Sex Trafficking Bill could cause chaos on internet

8/8/2017 5:34:24 AM

Last week, Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) released the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 (SESTA). Don’t let the title fool you. It won’t stop sex trafficking — a worthy goal we should all share — but it might eviscerate the Internet ecosystem.

The bill would make a number of changes to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides limited liability protections for websites that serve as platforms for user-generated content.

That means that tech companies, big and small, are not civilly liable for the content posted by their users and that accusations of criminal liability are to be prosecuted at the federal, not state, level. SESTA would upend that safe harbor provision, ensuring Section 230 no longer applies that liability exemption to websites that benefit “from participation in a venture” that could be linked to sex trafficking.

The legislation appears to be aimed at Backpage.com, which has been under investigation for acting as a channel for human trafficking. The company has repeatedly used Section 230 as a shield from liability for the actions of its users, but recent evidence has come to light suggesting its actions don’t qualify it for those protections because it actively engaged in facilitating the criminal activity in question. Thus, current law can effectively address the sex trafficking issue, but SESTA would have far-reaching and potentially catastrophic results for the rest of the Internet.

17 comments

Latest

Tiredtraveler

•

7 years ago

Claire McCaskill is desperate to do anything to get reelected. She is a moron who got elected when her husband died to get away from her and took his place in the election and got in on the pity vote. She has the brain of a toaster. Portman is a do gooder even if its wrong guy.
The rest of the support is the bureaucratic desire to control the internet.

caskel

•

7 years ago

Small correction for TT. McCaskill was elected on her own. You're thinking of Jean Carnahan who was named to replace her husband Mel. Mel Carnahan died in a plane crash 3 days before the election and was elected posthumously.

Disclaimer: I did vote for McCaskill but wouldn't call myself an ardent supporter. I am absolutely opposed to human trafficking but don't believe this bill will have any effect whatsoever.

BurlingtonHoFactory

•

7 years ago

I'm a little surprised at McCaskill, actually. She's up in 2018 and Senators usually shy away from big controversial moves when they're in-cycle. Maybe she thinks that "human trafficking" is just so non-controversial that there won't be a fight over it. I bet lots of guys thought the same thing about SOPA and PIPA. Still, she probably wins reelection. She's the luckiest loser in politics. If the GOP had nominated anyone else other than Todd Akin in 2012, she would have lost. Literally anyone else would have beaten her. And if Hillary Clinton had won last year, there would probably be an anti-Democrat wave by now that would wash McCaskill away. She keeps skating by.

skibum609

•

7 years ago

Another example that the worst enemy the American people face is the Federal Government.

gammanu95

•

7 years ago

Another bill that is rife with "unintended consequences"

Book Guy

•

7 years ago

Except that most of those "unintended" consequences may indeed turn out to be welcome to a wide swath of walmart-waddler-types who haven't really thought about the issue at all. "Wait wut? They can shut down websites so people don't have to fuck? OH HOORAH! Let's do it!" Etc..

I have very little faith in the American people. Mencken had it right more than a century ago and little has changed since then.

BurlingtonHoFactory

•

7 years ago

@Book Guy, two quotes from H.L. Mencken that I've always loved:

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

and

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

I just couldn't agree more.

Dominic77

•

7 years ago

Yay! (sarcasm). More regulations to raise the cost barrier for entering the market as an internet business or hobby organization. Did the PTB help draft this thing? Sheesh.

I think this board alone is proof positive that the right/left do-gooders can't legislate prostitution out of business. Which let's be honest, that what this bill really does, while raise the barrier, and stifle new businesses.

Dominic77

•

7 years ago

silly, gammanu95! They *can't* be that stupid. The many of the unintended consequences are in-fact intended. But the stupid voters (and some of the stupid city/state/fed legislators) might not see through it. They have the perfect strawman with the trafficing and the "save the kids" and "save the women" argument. They now, no one will stand up to them ... at least no one who wants to be re-elected or not smeared in an ad-campaign (even if private citizens).

Dominic77

•

7 years ago

... brought to you by the Koch Brothers (lobbyists, PTB), no doubt. (sarcasm)

LecherousMonk

•

7 years ago

I'm sympathetic to anyone who is actually trafficked and to efforts to curtail trafficking, but I, however, doubt the notion, pushed by moralistic politicians, that almost all prostitutes are being trafficked.

BurlingtonHoFactory

•

7 years ago

@LecherousMonk,

Slavery is already illegal. We don't need a special law against "Human Trafficking." Just my opinion.

Papi_Chulo

•

7 years ago

Politicians love to go after sexually oriented businesses b/c they are an easy target and they can earn political points - the US seems to be becoming less and less tolerant of the sex biz instead of more tolerant and I think it's actually the left that ie going after the sex biz the hardest and look at the johns as the source of the problem and are going after the johns in many circumstances - the left now is hammering college campuses and accusing guys of rape b/c they actually didn't ask the girl for permission to have sex even if she never said no when she could (and for w/e reason it seems to be the guy who has to ask for permission and get an explicit yes - and the guy must also determine that she was in conditio to say yes, i.e. if she had been drinking and you have sex with her w/o her supposedly being able to give consent then they can accuse you of rape - i.e. you meet a chick at a bar and you're both drinking, you go home and bang and you can be charged with rape if she has next morning regrets)

Papi_Chulo

•

7 years ago

I can see that bill affecting TUSCL or at least having a great impact on what's posted here.

joc13

•

7 years ago

In 30 years of mongering, in one form or another, I think I can confidently say I've only met one woman that I really felt was working against her will, and that was in an AMP.

It doesn't mean that there aren't women who are being forced to be sex workers, it just shows that some of them are NOT.

There are plenty of women, of sound mind and body, who choose to pursue sex work of their own free will, and government really should just leave these wonderful women the fuck alone!

rockstar666

•

7 years ago

I don't find stupid laws to "save the children from the sex trade" a partisan issue. Both the liberals and conservatives draft anti-sex and anti 1st amendment bills as political show, not because they're either effective, moral, reasonable or constitutional.

Papi_Chulo

•

7 years ago

In today's climate sex-work = human-trafficking (at least it seems that's the picture they are trying to paint) - thus by that fucked up extrapolation it means porn actresses, hell might as well throw porn actors in-it too for the sake of equality, are also being trafficked b/c they are doing sex-work - and also the legal brothels in Nevada means those women are also victims of human trafficking b/c they are doing sex-work; i.e. they are not there b/c they can potentially make in a week what would take them a couple of months of busting their ass in a low-paying job, nope they are victims doing what they do against their will and in many instances "they don't know what's good for them" so the left needs to save them from themselves (since it's often the left that states these women are hopeless victims unable to choose for themselves so the lefties need to choose for them)

You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now

Got something to say?

Start your own discussion