This IS serious, and needs our attention IRL on Monday. All out effort. CM wouldn't be telling/asking if otherwise.
My thinking also. The slow rollout is in our favor, the rapid full reveal is what the cabal would prefer at this point.
Well well well…looks like our ol' friend Joyce Beatty (SOTU phonefag) is involved in this..
https:// beatty.house.gov/media-center/news-articles/a-call-to-amend-section-230-of-the-communications-decency-act
A Call to Amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Oct 9, 2017 News Articles
U.S. Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (OH-03) joined a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers, stakeholders and advocates in urging Congress to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. As part of the push to amend Section 230, Beatty was featured in a short video produced by the creaters of the Netflix original documentary "I Am Jane Doe." To view an archived recording of the video, please visit 50Eggs Vinemo page.
Seems there's a lot going on with the Sect 230 amendment, needs looking into.
Crime Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on Sex Trafficking and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Toggle navigation
PRESS RELEASE | SEPTEMBER 29, 2017
Crime Subcommittee to Hold Hearing on Sex Trafficking and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
Washington, D.C. – On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 10:00 a.m., the Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee will hold a hearing titled, “Online Sex Trafficking and the Communications Decency Act.”
In recent years, there has been a spate of criminal and civil litigation against Backpage.com, a website that offers classified listings, including an extensive adult services section in which minors and women forced into prostitution are advertised. Backpage.com is considered the leading online marketplace for commercial sex and operates in 97 countries. At one point, Backpage.com was involved in 73% of all child trafficking reports that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children receives from the general public. Despite several lawsuits, Backpage.com has not yet been held liable criminally or civilly and the online website asserts it has immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
At the hearing, members will examine court interpretations about the breadth of the Communications Decency Act and its effect on online sex trafficking, as well as potential consequences of amending Section 230.
Witnesses for the hearing are:
The Honorable Chris Cox, President, Morgan Lewis Consulting
Mr. Jeff Kosseff, Assistant Professor, United States Naval Academy
Ms. Mary G. Leary, Professor of Law, Catholic University Columbus School of Law
Mr. Evan Engstrom, Executive Director, Engine
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) issued the statements below in advance of this hearing.
https:// judiciary.house.gov/press-release/crime-subcommittee-hold-hearing-sex-trafficking-section-230-communications-decency-act/
The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 would increase sites’ responsibility for user content
A bill that would carve a significant chunk out of Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act — decades-old regulations that function as the internet’s liability shield — has been introduced in the Senate, with six co-sponsors from across the aisle. The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 would potentially expand criminal liability for websites like Backpage, a classifieds site that allegedly hosted ads from sex traffickers alongside ads from sex workers in its adult services section.
Put in place in 1996, Section 230 provides websites with legal immunity for the posts of their users. For example, Twitter, Inc. cannot be sued if one of its users defames another user. It is generally assumed that without this liability shield, most of the web as we know it would not exist. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has called CDA 230 “one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet.”
The immunity provided by CDA 230 is not absolute. For example, it has no effect on the notice-and-takedown regime imposed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Neither can it shield websites from federal criminal liability — most notably, federal laws regarding child pornography and exploitation.
The bill’s stated goals are broad: the regulation would allow victims of sex trafficking to seek recompense from website that “knowingly and recklessly” enabled their victimization; criminalize any commercial conduct that “assists, supports, or facilitates a violation of federal sex trafficking laws”; and let state law enforcement officials prosecute against companies engaged in conduct that breaks federal sex trafficking laws.
Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, writes that “this law potentially implicates every online service that deals with user-generated content.” He suggests that the unclear wording of the bill could hit websites hard. In addition to widening liability for user-generated content, a state could piggyback off the legislation to create a new law that would impose liability for all posts promoting the sex trafficking of children unless a site prescreens content or user registrations. This could potentially empower any one state in the US to create a new regulatory regime for the entire web.
Goldman notes, however, that the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 is not nearly as bad for CDA 230 as the corresponding House bill, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, which currently counts a staggering 98 co-sponsors. The House bill, introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO) in April, would criminalize the publishing of information “with reckless disregard” that was “in furtherance of” a sex trafficking offense — a sweepingly vague definition that could encompass any number of services that host user-submitted content.
The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 is being introduced by Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND).
https:// www.theverge.com/2017/8/1/16072680/cda-230-stop-enabling-sex-traffickers-act-liability-shield-senate-backpage
House Bill referred to by CM
H.R.1865 – Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017
SUMMARY
This bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to specify that communications decency provisions protecting providers or users of interactive computer services from liability for the private blocking or screening of offensive material shall not be construed to impair the enforcement of, or limit availability of victim restitution or civil remedies under, state or federal criminal or civil laws relating to sexual exploitation of children or sex trafficking.
The bill amends the federal criminal code to specify that the violation for benefiting from "participation in a venture" engaged in sex trafficking of children, or by force, fraud, or coercion, includes knowing or reckless conduct by any person or entity and by any means that furthers or in any way aids or abets the violation.
A provider of an interactive computer service that publishes information provided by an information content provider with reckless disregard that the information is in furtherance of a sex trafficking offense shall be subject to a criminal fine or imprisonment for not more than 20 years.
https:// www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865
Except CM is ALL of 8chan. We're here for Q. Much respect for CM, and all he does to help us, but his primary concern is meta chan, not Q chan, POTUS, and Great Awakening. We shouldn't buy into his mission unless it aligns with our mission. That's why we have to dig on this amendment to know what it's about. It seems to be focused on trafficking, so we need to understand it before doing anything.
Exactly.
You're onto something, had occurred to me, but couldn't express it. Good post.
Not sure if the Electronic Frontier Foundation is a reliable source of info on this. Weren't they big supporter of Net Neutrality and opposed the latest FCC action?
https:// www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/fccs-net-neutrality-order-was-just-published-so-now-fight-really-begins
>>490798
Biden Admits Plagiarism in School But Says It Was Not 'Malevolent'
http:// www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/biden-admits-plagiarism-in-school-but-says-it-was-not-malevolent.html
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. issued a formal statement today acknowledging that he had misstated several facts about his past last April in a campaign appearance in New Hampshire.
http:// www.nytimes.com/1987/09/22/us/biden-admits-errors-and-criticizes-latest-report.html
Biden's Law School Ranking Not as He Said
http:// articles.latimes.com/1987-09-21/news/mn-6104_1_law-school
Hussain's got a death list to rival HRC's.
They can't stop us. It's too big, too widespread now. We'd just regroup elsewhere, or fight on individually. Wolverines, man, Wolverines.
This anon gets it.
I recall this from when we were digging into the WL Podesta emails when they first dropped. Think anons figured MAP was semen, and also that it
means "minor attracted person." Also figured out that this email and the handkerchief, relate to a "party" at Skippy or Tony's house. Might have been that the house was on the market, realtor who was showing it found the hanky?
Digging was done on half chan, but it's also on r/T_D. Just search archives for Podesta map handkerchief.
\>>491229
Are you saying Adam Edward Spencer Bennett is Schiff?
UK company director info says this :
MR ADAM EDWARD SPENCER BENNETT was born in 1955
Country: UNITED KINGDOM
County: BUCKS
Posttown: AYLESBURY
Postcode: HP18 0JZ
Country of residence: ENGLAND
https:// www.company-director-search.co.uk/director-adam-edward-spencer-bennett
Schiff for brains, Adam Bennett Schiff was born June 22, 1960.
https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Schiff
Yep. Exactly. And, good meme find, stealing it, thanks!
Too creepy for me.
Agreed. Or dual citizens. Or multiple names/aliases. Just think in this particular case, it's two different individuals.
Yeah, that's one of the angles on this that's driving me nuts. Knowing that Intel, medicine, comms, etc are 30-50 or more years ahead of what we have and are told about. Can't even put it in words.
Put in on pay-per-view, and the GITMO expansion costs would be fully funded.
We just don't know for sure. And that's what drives autists nuts, inconsistencies, gaps in facts, things that don't add up. And so, we don't sleep, we can't sleep. The trick is to set some things aside, put 'em on a list so they're not forgotten but they can be let go of. Then, shift back to focus on specific Q statements and clues. Q didn't give us Parkland. It got inserted into our range of vision. So in that sense, it's a distraction. Focus on Q and our specific mission.
Just my 2 cents worth, as an anon who hasn't slept in over 20 hrs.