The 1996 law Section 230 is widely seen as a foundation of the Internet economy.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Why free speech advocates oppose a law to battle sex trafficking
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
The DOJ is all over Backpage and their owners and they could not gather evidence to move ahead with a lawsuit so let's just approve a law to make it possible, right? This is Police State right there at work.
This is just stupid grandstanding pandering to collective hysteria. And like most things done in this environment it will cause a whole load of bad. Remember how the US is putting law enforcement inside of schools to protect the children? How did that go? Oh, we are arresting kids and ruining their lives? For the children!!!!!!
No seriously, terrorists don't need to worry. The US will implode under its own weight without the need for bombs.
This is just stupid grandstanding pandering to collective hysteria. And like most things done in this environment it will cause a whole load of bad. Remember how the US is putting law enforcement inside of schools to protect the children? How did that go? Oh, we are arresting kids and ruining their lives? For the children!!!!!!
No seriously, terrorists don't need to worry. The US will implode under its own weight without the need for bombs.
Upvote
112
(128
/
-16)
The article is reasonably nuanced but the title is crap. Free speech advocates oppose a law which purports to battle sex trafficking but will really do little to stop it and will likely cause substantial harm. The title suggests that free speech advocates believe free speech trumps sex trafficking, which isn't generally the case. Personally, I'd be willing to place some limits on free speech if it actually was effective at limiting child abuse and trafficking. I just don't believe this law will be effective at doing that.
Upvote
105
(107
/
-2)
Aside from the "and what will the next too-important-to-let-section-230-stop-us matter be?" question; I don't understand why team law enforcement is so eager to drive this activity into venues that are harder to observe; and use as evidence to find and prosecute the people involved.
When it's something like piracy; where the material itself isn't fundamentally problematic, they just want you to buy from the official vendor; driving the pirates underground is a pragmatic enough move: sure, you can't eliminate them; but you can make it enough of a hassle for 'normal' people to find them that they'll probably just shrug and buy as subscription.
In this case, though, there isn't a licit variant of renting trafficked children and/or coerced adults(even in venues where prostitution is legal); so the 'make the illicit channel a pain and they'll give up and just pay the extra' doesn't apply.
Compared to in-person clandestine transactions, without any handy electronic records; or the more paranoid 'dark web' stuff; people advertising illegal things on a public message board should be a duckshoot for law enforcement. So why not take advantage of that?
Is the concern that the relative ease and convenience of backpage makes the market larger than it would otherwise be(even with the risk of easier detection and prosecution); or is it just that civil litigation and photo ops against a soft target are easier than doing police work against the people using the site?
When it's something like piracy; where the material itself isn't fundamentally problematic, they just want you to buy from the official vendor; driving the pirates underground is a pragmatic enough move: sure, you can't eliminate them; but you can make it enough of a hassle for 'normal' people to find them that they'll probably just shrug and buy as subscription.
In this case, though, there isn't a licit variant of renting trafficked children and/or coerced adults(even in venues where prostitution is legal); so the 'make the illicit channel a pain and they'll give up and just pay the extra' doesn't apply.
Compared to in-person clandestine transactions, without any handy electronic records; or the more paranoid 'dark web' stuff; people advertising illegal things on a public message board should be a duckshoot for law enforcement. So why not take advantage of that?
Is the concern that the relative ease and convenience of backpage makes the market larger than it would otherwise be(even with the risk of easier detection and prosecution); or is it just that civil litigation and photo ops against a soft target are easier than doing police work against the people using the site?
Upvote
58
(63
/
-5)
It's all about optics and perception.
By going after the communication platform, you get to put on a big show and attract a lot of media attention to your efforts to clean up this old one-horse town. You aren't actually cutting demand or cutting human trafficking - you're just driving it underground - but it feels and looks like progress.
Leaving the platform alone, and using it as evidence when going after the pimps and traffickers, is vastly more productive in terms of the number of people you save from nasty situations. But it's also a lot more work and attracts a lot less attention.
There's a lot of evidence to suggest that the demand for illegal sexual services is not strongly affected by the prevalence (or lack thereof) of laws governing them. The most puritanical, uptight countries have similar problems as the laid-back, laissez-faire countries; they're just better at hiding it and worse at dealing with the aftermath.
Upvote
72
(75
/
-3)
Why haven't there been attempts to unmask the advertisers? If the idea is to combat sex trafficking AND YOU HAVE A CONGLOMERATION OF KNOWN SEX ADVERTISERS, don't you think finding the people putting up the ads would be much more productive than taking down the billboard? Don't hold Backpage accountable for the ads they host. Just get the information necessary to track down the advertisers. With a warrant...
Upvote
88
(89
/
-1)
Because money trumps everything. Get rid of the people doing the trafficking, and others will simply take their place. That's why the war on drugs is a joke. It's why the arms trade is as strong as ever. There's a market. There's a demand. Someone will always step up to meet that demand to make money. And the more money that someone makes, the more they do it and the less they care about how it gets done.
Upvote
32
(35
/
-3)
Cannot the police read Backpage and other sites too and then use that information to set up undercover stings? This actually helps law enforcement because the criminals advertise to the public for sevice that must be conducted in person. Personally, I think the police are often too lazy to use the tools available to them. If you force these criminals underground again, how does that help rescue victim? The police would need to do more investigation in order to locate and stop these people. Further, sexual exploitation isn't going to stop because Backpage was shut down.
Upvote
38
(39
/
-1)
The police can answer the ad with an undercover sting. Why does Backpage need to be involved at all? The police first goal should be rescuing victims. Pursuing the masterminds is warranted, but should be secondary to liberating these people.
Upvote
52
(53
/
-1)
Couldn't they hold Backpage in contempt of court, and send the executives to jail if they refuse to comply with the warrants?
Upvote
18
(21
/
-3)
I agree with you on the first part, but not the second. This is not grandstanding. Human trafficking and sex slavery are very real problems. While estimates have a broad range, roughly 1m people a yer are victims of sex slavery and human trafficking. So this isn't some niche problem, it affects more people than terrorism, hate crimes, murder, etc.
I don't agree that a new carve-out is the right solution. I'm a bigger fan of honeypots and stings. We've successfully closed down these rings by setting up fake sex trade sites on the darknet. That seems like a much better way to go after the real perps.
Upvote
0
(20
/
-20)
It is grandstanding if you are trying to surf on the severity of the issue to get attention and/or votes without offering solutions to it. Do you know one thing that would greatly help but would be frowned upon? Legalization of sex work as any other professional occupation with all protections provided by law. Of course this is but one of the approaches needed but it's one example.
Your honeypot solution is problematic with the grandstanding. People look for sex workers in ways that are not trafficking by a long shot and still get lumped into the package because of, among other bullshit, said grandstanding. It would put many people in jail that aren't the problem. Just like marijuana. So yes, this law is a gigantic pile of grandstanding bullshit. And it's not the only one spreading its foul smell around.
Upvote
36
(39
/
-3)
"Activists want to fight sex trafficking by changing a key Internet law"
This wasn't the original title as far as I can understand and it is quite wrong. It's politicians who want to do it. Activists want to prevent said change because it will harm the Internet and free speech without placing a dent on sex trafficking.
This wasn't the original title as far as I can understand and it is quite wrong. It's politicians who want to do it. Activists want to prevent said change because it will harm the Internet and free speech without placing a dent on sex trafficking.
Upvote
4
(10
/
-6)
Lies. And if they are really doing anything wrong where's the lawsuit from the DOJ investigations? Where's the contempt of the court or whatever the accusation is for not cooperating when asked with a warrant? They are nowhere to be seen because Backpage is acting within the law and helping when requested.
Upvote
11
(15
/
-4)
We give every article on Ars two headlines and A/B test to figure out which ones people click on more. This is the one that won.
And obviously not every activist wants to change the law—there are activists on all sides of lots of issues. But there's a group of activists who definitely support this legislation.
Upvote
21
(25
/
-4)
Ah, true. I was being one sided thinking of those who are fighting against it as activists. Consider myself corrected. But I will maintain that the title can lead to that confusion
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)
Ah yes America.
Want a gun? Under no circumstances do we prevent gun ownership or the waving around of your gun in public. Want to kill? Just claim you were standing your ground.
Want to fuck? Fuck you, its arrest time, public shaming, and maybe a permanent sex offender registry.
Does this make sense? No, this does not make sense. If Chewbaka, an 8 foot tall Wookie, lives with 3 foot tall Ewoks, then you must acquit.
It is time legal prostitution spread out from Nevada. Cops would be forced to stop oppressing women and a lot of wasted resources from the war on women would be freed up for a legitimate war on child molesters. Hell maybe they would start to notice catholic priests fucking little children and do something about it instead of needing newspapers to force them to do it.
Want a gun? Under no circumstances do we prevent gun ownership or the waving around of your gun in public. Want to kill? Just claim you were standing your ground.
Want to fuck? Fuck you, its arrest time, public shaming, and maybe a permanent sex offender registry.
Does this make sense? No, this does not make sense. If Chewbaka, an 8 foot tall Wookie, lives with 3 foot tall Ewoks, then you must acquit.
It is time legal prostitution spread out from Nevada. Cops would be forced to stop oppressing women and a lot of wasted resources from the war on women would be freed up for a legitimate war on child molesters. Hell maybe they would start to notice catholic priests fucking little children and do something about it instead of needing newspapers to force them to do it.
Upvote
-1
(26
/
-27)
Use the same process that's used in the widely-successful "War on Drugs (tm)"?
Upvote
-8
(2
/
-10)
The mental gymnastics required to interpret stopping sex-trafficking of children as a war on women is amazing. You should take that logic on the road.
Preventing 12 year olds from exercising their rights as sex-workers is governmental overreach?
Upvote
-15
(10
/
-25)
I haven't seen any reports of attempts to discover advertisers on Backpage. Plenty of people try to take it down, taking the website down or holding the website responsible is not the same as serving the website a warrant for information pertaining to the buyers of adspace serving x, y, and z ads that promote illegal activity.
Pretty sure Backpage would lose any attempt to block a targeted warrant going after clear lawbreakers. It's pretty fucking criminal that the government is attempting to hold Backpage responsible instead of the actual traffickers.
It would also be nice to know how much of Backpage sex ads are just for prostitution and how many involve trafficking. If 99% of the adult ads are just "pay me for sex", well fuck the government entirely.
Upvote
30
(31
/
-1)
What does rescuing kids from sexual slavery have to do with the War On Drugs? I have a feeling you're reaching for some point, but the drugs have kicked in.
Upvote
-10
(6
/
-16)
Wait, I'll admit to reading 75% and skimming 25% of this article but did I miss the part where 230 applies to them? I thought that protected sites who host user generated content they were not aware of. But if backpage is actively editing the content how does that qualify? Were not talking about some basic formatting or spell checking, they're actively writing scripts with the goal of making illegal sound legal. Isn't that aiding and abetting?
Slightly tangential, but if I'm not mistaken does 230 also have a DMCA like clause where if you're informed about the content you're required to take it down, or perhaps that law enforcement with the proper order can make you take it down? This isn't a solution, but I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly that this is mostly about knowledge of the content.
I'll say I have mixed feelings about this. I seriously think they could litigate under current law and would normally be inclined to say that that's what they should do. However, as noted, they have tried a few times. But I feel like they haven't tried very hard. That's to say nothing of the implication of practical effectiveness of shutting down a site and the activities actually ceasing that the author brought up.
edit: clarification
Slightly tangential, but if I'm not mistaken does 230 also have a DMCA like clause where if you're informed about the content you're required to take it down, or perhaps that law enforcement with the proper order can make you take it down? This isn't a solution, but I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly that this is mostly about knowledge of the content.
I'll say I have mixed feelings about this. I seriously think they could litigate under current law and would normally be inclined to say that that's what they should do. However, as noted, they have tried a few times. But I feel like they haven't tried very hard. That's to say nothing of the implication of practical effectiveness of shutting down a site and the activities actually ceasing that the author brought up.
edit: clarification
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
We're in large agreement here. I'm all about legalizing sex work as a way of properly regulating it and making it safer. However, I'm not sure it solves the problem. Sex work in Australia is legal (with some weird exceptions like some states making brothels illegal), but it's still an area where sex trafficking is a problem.
But yes, it would be a step in making sure we're getting to the people actually causing harm.
Upvote
7
(9
/
-2)
I would be ok with a change to the law which made sites liable for advertisements.
Requiring a site to look at all user content would be problematic, but if they are directly taking money to promote a message, I feel they should have some liability for the message. In this case it appears they already look at ads, so it would not be overly burdensome. Where sites do not, they really should.
Bonus points if it puts an end to the malware served by ad networks by making sites which serve it liable. There should not be a route for a reputable site to serve malware or ads for child sex slaves, someone with something to lose should look at the content before it hits the network and causes problems.
Requiring a site to look at all user content would be problematic, but if they are directly taking money to promote a message, I feel they should have some liability for the message. In this case it appears they already look at ads, so it would not be overly burdensome. Where sites do not, they really should.
Bonus points if it puts an end to the malware served by ad networks by making sites which serve it liable. There should not be a route for a reputable site to serve malware or ads for child sex slaves, someone with something to lose should look at the content before it hits the network and causes problems.
Upvote
-4
(1
/
-5)
The editing point is one that some folks have made. The details just came out late last year so I don't know if courts have ruled on this question definitively.
And no, I don't think Section 230 has a DMCA-style takedown process. Intermediaries just get immunity, full stop, even after someone explicitly tells them about content that's potentially illegal.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
IANAL and my coffee is still kicking in, but one of the differences I noticed was that, in addition to law enforcement, the bill would allow civil suits against the website. The stated purpose is to allow the victims to sue the site as a facilitator. It looks like currently section 230 only permits legal action by the government.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
False premise and wrong conclusion. If the authorities were actually serious about stopping the sex trafficking then nothing would make their jobs easier than allowing the traffickers to advertise openly.
This is about sweeping the problem under the rug, not stopping it.
Upvote
25
(26
/
-1)
If this trafficking is such a problem, can't they get enough funding and personnel to essentially answer every questionable ad and arrest the adult and underage prostitutes? The ads make it far more easy to find the prostitutes. Do the prostitutes have ways to make it difficult for sting operations to catch them? It seems like legalizing adult prostitution and providing the paper work verifying legal status and maybe even "not sex slave for sale" status would at least make the worst abusers have to work a lot harder to get away with their activities. A Tinder for prostitutes, even.
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
Backpage did not do anything illegal. Go after the posting parties. Get a warrant approved by a judge and Backpage will comply. They're just mad that "think of the children" didn't circumvent due process. I want to see some stats on how many of the Backpage posts are actual child sex trafficking and how many are pimp slaves vs. true independents that are only slaves to their own free will. I have to default to law enforcement and the government lying and exaggerating reality for things like this.
Upvote
4
(9
/
-5)
A what now? We just want to go in guns blazing and arrest, beat, and/or shoot everybody involved. Warrants are too hard to obtain. I mean, you have to write them, have probable cause, get a judge to rubber stamp them, follow rules, etc .... Way too much work to stop [INSERT CURRENT BOGEYMAN HERE].
EDIT: Correct some words because posting on a phone ducks.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
Criminalisation rarely works and plays into the hands of traffickers and abusers. What we need is a situation where people are not put off reporting their suspicions that a person might have been trafficked, whether the individual doing the reporting is a sex worker or a client. If they have any reason to suspect that the police are going to end up questioning them rather than being interested in their complaint then they just won't come forward in the first place.
Of course sex work is only one part of the issue of trafficking. Most trafficked people end up working in legal industries such as agriculture or food preparation so buying a takeaway or enjoying cheap vegetables is as likely to make you an unwitting supporter of trafficking as visiting a prostitute. One of the big things that stops people speaking out is the fear that they're going to be deported or prosecuted as an illegal immigrant. That fear will still be there, even if you have a legal sex industry, but removing other ridiculous laws such as prosecuting sex workers for keeping a brothel would go some way to making their lives safer.
Upvote
15
(16
/
-1)
Tim, your follow up shows how much you care. We all appreciate that.
I feel like I can see an amendment to 230 provisioning some sort of limited ability to force take downs on overtly criminal behavior. For example if there is an ad explicitly for child sex, murder, etc. This is a hell of a lot more important than fucking copyright and they have that ability. I think it should be limited to governmental action from DA's or law enforcement. If you don't like it, bring it to the authorities. At that point you should be protected as long as you comply.
But what backpage is doing with editing is wrong. Still, taking them down would be dumb-as-hell. They're handing you useful cases on a silver platter. I agree with everyone who has said that this is about making a show and not solving a problem. It really is.
Upvote
1
(4
/
-3)
This is how civil liberties die, with some hysterical pearl-clutchers screaming "WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!?!". Weakening Section 230 of the CDA to combat sex trafficking is like using a flamethrower to kill a mosquito in your living room. Yes, you might eliminate your target, but there are thousands more where it came from and in the meantime you've burned down your house.
I'm in full agreement with those suggesting we legalize and regulate the sex trade industry to eliminate pimps and traffickers, since history shows that moonshiners and bootleggers more or less went away shortly after alcohol was legalized. Even if we don't, this bill is penny-wise pound-foolish, short term thinking at its finest and will do far more harm than good.
I'm in full agreement with those suggesting we legalize and regulate the sex trade industry to eliminate pimps and traffickers, since history shows that moonshiners and bootleggers more or less went away shortly after alcohol was legalized. Even if we don't, this bill is penny-wise pound-foolish, short term thinking at its finest and will do far more harm than good.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
Yes. Unfortunately that's not the law we are getting. This one sounds way too broad and easy to abuse.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
You may be surprised to learn that there is activism opposing sex trafficking of children. Its a crazy world of SJW we live in.
Upvote
-10
(3
/
-13)
But they cant prosecute people (or have been unsuccessful). If you cant act on the information you've gotten it doesn't matter how visible it is.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
So you're agreeing that they have no plans to act on the information, and all they want to change is the visibility of it?
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Of course they can! They can contact the poster and set up a sting! It's called "enforcing the law" and "following due process." This law claims to be about stopping sex trafficking but it only makes it harder for venues to host ads that law enforcement can find and set up stings for. The blacker the market gets, the more difficult law enforcement becomes.
This has NOTHING to do with sex trafficking; that's just the moral panic crowbar being used. This has everything to do with a website asserting their legal rights instead of capitulating and complying with people in power who fancy themselves as being the law.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Just a side note, that I often see rejected or ignored in regards to legalizing the sex trade, is that legalization and regulation tends to not have as much of an impact on trafficking as one would expect. The main issue is that a legal industry can always manufacture more commodities to meet demand, but when that commodity is a consenting person, supply is going to be finite. The "happiest" middle ground seems to be what they call the "Nordic model" which legalizes the selling of sex, but not the buying. In such a model, the seller has no reason to not seek legal protection, while the illegality of buying tries to lessen demand which would hopefully reduce the incentive for trafficking (although I've still seen reports of mixed results from human trafficking prevention advocacy groups like Polaris).
Upvote
-5
(4
/
-9)
- Status