rpearl never claimed that it wasn't limiting free choice. rpearl claimed the intention wasn't to limit free choice.
Intent and actual outcome are two completely different things.
Intent and actual outcome are two completely different things.
But at a certain point, it's reasonable to start objecting that an outcome was so obvious that people claiming they didn't intend it are either dishonest or incompetent, and in either case unfit to make the decision.
In this case, I suspect the answer is a little of each - a lot of anti-trafficking campaigns are run by people who openly oppose voluntary sex work, and also Congress is grossly incompetent at knowing which technology laws will limit free choice.
Given all that - I agree that it's worth knowing whether this was intended, but I worry "not our intent" becomes a shield for Congress to hide behind when they do things with horrible outcomes they were warned about well in advance.
and airbnb is gone, and so on.
The intent was to protect people who are being harmed against their will (held in sex slavery against their will).
Of course the actual effect of the law is different than the intent. The actual effect is limiting.
We're talking about seasoned politicians, not naive dreamers.