Major bill passed to help fight online human trafficking
Yesterday, the US House of Representatives passed the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, or FOSTA as it’s better known. This act would allow prosecutors and victims of online trafficking to either prosecute, or seek damages against websites that knowingly assisted in the trafficking of women and children. To be more specific, FOSTA is designed to allow sites like Backpage, who allegedly worked with traffickers to make the ads of trafficked victims appear more legitimate, to stop hiding behind the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
As you may know, the CDA was the statute that Backpage hid behind for many years claiming that the ads on their website for ‘adult services’ were protected speech and that they had no control over what appeared in these ads. Time and again prosecutors and trafficking victims were stymied in seeking justice against Backpage because of the outdated terms of the CDA. However, after the House overwhelmingly passed FOSTA yesterday, Backpage became one major step closer to losing that protection that has afforded them to make millions of dollars from the sales of women and children into slavery. What’s next is for the bill to be approved by the Senate which has its own version of the bill called “Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act” or SESTA.
While many tech pundits and insiders claim FOSTA and SESTA are potential internet censorship laws, they have no one to blame but Backpage. It shouldn’t have had to come to this, but Backpage insisted on making their millions in one of the most unethically ways possible. Had Backpage not blamed everything on third parties and used the CDA as it was not intended, further legislation would not have been needed. Not to mention that many of these pundits and insiders complain when the law has not caught up to technology when it comes to innovation, but use a 22-year-old law to defend the practice of online trafficking as free speech. 22 years ago, the internet was a far cry from what it is today. Why shouldn’t the law be allowed to reflect that?
Leave a Reply