As we are all aware we are in the midst of an internet censorship war. Because of the ICANN handoff, social media and user generated content sites are now feeling the effects of hate speech laws such as those in Germany, subject to fines as high as $57M if they do not delete illegal, racist, or slanderous comments and posts within 24 hours. Companies like Gab have stepped up to speak out about the adverse effect of foreign laws on free speech for Americans.
I believe 100% in freedom of expression, HOWEVER , I would like to call attention to some false propaganda I have seen posted recently about SESTA, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, that is currently under discussion in both the House/Senate.
The crux of the issue relates to CDC 230, passed as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the proposed amendment is largely a response to the Senate Intelligence report of this year, Backpage.com‘s Knowing Facilitation of Online Sex Trafficking, which found that “Backpage is involved in 73% of all child trafficking reports that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) receives from the general public”.
In attempting to go after Backpage, numerous courts have seen Backpage claim immunity under the current iteration of CDC Section 230. As reported by Rob Portman, Ohio Senator and one of the sponsors of SESTA:
Courts have made it clear that their hands are tied until Congress changes the Communications Decency Act to hold online sex traffickers, like Backpage, accountable. Las year, the first circuit court of appeals recognized Backpage’s role in trafficking three 15-year old girls, but ruled in favor of the website because of the legal precedent established by the Communications Decency Act’s broad immunity, stating, “The remedy is through legislation, not litigation.”
In August, a Sacramento judge threw out pimping charges against Backpage, making a blatant call to Congress to act, stating, “If and until Congress sees fit to amend the immunity law, the broad reach of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act even applies to those alleged to support the exploitation of others by human trafficking.”
50 state attorney generals signed a letter to Congress last month urging an amendment of CDC 230, noting that “It is both ironic and tragic that the CDA, which was intended to protect children from indecent material on the internet, is now used as a shield by those who profit from prostitution and crimes against children.”
Today I saw this post: https://voat.co/v/politics/comments/2140552.
Let me be clear, this post represents a concerted effort by lobby groups, using fear and false information to paint SESTA as an internet censorship power grab, and I would like to call attention to a few of the more egregious instances of disinformation. For your reference, I am including the actual full text of CDC 230 in the comments, in its existing condition with the proposed amendment changes of SESTA added in bold.
From the voat post:
SESTA could actually make sex trafficking easier, not harder, and put sex workers in more danger.
[3] By gutting the “Good Samaritan” provision within Section 230, it would actually discourage web companies from having good moderation and community guidelines, by exposing them to massive criminal liability if they make a mistake or miss a post that should have been taken down.
As is obvious in the CDC 230 proposed text (Paragraph C) below, THE AMENDMENT PROPOSES NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER TO THE GOOD SAMARITAN PROVISION!
The oft quoted 26 words, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”, REMAIN INTACT IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE, so no, it would not decimate online communities. That is an intentionally misleading piece of information designed to use fear to mobilize the populous and which, if successful, intends to use the American public as an uninformed political weapon.
In addition, websites are already currently subject to massive financial liability from German hate speech laws (see 1st paragraph) if they “make a mistake or miss a post that should be taken down”! So there is already an element of increased vigilance required from websites RIGHT NOW!
But even this isn’t what SESTA is really about. It is NOT about censorship. It is NOT to go after the law-abiding startups or small businesses, or even giants like Facebook or Google, for a “politically charged comment, provocative video, or meme that they deem to be ‘risky’”. To clarify, if I as an individual were to post a Facebook declaration of intent to traffic children for the purpose of sexual exploitation, I AS AN INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE HELD LEGALLY LIABLE AND FULLY SUBJECT TO CURRENT CRIMINAL LAW. No one is going to go after Facebook because they ‘failed to censor me’, and the notion that that is what Congress intends and that is what courts will find and uphold is absurd. Facebook has absolutely no obligations under the law to censor me or even report me and as the Good Samaritan clause states below, I would be the recognized internet content provider, not Facebook, so even the broadest interpretation of the law creates no additional obligations for websites.
What SESTA is about is trying to find a way to reign in the immunity that websites like Backpage have used over and over again in court (and WON) to protect their activities specifically as they relate to child trafficking and sexual exploitation. I think almost all can agree that it is OBVIOUS that Backpage (and similar sites) are breaking the law, and yet the courts have no way to hold them responsible BECAUSE the immunity of CDC 230 is so broad.
I would also like to point out the cited reference materials from the above linked voat post:
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/internet-censorship-bill-would-spell-disaster-speech-and-innovation
[2] https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
For any unaware, EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) is a digital rights non-profit lobby group, who enjoys a decorated history as an aggressive protector of digital rights. Well what’s wrong with that? Nothing, but in this particular case, let’s look at whose interests they are protecting.
A quick Google search online for “Section 230”, “CDC Section 230”, “SESTA”, etc. will return top results almost entirely composed of EFF articles, yet Bing and DuckDuckGo searches for the same terms return the VARIETY of search results we have come to expect from our trusted engines. Google is blatantly manipulating search results to push this EFF propaganda to the front page of searches.
According to a Consumer Watchdog report titled How Google’s Backing of Backpage Protects Child Sex Trafficking, Google flows millions of dollars to lobby groups like EFF and the Center for Democracy and Technology to protect the broad immunity provided in CDC 230.
“Well so what?”, you may be thinking, “These non-profits care about protecting us, they’re on our side protecting quote-unquote internet censorship”.
While that may be true in many of the noble causes undertaken by these digital rights groups, I would like to point to Page 22 of the Consumer Watchdog report, describing an amicus briefing EFF (and the CDT) filed supporting Backpage in a lawsuit filed by three underage “Jane Does” who were repeatedly sold for sex on the site:
The EFF/CDT brief, filed with the Washington Court of Appeals, argued that Section 230 of the CDA granted Backpage full immunity and urged that the case be dismissed.
The company involved in “73% of all child trafficking reports that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) receives from the general public” was, according to the EFF, immune and the horrors suffered by these particular three underage girls was not even worth the attention of the courts. This group doesn’t care about individual rights! They are the mouthpiece of big tech, answerable only to their funders. Do NOT be fooled by them!
I would like to further point out that Backpage is no “innocent intermediary” simply passively hosting user generated content. Law enforcement raided a business in the Philippines for unrelated reasons in December 2016 and found a surprise treasure trove of evidence that Backpage was using this business in the Philippines to actively engage in promoting trafficking worldwide. A letter from Dianne Feinstein to AG Session in July states “Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Backpage.com hired an overseas company to aggressively solicit sex-related advertisements. This is inexcusable”
Inexcusable indeed.
derram ago
https://archive.fo/f6qK0 :
https://archive.fo/Syqm2 :
https://archive.fo/6pKAp :
https://archive.fo/35Sk3 :
This has been an automated message.
lawrieraja ago
As an ending point I would like to share a brief exchange from commentators regarding internet hate speech on a recent IRL podcast that I feel sheds some excellent perspective:
In the same vein, can they not take the arguably minimal step (compared to the admittedly hyperbolic ‘self-driving cars on the moon’!) asked in the amended text so that courts can go after the REAL bad guys, these so-called bad actors (in Google’s words)?
Our children deserve it.
Please read the proposed amendment text below and think – if you are a parent, do you disagree? If you are a business owner, does this truly make you susceptible to the so-called flurry of lawsuits that lobby groups insist will rain down on all? If you are considering a start-up, does the language constrain you so much as to materially alter your decision on how to do business?
If the answer is no, then we must recognize the propaganda for what it is and stand up for SESTA!
§ 230. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material
(a) Findings
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The rapidly developing array of Internet and other interactive computer services available to individual Americans represent an extraordinary advance in the availability of educational and informational resources to our citizens.
(2) These services offer users a great degree of control over the information that they receive, as well as the potential for even greater control in the future as technology develops.
(3) The Internet and other interactive computer services offer a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.
(4) The Internet and other interactive computer services have flourished, to the benefit of all Americans, with a minimum of government regulation.
(5) Increasingly Americans are relying on interactive media for a variety of political, educational, cultural, and entertainment services.
(b) Policy
It is the policy of the United States—
(1) to promote the continued development of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other interactive media;
(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation;
(3) to encourage the development of technologies which maximize user control over what information is received by individuals, families, and schools who use the Internet and other interactive computer services;
(4) to remove disincentives for the development and utilization of blocking and filtering technologies that empower parents to restrict their children’s access to objectionable or inappropriate online material;
(5) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal laws to deter and punish trafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of computer; and
(6) to ensure vigorous enforcement of Federal criminal and civil law relating to sex trafficking.
(c) Protection for ‘‘Good Samaritan’’ blocking and screening of offensive material
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).
(d) Obligations of interactive computer service
A provider of interactive computer service shall, at the time of entering an agreement with a customer for the provision of interactive computer service and in a manner deemed appropriate by the provider, notify such customer that parental control protections (such as computer hardware, software, or filtering services) are commercially available that may assist the customer in limiting access to material that is harmful to minors. Such notice shall identify, or provide the customer with access to information identifying, current providers of such protections
(e) Effect on other laws
(1) No effect on criminal law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair
(A) the enforcement of section 223 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of title 18, United States Code section 1591 (relating to sex trafficking) of that title , or any other Federal criminal statute ; or
(B) any State criminal prosecution or civil enforcement action targeting conduct that violates a Federal criminal law prohibiting –
(i) sex trafficking of children; or
(ii) sex trafficking by force threats of force fraud or coercion.
(2) No effect on intellectual property law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.
(3) State law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is consistent with this section. No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.
(4) No effect on communications privacy law
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the application of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 or any of the amendments made by such Act, or any similar State law.
(5) NO EFFECT ON CIVIL LAW RELATING TO SEX TRAFFICKING
Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement or limit the application of section 1595 of title 18, United States Code.
(f) Definitions
As used in this section:
(1) Internet
The term ‘‘Internet’’ means the international computer network of both Federal and non-Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
(2) Interactive computer service
The term ‘‘interactive computer service’’ means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.
(3) Information content provider
The term ‘‘information content provider’’ means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
(4) Access software provider
The term ‘‘access software provider’’ means a provider of software (including client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more of the following:
(A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content;
(B) pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or
(C) transmit, receive, display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or translate content.