Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017

Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017

(Sec. 2) This bill expresses the sense of Congress that section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 was not intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims. Section 230 limits the legal liability of interactive computer service providers or users for content they publish that was created by others.

(Sec. 3) The bill amends the federal criminal code to add a new section that imposes penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both—on a person who, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (or attempts or conspires to do so) to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.

Additionally, it establishes enhanced penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 25 years, or both—for a person who commits the offense in one of the following aggravating circumstances: (1) promotes or facilitates the prostitution of five or more persons, or (2) acts with reckless disregard that such conduct contributes to sex trafficking.

A person injured by an aggravated offense may recover damages and attorneys' fees in a federal civil action.

A court must order mandatory restitution, in addition to other criminal or civil penalties, for an aggravated offense in which a person acts with reckless disregard that such conduct contributes to sex trafficking.

A defendant may assert, as an affirmative defense, that the promotion or facilitation of prostitution is legal in the jurisdiction where it was targeted.

(Sec. 4) The bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to declare that section 230 does not limit: (1) a federal civil claim for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, (2) a federal criminal charge for conduct that constitutes sex trafficking, or (3) a state criminal charge for conduct that promotes or facilitates prostitution in violation of this bill.

The amendments apply regardless of whether alleged conduct occurs before, on, or after this bill's enactment.

(Sec. 5) The bill amends the federal criminal code to define a phrase related to the prohibition on sex trafficking. Currently, it a crime to knowingly benefit from participation in a venture that engages in sex trafficking. This bill defines "participation in a venture" to mean knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating a sex trafficking violation.

(Sec. 6) A state may file a federal civil action to enforce federal sex trafficking violations.

(Sec. 7) This section states that this bill does not limit federal or state civil actions or criminal prosecutions that are not preempted by section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934.

(Sec. 8) The Government Accountability Office must report to Congress on information related to damages and mandatory restitution for aggravated offenses under this bill.

Learn more at congress.gov

Show more

Top Argument In Favor

No arguments in favor yet. Add one.

Top Argument Against

avatar
American Resident voted nay
Removes some of the safest ways for sex workers to earn money, pushing them further underground and increasing their chances of being victimized and killed
7 months ago •  Endorse

All Arguments

avatar
American Resident voted nay
Removes some of the safest ways for sex workers to earn money, pushing them further underground and increasing their chances of being victimized and killed
7 months ago •  Endorse
avatar
American Resident voted nay
Dangerous for sex workers
8 months ago •  Endorse
avatar
American Resident voted nay
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act created a legal structure that generally allows websites to host and moderate user-generated content without assuming liability for that content. This legal status quo has allowed free speech to flourish online. Together, H.R. 1865 and the Walters Amendment undermine the freedom of speech by creating carve-outs from Section 230, subjecting websites that host user content (Facebook, Twitter, Yelp, etc.) to substantial liability unless they’re able to continuously remove all illegal content—which is effectively impossible to do without expending considerable resources and censoring vast amounts of legitimate content. Forcing website owners into this position will significantly burden the rights of hosts and users, and it will imperil smaller or newer websites that simply lack the resources to moderate user content without the use of broad censorship.

H.R. 1865 also violates the Tenth Amendment by establishing a broad new federal crime for using or operating a website with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of someone else. The crime is not limited to the advertisement of sex trafficking victims, which is already illegal; it covers... show more
9 months ago •  Endorse
Ernest Hume voted nay on behalf of 1 person
Think we all agree on protecting sex traffic victims and punishing offenders. The problem is the wording of this law is somewhat ambiguous, as others have said, as to the responsibility of online sites/forums, that while not promoting sex trafficking could be used covertly as such and find themselves liable and subject to unjust civil/criminal liabilities. While the potential of such could simply increase due diligence to monitor and administer their sites to watch for such activities, it could also infringe on the expectations of users to a semblance of privacy through text/instant messaging, etc. Amend it to account for such or better yet, legalize prostitution country wide, regulate it, protect the non-victims/public, and tax it heavily. It will undercut the illegal traffickers and we can focus on protecting children from being victims. show more
9 months ago •  Endorse
Derek Martin voted nay on behalf of 1 person
You cannot force providers to be liable for the material that transits their networks or systems. I abhor trafficking and fight actively to prevent it, but this is not the way to do it.
9 months ago •  Endorse
Bob Alderman voted nay on behalf of 1 person
@ Andy Marinich - I agree. The title of the synopsis is missing something, a comma or two maybe, so we can figure out which word relates to what. The first sentence is a four-line paragraph with a fog count in the stratosphere. It seems designed to mislead. And on that basis, I vote no.
9 months ago •  Endorse
Andy Marinich voted nay on behalf of 1 person
I don't see anything in this bill that affirmatively protects victims. What I do see is the addition of complex legal language that allows those with money and power to avert the law.
9 months ago •  Endorse
Shawn McKinney voted nay on behalf of 1 person
Seems like another way to punish company A for something company B is doing.
9 months ago •  Endorse
avatar
American Resident voted nay
although i believe the law of solicitation to correct. it's like saying that people that make guns are responsible for what others do to them in computer terms and frankly you stay away from that. So no. I believe in equality of law. and this is not that. Troy*
9 months ago •  Endorse
Liquid

Liquid makes democracy smarter and more accountable.


But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.

As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.

President Thomas Jefferson

June 1816

Help