of Clause 16 of Schedule 7, we would suggest responding to them highlighting the following:



Preventing sex workers from advertising will increase violence. Research shows that internet platforms have allowed more sex workers to work inside where it is safer than on the streets, and also to work independently of managers or agencies who may be exploitative.[v]
It is not true that Clause 16 poses no danger to sex workers and will only be used against traffickers or those who are coercing others and profiteering from their work. Controlling prostitution for gain is interpreted very widely in the criminal courts. Some women in the ECP have been prosecuted under this offence just for helping a friend build a website or place an advert.
It is not true that Clause 16 is needed to fight trafficking and modern slavery. A similar justification was used for the US SESTA/FOSTA laws but evidence showed that these laws did not reduce trafficking or other violence, and increased harm towards sex workers.[vi] Law enforcement agencies said that it is now more difficult for them to locate traffickers.[vii]



We are still collating statements from sex workers about the impact on you if online advertising is banned. Please drop us a DM on Instagram or Twitter, or email us at ecp@prostitutescollective.net. All will be kept anonymous.
 
"Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me"

Is the phrase to keep repeating until the hyper-sensitive sulk off.
 
While the media is concentrating on something else...

Under a further change to the bill, video footage that shows people crossing the Channel in small boats in a “positive light” will be added to a list of illegal content that all tech platforms must proactively prevent from reaching users.
Click to expand...

wonder just what else they are going to try and sneak in...

www.theguardian.com

Donelan confirms stiffer online safety measures after backbench pressure

One new provision targets senior managers at tech platforms who ignore Ofcom enforcement notices
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
would Boris not struggled to get this thru


so hiding in a fridge is a better option...
 
Just what the fuck does the law mean by "positive light", anyway? I doubt that anyone advocating for refugees is saying "yes, it's awesome that desperate people are being forced to cross the Channel in such a risky fashion".

It's like whoever drafted this law doesn't understand a thing about why people might disagree with them.
 
The amendment is:

Clause 11, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) Content under subsection (3) includes content that may result in serioush arm or death to a child while crossing the English Channel with the aimo f entering the United Kingdom in a vessel unsuited or unsafe for thosep urposes.”
Click to expand...

The start of Clause 11 is:

11 Safety duties protecting children
(1) This section sets out the duties to protect children’s online safety which applyi n relation to regulated user-to-user services that are likely to be accessed byc hildren.
Click to expand...

(2) A duty, in relation to a service, to take or use proportionate measures relatingt o the design or operation of the service to effectively—
(a) mitigate and manage the risks of harm to children in different age
groups, as identified in the most recent children’s risk assessment of thes ervice (see section 10(6)(g)), and
(b) mitigate the impact of harm to children in different age groups
presented by content that is harmful to children present on the service

(3) A duty to operate a service using proportionate systems and processes
designed to—
Click to expand...

(a) prevent children of any age from encountering, by means of the service,p rimary priority content that is harmful to children (for example, byu sing age verification);
(b) protect children in age groups judged to be at risk of harm from otherc ontent that is harmful to children (or from a particular kind of suchc ontent) from encountering it by means of the service.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyber-flasher first to be jailed for new offence after WhatsApp pic
Replies
11
Views
604
Shippou-Sensei
Shippou-Sensei
Humberto
Online Scams and Fraud (theft)
Replies
5
Views
208
bcuster
bcuster
WhyLikeThis
Will you be swearing allegiance to the king?
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
335
Views
11K
Orang Utan
Orang Utan
Kid_Eternity
New Labour government - legislative agenda
10 11 12 13 14
Replies
416
Views
11K
PTK
PTK
R
Will the election result finally result in ditching "First Past The Post?"
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
213
Views
4K
Saul Goodman
Saul Goodman
Back
Top Bottom