Senate Passes Controversial Online Sex Trafficking Bill (thehill.com)

The Senate today gave final approval to a bill aimed at cracking down on online sex trafficking, sending the measure to the White House where President Trump is expected to sign it into law. From a report: The legislation, called the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), but also referred to as SESTA, would cut into the broad protections websites have from legal liability for content posted by their users. Those protections are codified in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from 1996, a law that many internet companies see as vital to protecting their platforms and that SESTA would amend to create an exception for sex trafficking.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the most outspoken critic of SESTA and one of the authors of the 1996 law, said that making exceptions to Section 230 will lead to small internet companies having to face an onslaught of frivolous lawsuits. EFF expressed its disappointment, saying, "Today is a dark day for the Internet. Congress just passed the Internet censorship bill SESTA/FOSTA. SESTA/FOSTA will silence online speech by forcing Internet platforms to censor their users. As lobbyists and members of Congress applaud themselves for enacting a law ostensibly tackling the problem of trafficking, let's be clear: Congress just made trafficking victims less safe, not more. Sex trafficking experts have tried again and again to explain to Congress how SESTA/FOSTA will put trafficking victims in danger. Sex workers have spoken out too, explaining how online platforms have literally saved their lives. Why didn't Congress consult with the people their bill would most directly affect? [...] When platforms choose to err on the side of censorship, marginalized voices are censored disproportionately. SESTA/FOSTA will make the Internet a less inclusive place, something that hurts all of us. This might just be the beginning. Some of these groups behind SESTA / FOSTA seem to see the bill as a mere stepping stone to banning pornography from the Internet."

Comments

Why didn't Congress consult with the people...

[XxtraLarGe]

Why didn't Congress consult with the people their bill would most directly affect?

Is that a rhetorical question? Government acts like passing a law automagically fixes everything, but ultimately most laws answer to the law of unintended consequences. As much as I think human trafficking is horrific, you can always expect the government to take exactly the wrong approach to fixing it.

Re:Why didn't Congress consult with the people...

[SuricouRaven]

Because the people the bill would most directly affect are prostitutes, and no politician wants to be seen as acknowledging prostitutes have any rights at all. As far as politics goes, there are only two valid images of prostitutes: Sinful harlots who need to be locked up for the good of society, and innocent victims who need to be saved from their pimp... and then locked up if they don't reform.

Re:Why didn't Congress consult with the people...

[Falos]

>Why didn't Congress consult with the people their bill would most directly affect?

Because that wasn't the objective.

Who cares what this bill does, it looks like I'm Doing Something About It to constituents and benefactors. People LOVE asking "so what is X doing about Y". So much it's disturbing.

Bartender! Zero-tols for everyone, on me! I stopped crime or something!

Re:Why didn't Congress consult with the people...

[gweihir]

In this specific instance, I also think that the driving forces behind this law actually wanted a censorship law (finally getting that pesky "free speech" problem under control...), but since that would never fly if done openly, they used one of the four horsemen of the infocalypse. Hence they did not consult with the people that actually understand what this law will do, because they are perfectly aware of these consequences and _want_ them.

Re:Why didn't Congress consult with the people...

[gweihir]

Yea, getting rid of these pesky advances in this "Internet" thing is probably next on their agenda. A nice stable stagnant society under their control is what these people crave. Free speech, innovation, etc. all tools of the devil.

"Trafficking"

[thomn8r]

..is the new "terrorism" which replaced "think of the children"

Re:"Trafficking"

[Rick Schumann]

Human trafficking is a real thing, and it's no laughing matter, but this is a misguided attempt at best, and at worst, as alluded to above, something to be leveraged into censorship of pornography on the internet -- and, no doubt, censorship of anything else they can twist the wording around to also include. Since it's a moral issue, it's difficult for anyone to challenge it without being accused of supporting and approving of human trafficking and the sex trade, and for a politician on either side of the aisle that would be political suicide, especially these days when everyone is so completely and totally polarized. Someone will challenge it, if it's actually going too far, and the courts will no doubt hear it. Also, like most attempts (emphasis on attempts) at censoring the Internet, it likely won't be enforceable anyway; if the content they want to censor is located on a hard drive outside U.S. borders, then there's not a damn thing they can do about it. Not all that difficult these days to get hosting anywhere you need to, and not difficult to move your content to the new hosting.

Re:"Trafficking"

[the_povinator]

Trafficking is a very real problem, despite some of the negative legislation that may result in the name of stopping it.

My problem with "trafficking" is that it is an umbrella term that people principally seem to find useful as a way to conflate various issues and advance agendas that they don't want to state outright. Consider that "trafficking" covers such diverse situations as:

• Teenage girls being coerced into sex work
• People who make it easier for Chinese women to come to the USA on tourist visas to give birth.
• The coyotes who guide people central America across the US border
• The gangs in Libya who either help Africans cross the sea to Europe, or rip them off as they attempt to get to Europe.
• Simple prostitution
• People being brought illegally from abroad as domestic workers (or brought legally but exploited).

The usefulness of ``trafficking'' is that it allows a person who is opposed to one of these forms of trafficking (typically prostitution or illegal immigration) to point to one of the forms that *everyone* can agree is wrong (typically underage children being forced into sex work) and use it as an excuse to crack down on the form of ``trafficking'' that is their real target.

Re:"Trafficking"

[Obfuscant]

(1) If the content is outside the US, they can place liability on US ISPs that don't censor it.

If you actually read the bill your outrage will likely lessen quite a bit. The bill has nothing to do with ISPs. It repeatedly talks about websites, and it also talks about deliberate intent to facilitate sex trafficking.

But what's wrong with approving the sex trade among consenting adults?

You're debating a different legal issue.

(3) How is prostitution different from many traditional marriages,

Sorry, now you're well out in left field.

It's cute, fun, and traditional when people spend a lot of money on a wedding and the state stamps its approval, but when it's done by the poor without the state's sanction, it's automatically a terrible thing.

Equating sex trafficking with marriage is about as silly as you can get.

Re:"Trafficking"

[the_povinator]

I wasn't talking about 'in this particular bill', I was talking about the term 'trafficking' in general.

Re:"Trafficking"

[Sarten-X]

Gee, if only someone would define it clearly...

The key element in human trafficking is that it involves coercion. No, visa facilitators don't necessarily fall into the "human trafficking" bucket, because they aren't forcing the Chinese women to come against their will. The gangs in Libya, if they don't rip off the immigrants but instead serve only as guides and charge only fees that are known up front, are also not human traffickers. The honest coyotes also aren't in the business of human trafficking, though they are typically breaking other laws.

The problem is that all of the situations you describe are very often involved in actual human trafficking, to the extent that it's very difficult to tell the difference. A very common tactic is that a migrant makes a deal with a guide (or facilitator) to smuggle (or otherwise move) them somewhere, but the smuggler instead takes them somewhere else (usually several hundred kilometers away), confiscates their passport and other documentation, and says that due to some unexpected bribes/fees/expenses/whatever, the migrant now owes more money, and has to work to pay off the debt. The migrant thinks they can't go to the police, because they'll get sent back with no documentation. They're usually threatened with violence if they even try to escape.

The other broad category you describe is prostitution, either underage or "simple" (whatever that means). Again, the act itself isn't the problem, but the circumstances around it. A prostitute who is not coerced in any way (including not being able to consent due to being underage) is not involved with human trafficking. Any exploitation, though, becomes a separate matter of human trafficking, completely independent of the (potentially legal) prostitution itself.

In short, It's fine for "sex" to be your product, or "relocation", or "assistance", but once your product is "unwilling people", that's human trafficking. Sure, it'd be great if we could limit discussion to only the bad folks in each of those roles you describe. While we're at it, let's make gun laws that only apply to bad folks, too. Conversely, let's only let good people have drivers' licenses, solving the problem of road rage completely!

Banning pornography from the Internet?!

[sinij]

Banning pornography from the Internet?! What next, banning cat pictures? Might as well shut the whole thing down.

Re:Banning pornography from the Internet?!

[sl3xd]

What next, banning cat pictures?

Our feline overlords won't stand for it. They've reached the conclusion that they can't prevent Furries from mocking them in porn, and so demanded that human pornography be outlawed.

Yes, technically, the lizard people are in charge, but they aren't going to risk a vote of no confidence destroying their fragile governing coalition. They need the cat vote.

moral majority

[b0s0z0ku]

This isn't about limiting "trafficking". This is limiting all sex for pay among consenting adults, which is made easier/safer via peer-to-peer platforms. Someone who advertises on Backpage doesn't need a middleman (aka a pimp).

i.e. it's a law not created to help victims, but rather by marching moral majority morons, to control what consenting adults are allowed to do in their own bedrooms. Same deal as with alcohol and marijuana prohibition laws.

Throw the book at pimps who force people into prostitution or use children. But consenting adults should be able to decide for themselves. Nevada, Amsterdam, and Berlin are good examples of how the business should be treated.

Re:moral majority

[drinkypoo]

Nevada, Amsterdam, and Berlin are good examples of how the business should be treated.

There's more prostitution going on in the city of Las Vegas, where it is illegal, than there is in the rest of the state. If you include Reno, where it is also illegal, then the remainder gets lost in the statistical noise — WP claims that 66 times more money is spent on illegal prostitution in NV than the legal kind. So no. Nevada is a terrible example.

Back to old school

[Miser]

Alright folks, break out your terminal emulators - time to go back to NNTP/Usenet.

Re:Why didn't Congress consult with the people...?

[sl3xd]

This one isn't due to partisan ignorance, just the general kind.

• * In the House, the vote was 388-25 vote, with 14 Republicans and 11 Democrats voting in opposition.
• * The Senate vote was 98-2, with one (R) and one (D) voting against it.

Re:Moscow Donald's Urine Hooker Adventure

[Hognoxious]

Did you read it? It's right there on page 97:
38.a.14.xiii
The Donald gets first dibs.

Good luck with that.

[fahrbot-bot]

Some of these groups behind SESTA / FOSTA seem to see the bill as a mere stepping stone to banning pornography from the Internet."

Dr. Cox: "I’m fairly sure if they took porn off the internet, there’d only be one website left, and it’d be called, 'Bring Back the Porn!'”

This is why it doesn't matter who you vote for

[SuperKendall]

From the article:

"The bill was approved overwhelmingly in a 97-2 vote."

If Hillary had won, she'd be signing something just as egregious into law.

While the two sides argue over frivolities, real freedoms are inexorably crushed by both "sides".

Unfortunate Choice of Wording

[dmomo]

"let's be clear: Congress just made trafficking victims less safe, not more"

This makes it look like congress made things less safe for those who traffic victims.

"victims of trafficking".. fixed that for you, EFF!

Short-sighted...

[Theaetetus]

But some lawmakers and anti-sex trafficking advocates think the law has gotten in the way of efforts to go after online trafficking suspects like Backpage.com.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a co-author of SESTA with Portman and a former prosecutor, called Section 230 "outdated and obsolete" during Wednesday's press conference.

They were talking about this on NPR this afternoon - apparently, sex traffickers were posting classified ads on Backpage.com with keywords like "lolita" and "fresh" to indicate underage girls - and the Senator wants to be able to go after Backpage...

... so that it no longer posts these ads...

... making it much more difficult for investigators to go undercover as buyers and find the victims.

Wouldn't it have been much smarter to quietly make a deal with Backpage to forward this info to the FBI as soon as they get it?

Re:Short-sighted...

[jeff4747]

Wouldn't it have been much smarter to quietly make a deal with Backpage to forward this info to the FBI as soon as they get it?

Quiet deals don't let members of Congress make speeches about how they are defending poor innocent children.

Re:Short-sighted...

[gweihir]

They were talking about this on NPR this afternoon - apparently, sex traffickers were posting classified ads on Backpage.com with keywords like "lolita" and "fresh" to indicate underage girls

Which they are not in all these cases. Nobody would advertise something like that openly. It is purely the fantasy of the customer being addressed here. A "lolita" is a sex worker that looks young, but is anywhere from 18-30. There are basically almost no underage sex workers, and where there are, they are 17 or 16. There are, for example, also statements from brothel owners in Switzerland where prostitution used to be legal from 16 years on, that they actually did not want any this young because they cannot do the job well and mainly cause problems. And there were statements from the Swiss police that this was extremely rare and in the small handful of cases they merely informed the parents.

Incidentally, from countries were it is legal, we also know that there are almost no sex workers forced into the trade. For example, the Mafia stopped decades ago, because it does not work economically. A forced sex worker is a bad, non-motivated sex worker that brings in the lowest rates and comes with the problem that typically one of the first customers reports this to the police because men are not total scum. For example a famous case in Germany about 20 years back had 3 actual customers and the first one went to the police. These things are so rare that they make the national news, while there are an estimated 1 million (!) prostitutes in the US.

Ban pornography, nothing important would be lost.

[losfromla]

I wish they would ban pornography from the internet. I wish they had banned it 20 years ago. We'd probably be coasting around in self-driving flying cars given the amount of (especially nerd) time we've lost to it.

Drugs have nothing to do with moral majority

[rsilvergun]

See here. It's identity politics, regular politics and racism. Not sure about prostitution but it wouldn't surprise me. A huge part of our legal system is about voter disenfranchisement. e.g. Nailing poor people with a conviction that strips voting rights.

Right wing ideas don't really survive on their own. Supply side economics, Military Industrial complex, lax environmental regulations and worker protections. None of these are high enough in the polls to make it. But our two party system means if you combine a bit of voter suppression, gerrymandering and the impact of our Senate & Electoral College you can get unpopular policies through despite the polls.

This is why Congress has a 13% approval rating but incumbents. It's also why the Dems have won not just the popular vote for POTUS but even gotten more votes for the House and somehow managed to have fewer representatives. All these shenanigans add up to us barely being a democracy...

The MPAA did it

[gavron]

This isn't about sex trafficking. This is about US representatives paid off by the MPAA to remove CDA Sec 230 protections so that they can go after people who share content, require ISPs to censor or block postings, and enforce permanent takedown ("staydown") instead of merely providing a notice that ISPs may or may not send the end-users.

It's a dark day for the Internet. It's a dark day for freedom of expression. It's a dark day for open discourse and discussion. ...and it will make things worse for sex trafficking victims...

Everybody loses. Except congress reelection campaign donation funds.

Ehud

FOSTA?

[DontBeAMoran]

The legislation, called the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA)

Why isn't it called ASVFOSTA?

And what's with "SESTA", where does that come from? Aren't acronyms supposed to be made of the first letter of each word of the thing?

If they're going to make their own rules about acronyms, then I'm going to make my own and call this bill "FIESTA" or "SIESTA".

What's the punishment?

[ebonum]

Let's say I work for AT&T. Can I use this to publish ads for underage sex on a competitor/enemy's website. Fake ads, but I don't think anyone really cares. (On the darkweb you can buy weapon's grade plutonium. It's true because a reporter saw an ad) Since I control the network, I have godlike powers. I can be very very hard to track down.

Can I use this to cause my competitor/enemy to come under crushing legal scrutiny? Seized servers, fines, etc.

Re:Yes, this is a prostitution bill. Only title sa

[pots]

Sex trafficking is prostitution. The word "trafficking" just means trade in illegal goods - "drug trafficking" means buying or selling illegal drugs, "human trafficking" means buying or selling humans (i.e.: slavery), "sex trafficking" means buying or selling sex (in those places where that is illegal).

They call it sex trafficking here, rather than prostitution, because the public associates the word trafficking with human trafficking, because that's where it's most often used. In other words, they're taking advantage of public confusion to crack down on prostitution in a way that most of the public wouldn't normally support but a few members of the public will cheer for.

Those few members of the public who will cheer for this tend to be single-issue "family values" voters, which is why the EFF is describing this as a stepping stone to banning pornography from the internet. I really doubt that it will ever get that far, but targeting prostitutes like this is... effective. Reversing this will be difficult, people are generally unwilling to stick up for prostitutes to that degree.