Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I swear, you can predict the quality of a law as the inverse of how good the name sounds.

If this law were going to limit sex trafficking, it would have a name like "Revisions to the Prosecution of Certain Interstate Crimes". But no, it's got a big, gaudy name that poisons the well on any opposition whatsoever. So, predictably, it will either endanger innocents or restrict basic rights. It's like god damn clockwork.



sort by: page size:

That's exactly why that won't ever happen. These laws are named for a reason, the bigger part of which is simply to confuse the ignorant who have not taken the time to look beyond the name.

It's a horribly-written law that would remove the CDA safe harbor from any civil or criminal proceeding in which conduct which would violate federal sex trafficking law is alleged, even if that conduct is not the central thrust of the law being enforced, and even if that conduct isn't actually proven in the legal action. As long as the prosecution is “targeting” conduct violating the federal sex trafficking law, the safe harbor would be removed.

(It's also dishonestly framed as a “clarification” when it's a radical dismantling of one of the core pillars of the CDA.)


A law named after an unrepentant pedophile. Not something I'd want to see on HN.

Why do all American laws have such stupid names?

Laws named after victims are often pretty bad as well. I assume that anything named (e.g.) "Tarquin Fin-tim-lin-bin-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Olé-Biscuitbarrel's Law" is probably a bad law until otherwise proven, and for much the same reason. It's an appeal to emotion, not rationality, and the usual tactic is painting any opponent as being pro-terrorism or pro-(whatever genuinely terrible thing happened to Tarquin).

Ah. The good old “let’s name the law something inopposable so anybody against it will generate clickbait headlines”.

I find it hard to understand how anyone can think this law is a good idea.

Who exactly are they claiming to protect?


There is absolutely nothing good about this law, and it really will be a disaster if it passes.

It's a bad law.

Given the fact that parts of this law are impossible to follow, I have no idea how is this thing going to actually influence real life.

The article doesn't say anything about how the law is taking shape, it just repeats criticisms of it.

It seems to me that if nobody can understand what the law actually covers, it's an exceptionally shitty law.

Because it's not officially called that. The law itself is about confiscating valuables from people who enter the country seeking protection, and it's been dubbed the "jewelry law" by media to make it easier for people to imagine what its effect will be (stealing people's jewelry as they enter).

It seems to be another case of naïve, clumsy legislation causing more problems than it solves.

It's a terrible, unworkable law.

Never trust a law named after a child.

Wow at first I thought this sounded like a decent law but the more I see the shittier it seems

This is the furthest thing from true, like almost every single question about this terrible law. Vague law + faceless bureaucracies + universal application + crippling penalties...sounds like a brilliant combo to destroy people’s lives.

it's almost as if the law was specifically written this way to sound useful, but is actually toothless
next

Legal | privacy