In Deal To Get Loretta Lynch Confirmed As Attorney General, Senate Agrees To Undermine Free Speech On The Internet

from the to-save-victims,-we-must-destroy-the-innocent dept

Two versions of bills aimed at sex trafficking are being kicked around by legislators. The SAVE Act (Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation) passed out of the House last year. The Senate version -- the much-less-acronymically-catchy JVTA (Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act) is looking to be no better than the House's version, thanks to a last-minute proposed amendment from Senator Mark Kirk, who's been dying to kill off Backpages.com's adult advertising for quite some time now. And Kirk was able to get this terrible amendment added as part of the "Senate deal" to finally confirm Loretta Lynch as our new Attorney General.

Unfortunately, part of the deal to move the bill forward appears to include a version of the SAVE Act which will amend existing federal anti-trafficking law in vague ways that will be used to prosecute online content hosts for third-party content. This bill, Amendment 273 to the JVTA, closely parallels a version of the SAVE Act that passed the House in January.

As can be clearly seen by the House bill's title, advertising is being targeted. Kirk's amendment adds "advertising" to the list of forbidden activities, which obviously will have repercussions for website owners should this pass with the amendment attached. It would effectively wipe out Section 230 for many websites, if any content on their sites is seen as "advertising sex trafficking."

Obviously, no one here is supporting "sex trafficking," but the focus should be on going after the actual people engaged in sex trafficking -- not allowing criminal charges to be placed against any website that didn't magically block someone putting up such ads. In an age of user generated content, such "advertising" content could potentially show up anywhere -- and any website operator who doesn't magically find and delete all of it faces criminal charges (that our incoming Attorney General can then use to go after them).

This would put website owners in the line of fire, should they fail to immediately delete advertising that falls under the purview of this law. ISPs, search engines and carriers are exempted from the SAVE Act, but site owners are not. Not only that, but if more of the SAVE Act gets folded into the JVTA, site owners will be given the burden of acquiring proof that every affected ad only pertains to adults over the age of 18. Failure to do so could result in a five-year prison sentence.

In a perfect world, illegal ads would be easy to spot. But it isn't a perfect world and those advertising illicit services are highly unlikely to hand over the information site owners need to have on hand to avoid being held responsible for third-party postings. It's a quick evisceration of Section 230 protections being performed by a very broad blade.

The bill's sponsors are more than happy to admit they're trying to attack Backpages and Craigslist. This is questionable enough, but they're apparently unconcerned if other site owners -- ones who don't specialize in advertising -- get caught in the crossfire.

This vagueness and the resulting uncertainty it brings for hosts of third-party content will create a chilling effect on hosts’ willingness to allow users to upload content to their platforms. The specter of facing federal criminal trafficking charges over content created by someone else will make content hosts extremely wary and will encourage over-blocking of wholly lawful, constitutionally protected speech.

Worse -- at least from the perspective of trying to eliminate trafficking ads -- the wording of the bill suggests the best way for site owners to win is not to play.

One thing is clear: by creating a situation where a host is vulnerable to liability if it has knowledge of trafficking-related content on its servers, Amendment 273 will actually discourage proactive filtering and screening mechanisms that many platforms currently employ.

If this appears to be the safest route for site owners to take, this law will result in more trafficking ads, rather than less.

Even further on this point, right now, sites like Craigslist and Backpages are great tools for law enforcement to find and track down actual sex traffickers. Putting the liability on them to stop the advertisements or face criminal charges doesn't stop the sex trafficking at all, it just makes it that much harder for law enforcement to find it. Does Senator Kirk really want to go down as the Senator who made it more difficult for law enforcement to find and arrest sex traffickers?

This language also suggests a certain amount of laziness on the part of those pushing the bills, as well as those charged with enforcing it. It's a whole lot easier to track down site owners and punish them than it is to find out who's behind the posting of illicit ads. By dumping the burden of proof -- as well as a certain amount of liability -- on site owners, law enforcement agencies will be encouraged to harvest the low-hanging fruit first. And while they do, those touting these laws will praise their efforts, despite the paucity of actual traffickers arrested or indicted.

Filed Under: free speech, intermediary liability, liability, loretta lynch, mark kirk, save act, section 230, sex trafficking
Companies: backpages, craigslist

Washington State Stops Trying To Defend Unconstitutional Law Criminalizing Service Providers

from the moving-on dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about a ridiculous state law up in Washington that sought to place liability on service providers for the actions of their users, all in the name of "protecting the children!" The Internet Archive quickly sued to stop the implementation of the law, winning a quick injunction blocking the law from being put into place. The court made it pretty clear that the law appeared to violate Section 230 of the CDA, the federal law that grants service providers clear immunity from certain user actions.

While the case had continued to move forward, Washington has now decided to stop trying to defend the law, effectively letting it die. Of course, you might still wonder why it was passed in the first place, but of course, the answer to that is basic politics. Either way, some states like to fight these kinds of things through multiple levels of appeals, wasting taxpayer money all the way, so it's nice that Washington state seemed to know to stop digging early on in the process.

Filed Under: intermediary liability, secondary liability, washington
Companies: backpages, internet archive

Backpages Points Out That It Shouldn't Be Liable For Actions Of Its Users

from the again dept

This is a few weeks old, but Michael Scott points us to the story of how Backpages is asking a court to dismiss the lawsuit filed against it by a teen who was sold as a prostitute on the site. We covered the lawsuit when it was first filed, and had a rather frustrating discussion in the comments with people who simply couldn't understand the difference between blaming those actually responsible and blaming the tools those people used. We've discussed how the attempts to blame tool providers often helps those who are involved in child trafficking. It attacks the sites that work with law enforcement and help them identify those actually responsible, and instead drives traffickers to seek out other sites that don't work with law enforcement. In this case, the teen tries to claim that Backpages (owned by Village Voice Media) isn't protected by Section 230 because it "helped develop the ads":

"The website is a highly tuned marketing site with search tools, adult sex focused categories, and directions and features offered regarding how to increase the impact of your ads for a fee," M.A. argues. "Defendants advertise its website to increase page views of the ads; defendants removes spam from its website to increase page views of placed ad," M.A. adds. "All of these acts make defendants the creators and developers of the posted advertisements."

I don't see how any of those things overrides Section 230 safe harbors. It seems like a huge stretch to claim that advertising your service somehow makes you responsible for the content and the uses. Also, the fact that the site removes spam is totally meaningless, as the various Section 230 cases have shown time and time again that removing other content does not remove Section 230 safe harbors (if it did, no one would ever remove anything). Still, given the highly emotionally charged nature of this case, it wouldn't surprise me if a court ruled the other way, though the end result of that would be quite damaging -- especially to the people who many think this lawsuit is designed to protect.

Filed Under: liability, section 230
Companies: backpages, village voice

Former Child Prostitute Sues Village Voice For 'Aiding & Abetting' Via Sex Ads

from the section-230-challenge dept

With so much attention being paid to Craigslist over its "adult services" section, one thing that Craigslist often pointed out was that many other classifieds services allowed much worse -- with the Village Voice's Backpages.com often being used as a prime example. And while we haven't heard of state attorneys general getting ready to go after Backpages, apparently a former child who was sold as a prostitute is going to try. The girl, still a minor, going by the name M.A. is suing the Village Voice and specifically claiming that Section 230 of the CDA doesn't apply: The "pimp" who sold her via ads on Backpages has already plead guilty to a variety of charges involving prostitution and child pornography (for taking pornographic pictures of M.A. to put on Backpages).

As for getting around Section 230, the lawsuit points out that Section 230 includes an "exemption" for the exploitation of children. Perhaps I'm wrong (Section 230 experts, feel free to chime in), but I'm not sure this is quite true. Section 230 does state that nothing in Section 230 should be construed to "impair the enforcement" of laws related to sexual exploitation of children, but that doesn't mean that it makes service providers automatically liable if their services are used in that nature. And I don't see how what Backpages did "impaired the enforcement" of the law so it's not clear how that exemption really applies here.

Either way, this makes for an interesting test of Section 230 -- on a highly emotional issue. No one denies that what happened to M.A. sounds horrific and those involved should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (and, it's certainly good to hear that the main person involved has plead guilty and hopefully won't be able to do this to others). That it happened at all is horrifying and sickening. But does it make sense to blame a service provider who served as the bulletin board? That may be a bit extreme and risks adding significant liability to anyone who allows any sort of user-generated system.

Filed Under: section 230
Companies: backpages, village voice