Senators Propose Bill Targeting Websites That Facilitate Sex Trafficking (usatoday.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from USA Today: A bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced legislation Tuesday that aims to make it easier to sue and criminally prosecute operators of online classified sites like Backpage.com that have been used to advertise sex workers. The proposed bill would amend the Communications Decency Act to eliminate a provision that shields operators of websites from being liable for content posted by third-party users. In addition to removing liability protections for websites that facilitate "unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims," lawmakers are seeking to amend the CDA to allow state prosecutors -- not just federal law enforcement -- to take action against individuals and businesses that use websites to violate federal sex trafficking laws. "For too long, courts around the country have ruled that Backpage can continue to facilitate illegal sex trafficking online with no repercussions," said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio. "The Communications Decency Act is a well-intentioned law, but it was never intended to help protect sex traffickers who prey on the most innocent and vulnerable among us. This bipartisan, narrowly crafted bill will help protect vulnerable women and young girls from these horrific crimes."

Comments

Yeah, that'll work

[Locke2005]

Backpage.com has already been pressured into eliminating their escort/massage section. "Escorts" just moved their ads to the "Women seeking Men" dating section. All websites need is positive deniability and you can't touch them. "What, you expected us to READ everything that anybody posts? Even slashdot doesn't do that!"

prudish tone

[Anonymous Coward]

unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims

The whole article sort of subtly conflates the two-- unlawful sex acts, and sex trafficking victims, as though they are one and the same. i.e. prostitution == victim

Re:What ?

[aardvarkjoe]

So ... multiple judges and juries have decided that it's nothing wrong with it but and they want to change that ?

The judges have determined that it's not against the law, not that there's "nothing wrong with it." The proposal is to change the law.

Not that I necessarily agree with this proposal, but it's not really correct to conclude that something is "right" or "wrong" based simply on court decisions. I'm sure we can all come up with cases where we think that the law should be written differently than how it now stands.