The Senate has voted 97–2 to advance the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, a controversial initiative meant to crack down on sex trafficking on the internet.
The bill would hold websites liable for hosting sex trafficking content by making a change to a key part of the Communications Decency Act. Some free-internet activists — as well as some tech company representatives — have argued that the bill places an unrealistic burden on small website operators, and will ultimately chill online speech. Sex workers have also opposed the legislation. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), a critic of the bill, offered an amendment that might have clarified the bill’s purposes, but it was voted down.
“Today is a dark day for the Internet,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation tweeted, saying that the legislation “will silence online speech by forcing Internet platforms to censor their users.”
Last month, the House of Representatives passed its version of the legislation. Following the broad support in Congress, President Trump will likely sign the legislation when it reaches his desk, and Ivanka Trump gave the measure her support yesterday. “Passing this important piece of legislation will bring us one step closer to ending sex trafficking online & restoring safety in our communities,” she tweeted.
Comments
It did be interesting to see the data on how much this is happening, and keep watch to see if this piece of legislation effectively curves the data downwards. Moreover, also keep track of online speech censorship to see if this does in fact "silence online speech by forcing Internet platforms to censor their users.".
By dataisthenewbacon on 03.21.18 4:42pm
"Once again we see that the only thing worse than partisanship is bipartisanship." -Hugh Akston
By noname117 on 03.21.18 4:45pm
Given the overall lack of opposition to this bill from the tech industry at large I wonder how much of an effect this will have in implementation.
I could be wrong, but current form from what I understand seems to essentially require just addressing flagged user generated content as it comes up. Apart from sex trafficking perhaps this will bring some needed moderation to online communities.
The rhetoric about small businesses is boiler plate lobbyist speak that every industry uses. Given the ability of small tech firms to run seemingly perpetually on investor funds without making a dime I don’t think hiring extra staff to run flag review is going to kill them.
Finally this is the makings of the libertarian esque mindset of we shouldn’t be made to do anything just meeting up full circle with the reality of lack of self regulation will eventually result in legislative regulation.
By My Only Name Change on 03.21.18 5:17pm
I guess I missed the part where sex trafficking and attempting to do so is speech… How is it censorship when it’s illegal from the start?
By Tdhawk88 on 03.21.18 5:28pm
There really should been a clarification in the article, but here’s the background about the specifics in the bill itself: https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/1/16072680/cda-230-stop-enabling-sex-traffickers-act-liability-shield-senate-backpage.
By Someguyperson on 03.21.18 5:59pm
Man I don’t know. I live with a social worker who works with survivors of human trafficking. Online services are a huge driver for sex trafficking. It’s basically impossible to tell from a prostitution ad whether you’re looking at a willing sex worker or a trafficked victim.
Maybe I don’t know enough about this policy. It’s too easy for web admins to throw up their hands and pretend they have no idea what goes on with their website. Someone should be held accountable for allowing that kind of activity.
My bet is major websites where trafficking is tolerated will be policed, and most small sites won’t face any scrutiny until something pops up. The Verge forums will be fine, for example.
By JeffWPa on 03.21.18 6:21pm
Because this isn’t about sex trafficking, it’s about attacking sex worker rights and safe places on the internet where they can form a community.
https://injusticetoday.com/anti-online-trafficking-bills-advance-in-congress-despite-opposition-from-survivors-themselves-e741ea300307
Melissa Gira has been excellent reporting on why it’s a bad bill.
Forgot to post: She has a summary here on her Twitter: https://twitter.com/melissagira/status/973692528628322315
By smithnyokel on 03.21.18 6:27pm
Just curious do sex workers have a proposed solution to the problem?
I feel overall decriminalization nationally will go a long way in helping this issue, but we’re not even close to that and something in the meantime needs to be done.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone when the primary opposition to the bill has been messaged across as websites might have to review flagged content and sex workers complaining that it makes it difficult to operate in a field that they’re in by choice.
Perhaps less opposition from sex workers and more opposition from actual trafficking victims would have helped the case? I don’t see that in your link. I see claims of opposition from trafficking victims, but then the article spends a good 95% of the text on what workers by choice think with a few token mentions of sex trafficking victims often after sex workers get the first mention.
By My Only Name Change on 03.22.18 1:59pm