I’m not so sure…if it’s made clear to him that this would kill Twitter – he might be willing to demand that this one particular clause be removed from an otherwise fairly reasonable bill.

The odds that Pres. Trump would not sign this bill are near-zero. Plus, the bills likely will have enough support to override the veto.

Dear Jason,

Some critics of the sex trafficking amendments equate sex trafficking with prostitution. They take the position that trying to suppress prostitution, as well as alcohol abuse, minor drug offenses, and other “immoral” behavior, is hopeless. If users and suppliers cannot reach each other in conventional ways, they will find other methods because such vices will continue to exist. They typically cite the failures of Prohibition. We need not take a position on these issues.

Sex trafficking is not merely prostitution. The language of the proposed amendments to section 230 only excludes trafficking in children or “sex trafficking by force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion.’’ It may be true that efforts to restrict advertising about prostitution will just redirect efforts somewhere else (although I don’t know what “somewhere else” exists that is nearly as effective as the internet). Reconciling society to the persistence of the paid sex trade plied by consenting adults is entirely different from condoning rape. Existing law in every state clearly states that minors and persons subject to “force, threats of force, fraud, or coercion” cannot legally give consent to sexual contact and thus sex with such persons is rape. Sex trafficking is not just another vice society must learn to deal with.

Re #1: yes, this is a potential issue with every new crime that legislatures create. It’s a reminder that legislatures should think two steps ahead–not just what behavior the crime regulates, but how that behavior will change in response to a new crime. In this case, we have some evidence of how online prostitution ads will respond to new regulation and the ripple effect impacts on victims. What have we learned from that evidence?

Re #2: the number of federal crimes is a small fraction of the number of state crimes. Plus, Congress enacts new federal crimes rarely, but states do it all the time; the DOJ is comparatively selective about its enforcement, while enforcement decisions at the state and local level are not necessarily as selective; and the bill would create a new civil cause of action that isn’t preempted by Section 230, while state child porn civil causes of action are preempted by 230.

We’re still figuring out the implications of the SAVE Act, but it targeted only online prostitution ads, while the new bills are not limited to ads.

Eric.

2. Eric, I understand your concern that liability for sex trafficking could force every service provider to adopt all sorts of user regulations and screening policies, but then why hasn’t that already happened with the current anti-backpage law? or the 230 exception for federal crimes? when the current anti-backpage law was passed I didn’t see youtube or facebook changing much in order to ensure no user submitted something that would trigger the law. Backpage itself didn’t change much, I hear. Is it the number of new similar laws, once you open up liability to state laws, that is bothering you?

3. “Furthermore, this Congress has already proven that it will advance terrible policy ideas”
Actually I suspect the only way the current robust CDA immunity could have survived so long is with massive lobbying by silicon valley. Touch stances on sex trafficking are useful for politicians and campaigning DAs. Perhaps this proposed legislation is the price of the less cozy relationship between silicon valley and the current administration, compared to the previous.