Based on the research of Thorn, the non-profit dedicated to fighting child sex trafficking, “63% of child sex trafficking survivors were advertised online at some point during their trafficking situation.” With the growth of technology, online sex trafficking is unfortunately a steady part of our reality. In an effort to combat online sex trafficking, a bipartisan amendment is in the works to hold Internet companies accountable for illegal actions by their users. The bill is called the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 (SESTA), which would change Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). This was instigated by a judge’s court dismissal against Backpage.com, which was accused of knowingly allowing classified ads that solicited sex.
The intent behind the amendment is commendable. But tech giants are arguing that the wording of it is too broad and would threaten what the CDA was suppose to protect: free speech. If SESTA goes into effect, Internet companies would need to specify to their users what would be appropriate, acceptable speech. However, the CDA was created 21 years ago, when the Internet was just introduced, and it is in need of a major update to combat atrocities like online sex trafficking. At this point, both sponsors and critics of the bill are working together to find the best solution to help and prevent more victims of sex trafficking. Make sure to follow L&P as this situation develops. For now, consider the following questions in regards to SESTA and the stance of tech giants.
- Is the amendment’s wording too broad? Does is specifically state its focus on sex trafficking?
- Should sites be punished for the acts by its users?
- Are these sites doing enough to combat online sex trafficking?
- Is this really an attack on free speech?
- Are these laws in need of an update for changing times?
- Are Internet companies having too big of an influence in regards to politics?