Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act(SESTA)

Redress · Sep 19, 2017

The introduction is going to be a bit info heavy, please read through this and pick a poll option. First, the bill: https://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=1DA519D4-4B37-4C5E-B8B9-4A205C5E488F

The key portion:

1) Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) (as added by title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104; 110 Stat. 133) (commonly known as the ‘‘Communications Decency Act of 1996’’)) was never intended to provide legal protection to websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims.

(2) Clarification of section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 is warranted to ensure that that section does not provide such protection to such websites.

Senator Portman in a release on the bill gives a bit of history: https://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=9C0739AB-CF54-406A-BD55-70ED11D4AC9B

In 2014, the Jane Does filed suit against Backpage in federal court. But the First Circuit ruled against them in Jane Doe 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC, holding that the 20-year-old law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects Backpage from any claims of liability. The court found that the Jane Does made a persuasive case that Backpage tailored its site to make underage sex trafficking easier. Nonetheless, websites that facilitate sex trafficking are immune fro lawsuits brought by their victims, no matter how complicit the sites or how terrible the harm caused.

Note the bias in language used, though it gets the facts correct.

So, what SESTA will do is "knowing conduct by an individual or entity, by any means, that assists, supports, or facilitates a violation of subsection (a)(1)" would be liable(quote directly from the bill).

Further reading, one supporting the bill, one opposed:

https://www.aclu.org/letter/coalition-letter-opposing-s-1693-stop-enabling-sex-traffickers-act

http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/351315-technology-sector-should-not-be-shielding-sex-traffickers-online

And so, finally, the question: Would you support SESTA as is?

HowardBThiname · Sep 19, 2017

Just at first glance, I would say NO, I would not support it because it seems as though it could put innocent site owners at risk if they are not aware that users are using their site for sex trafficking.

If I understand it correctly, a site like this one -- a forum -- could be held liable if one or more members here used threads to promote sex trafficking. Even unknowingly, just providing a format could be thought to be "facilitating."

At the end of the day -- the law should come down on the people who actually post those things -- the users.

Redress · Sep 19, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
Just at first glance, I would say NO, I would not support it because it seems as though it could put innocent site owners at risk if they are not aware that users are using their site for sex trafficking.

If I understand it correctly, a site like this one -- a forum -- could be held liable if one or more members here used threads to promote sex trafficking. Even unknowingly, just providing a format could be thought to be "facilitating."

At the end of the day -- the law should come down on the people who actually post those things -- the users.

The law does specify "knowing". The ACLU and others opposed suggest that the "knowing" provision would cause service providers to monitor the content they carry less, the ensure that they would not be knowing.

iliveonramen · Sep 19, 2017

I'm just not sure how you can dictate whether or not a site turns a blind eye to trafficking. I think backpage and other sites like it turn a blind eye to prostitution, but saying they knowingly facilitated underage sex trafficking is a totally different ball game.

To be honest, I think underage sex trafficking legislation a lot of times is used to try and shut down prostitution the same way protecting a woman is used to shut down abortion clinics in Texas. It takes something that most people aren't overly concerned with (prostitution) and melds it with sex trafficking which is something everyone wants to stop.

HowardBThiname · Sep 19, 2017

Redress said:
The law does specify "knowing". The ACLU and others opposed suggest that the "knowing" provision would cause service providers to monitor the content they carry less, the ensure that they would not be knowing.

I think it would be hard to establish "knowing" from "not knowing.

I think the law should go after the actual content poster.

Captain Adverse · Sep 19, 2017

I oppose the bill as suggested.

From the bill:

Allow victims of sex trafficking to seek justice against websites that facilitated the crimes against them; Eliminate federal liability protections for websites that assist, support, or facilitate a violation of federal sex trafficking laws; and  Enable state law enforcement officials, not just the federal Department of Justice, to take action against individuals or businesses that violate federal sex trafficking laws.

https://www.portman.senate.gov/publ...?File_id=9C0739AB-CF54-406A-BD55-70ED11D4AC9B

The definition of "facilitate": To make easy or easier. Facilitate - definition of facilitate by The Free Dictionary

Isn't that what web-hosting and web-searching platforms are supposed to do? Make it easier for people to find or post information?

I agree with the ACLU and other civil liberties organizations in one of the other links cited in the OP.

All online communications passes over the services of multiple intermediaries. These entities...form the platform on which all online speech depends. These intermediaries in turn depend on protections from liability for the user-generated speech they host and transmit. Without protection intermediaries would face a potential lawsuit in each one of the thousands, millions, or even billions of posts, images, and videos uploaded by their services every day.

https://www.aclu.org/letter/coalition-letter-opposing-s-1693-stop-enabling-sex-traffickers-act

What kinds of steps could we anticipate web services taking to prevent the kind of liability this bill would impose?

How many restrictions placed to prevent even the slighted possibility of liability would the companies enact?

Can you imagine the repercussions on our ability to access information via even in the most innocuous views and searches? Much less access to posting ourselves?

IMO the criminal investigative resources, if not currently sufficient to meet the task of ferreting out the evils on the web while preserving the acceptable content, should be augmented to handle the task rather than placing it in the hands of corporations. Criminal law is up to the justice system to enforce.

If you create unlimited civil liability, then Corporations will invariably err on the part of preserving profits and reducing risks.

The web will become a much smaller and overly controlled space, and I don't want to see that outside of totalitarian regimes like N. Korea and Communist China.

Cephus · Sep 19, 2017

HowardBThiname said:
Just at first glance, I would say NO, I would not support it because it seems as though it could put innocent site owners at risk if they are not aware that users are using their site for sex trafficking.

If I understand it correctly, a site like this one -- a forum -- could be held liable if one or more members here used threads to promote sex trafficking. Even unknowingly, just providing a format could be thought to be "facilitating."

At the end of the day -- the law should come down on the people who actually post those things -- the users.

I would say that Safe Harbor provisions would protect those companies though, so long as they shut it down as soon as they find out about it.

axelthefox · Nov 24, 2020

Captain Adverse said:
I oppose the bill as suggested.

From the bill:

https://www.portman.senate.gov/publ...?File_id=9C0739AB-CF54-406A-BD55-70ED11D4AC9B

The definition of "facilitate": To make easy or easier. Facilitate - definition of facilitate by The Free Dictionary

Isn't that what web-hosting and web-searching platforms are supposed to do? Make it easier for people to find or post information?

I agree with the ACLU and other civil liberties organizations in one of the other links cited in the OP.

https://www.aclu.org/letter/coalition-letter-opposing-s-1693-stop-enabling-sex-traffickers-act

What kinds of steps could we anticipate web services taking to prevent the kind of liability this bill would impose?

How many restrictions placed to prevent even the slighted possibility of liability would the companies enact?

Can you imagine the repercussions on our ability to access information via even in the most innocuous views and searches? Much less access to posting ourselves?

IMO the criminal investigative resources, if not currently sufficient to meet the task of ferreting out the evils on the web while preserving the acceptable content, should be augmented to handle the task rather than placing it in the hands of corporations. Criminal law is up to the justice system to enforce.

If you create unlimited civil liability, then Corporations will invariably err on the part of preserving profits and reducing risks.

The web will become a much smaller and overly controlled space, and I don't want to see that outside of totalitarian regimes like N. Korea and Communist China.

Yeah.

I feel most of the laws that are coming on this and that like COPPA kind of makes you feel like it's a move towards totarianism.

I wondered what happened to people questioning the Goverment.

If you trust those in power or the government to always do the right thing, then you weren't paying attention during history class.

Noodlegawd · Nov 24, 2020

Redress said:
The introduction is going to be a bit info heavy, please read through this and pick a poll option. First, the bill: https://www.portman.senate.gov/publ...?File_id=1DA519D4-4B37-4C5E-B8B9-4A205C5E488F

The key portion:

Senator Portman in a release on the bill gives a bit of history: https://www.portman.senate.gov/publ...?File_id=9C0739AB-CF54-406A-BD55-70ED11D4AC9B

Note the bias in language used, though it gets the facts correct.

So, what SESTA will do is "knowing conduct by an individual or entity, by any means, that assists, supports, or facilitates a violation of subsection (a)(1)" would be liable(quote directly from the bill).

Further reading, one supporting the bill, one opposed:

https://www.aclu.org/letter/coalition-letter-opposing-s-1693-stop-enabling-sex-traffickers-act

http://thehill.com/opinion/technolo...hould-not-be-shielding-sex-traffickers-online

And so, finally, the question: Would you support SESTA as is?

I'm too confused by what you wrote, and not interested enough to read all the linked material. However, in a nutshell, I don't think that a website that provides a place for people to generally advertise services should be held liable for crimes that are committed in connection with those services, except maybe if the ads are, on their face, promoting activities that are illegal and the website is made aware of that. If governments wants to prosecute people for prostitution or sex trafficking, they should go after the people doing it, not websites.

Waddy · Nov 24, 2020

I vote NO. How about law enforcement do their job, and go after the real criminals, instead of making criminals out of web sites. Perhaps law enforcement should be responsible enough to alert the websites to criminal activities. Get a warrant to arrest the people actually committing a crime.

Redress · Nov 24, 2020

axelthefox said:
Yeah.

I feel most of the laws that are coming on this and that like COPPA kind of makes you feel like it's a move towards totarianism.

I wondered what happened to people questioning the Goverment.

If you trust those in power or the government to always do the right thing, then you weren't paying attention during history class.

Moderator's Warning:

Please do not necro threads from 3 years ago.

Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act(SESTA)

Would You Support SESTA as is?

Yes

No

I could support a version with some changes(please specify)

Don't know/care

More options

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

HowardBThiname

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

iliveonramen

Pontificator

HowardBThiname

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage

Cephus

axelthefox

Noodlegawd

Somebody you used to know

Waddy

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!