Lawmakers and tech and civil liberties groups appear to have dug in their heels, possibly putting compromise out of reach on a Senate bill that would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in an effort to curb online sex trafficking. "We did our due diligence, met with the tech community on a bipartisan basis for months and yet they offered no constructive feedback. We’re happy to continue the dialogue, but the claims we’ve heard from some in the tech community about this narrowly-crafted bill are absurd," said a spokesman for Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio., who introduced the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) last week. He said more co-sponsors are expected after the August break. Nineteen Republicans, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and eight Democrats, including Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., are signed onto S-1963.
Civil society organizations, think tanks and a major tech association pressed Capitol Hill lawmakers Thursday not to move ahead with the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (S-1693), which the groups say will produce an onslaught of "frivolous" lawsuits and discourage intermediaries from policing their sites because the legislation is so broad (see 1708020019 and 1708010011). In a Thursday letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Access Now, R Street Institute, TechFreedom and eight other groups said Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act "need not be treated as sacrosanct" but rushing through amendments such as attaching them to the National Defense Authorization Act "would be a mistake of historic proportions." They said it should go through the committee process and get public input. CTA President Gary Shapiro, in a Wednesday letter to Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., co-chairs of the Senate Caucus to End Human Trafficking, cited the same reasons for opposing the proposal. He urged Congress to press DOJ to go after "rogue websites" violating the law as the tech industry works to prevent sex trafficking.
Tech trade groups said more action is needed to stop sex trafficking and hold companies like Backpage.com accountable (see 1701100001), but that Senate legislation amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (see 1708010011) would "severely undermine a crucial protection for legitimate online companies." In a Wednesday letter to Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., among the 20 senators who introduced the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act the previous day, the 10 associations said Section 230 encourages "positive legal behavior" and doesn't shield companies from liability of federal crimes, including prosecution for human trafficking. But the bill would have a "devastating impact on legitimate online services" without meaningfully stopping trafficking crimes and, instead, generate "frivolous litigation targeting legitimate, law-abiding intermediaries," the consortium said. The groups -- including Computer and Communications Industry Association, Internet Association and Software & Information Industry Association -- said Congress should work with DOJ to prioritize prosecutions, target rogue sites and coordinate international enforcement. CTA President Gary Shapiro agreed that amending Section 230 would "create a trial lawyer bonanza of overly-broad civil lawsuits," saying DOJ has tools to go after traffickers. CCIA Vice President-Law and Policy Matthew Schruers told us Tuesday the tech industry plans to educate Congress about member companies' fighting trafficking including an estimated more than 100,000 content moderators who try to flag illegal activities. He said information about bad actors and content and misconduct also are shared among firms, and there's cooperation with law enforcement and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. "There's a great deal of interest in stamping out [bad actors] simply because your brand depends on doing so," he said.
A bipartisan Senate bill aimed at curbing online child sex trafficking by amending Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, considered a foundation in expanding the U.S. internet economy, will have an uphill battle, predicted technology and civil society advocates who say there's a better approach. They said Tuesday that fighting online trafficking is needed, but the legislation is too broad and would have unintended consequences.
A lawsuit against Twitter for allegedly allowing ISIS to use its network for extremist ideology, leading to deaths of two American contractors, threatens the company's and internet users' free speech rights and is prohibited by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), said two civil liberties groups, a tech think tank and major industry organization in amicus filings to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Democracy and Technology, Internet Association (in Pacer) and the Copia Institute (in Pacer) filed briefs in Tamara Fields v. Twitter. The families of two U.S. government contractors killed in a 2015 ISIS attack in Jordan sued Twitter last year in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for "knowingly" permitting ISIS to use the company's platform "for spreading extremist propaganda, raising funds and attracting new recruits," they said in an amended complaint (in Pacer). "Without Twitter, the explosive growth of ISIS over the last few years into the most feared terrorist group in the world would not have been possible," they said, adding the number of the group's Twitter accounts have grown at an "astonishing rate" since 2010. They accused Twitter of not doing anything to prevent ISIS from using its platform and of giving the group "material support" by allowing members to sign up for accounts. In a November decision (in Pacer), District Judge William Orrick said he dismissed an initial complaint because it was barred by CDA and then the amended complaint because "no amount of careful pleading can change the fact that, in substance, plaintiffs aim to hold Twitter liable as a publisher or speaker of ISIS’s hateful rhetoric, and that such liability is barred by the CDA."
Anti-child sex trafficking and public interest groups Wednesday reported (see 1705160078) that Google funded groups and individuals that defended Backpage.com, which has been sued by sex-trafficking victims and was the subject of a nearly two-yearlong government investigation. "Legal scholars and groups supported by Google have written letters and amicus briefs in support," reported Consumer Watchdog, DeliverFund, Faith and Freedom Coalition, The Rebecca Project and Trafficking in America Task Force. "More than half of the 42 signatories of a letter opposing a bill to tackle online child trafficking -- 22 in all -- were either directly funded by Google, or worked at institutions that were funded by the company." The groups seek to change Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is designed to protect website operators from lawsuits arising out of third-party content. The report said the Center for Democracy & Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation defended Section 230 and benefited from Google's funding. Like other internet companies, Google has "long contributed" to organizations like CDT and EFF for their advocacy of privacy, surveillance reform and the open Internet and related issues, a company spokeswoman said. "We will continue to use our technology to combat the tragedy of child sex trafficking, will continue our significant funding of organizations that combat this crime, and maintain our zero-tolerance approach to ads for this illegal activity.” EFF has defended Section 230 "practically since the inception of our organization because it's essential to free speech on the Internet," emailed Legal Director Corynne McSherry. "The suggestion that our advocacy is at the behest of any one organization is ludicrous." CDT didn't comment. Backpage.com has been at the center of Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations probe, which issued a report in January saying the company knowingly facilitated prostitution and child sex trafficking and edited content to conceal evidence (see 1701100001).
Advocacy groups will report Wednesday about Google's support for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which they said protects "notorious hub of child sex trafficking, Backpage.com, from any accountability," said Consumer Watchdog Tuesday. CW, the Faith & Freedom Coalition, Rebecca Project, Trafficking in America Task Force and "Nacole S.," the mother of a trafficking victim will urge tech companies to back a change in Section 230 -- which is designed to protect website operators from lawsuits arising out of third-party content -- that will permit families of trafficking victims to hold accountable websites that aid and abet child sex traffickers. Google didn't immediately respond. Nacole S.'s daughter sued Backpage.com in 2014 with two other victims, saying the company engaged in sex trafficking of minors in violation of the federal 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and the Massachusetts version (see 1603180035). In January, Nacole S. testified before the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, probing the online classified advertiser for 20 months at the time. Backpage.com executives were said to have knowingly facilitated prostitution and child sex trafficking and edited content to conceal evidence (see 1701100001). The 1 p.m. EDT news conference can be viewed via Facebook.
FARMINGTON, Pa. -- Cable and telco officials and critics disputed privacy and net neutrality at an FCBA seminar Saturday. There were sharp differences over the FCC 2015 open internet and Title II broadband reclassification order and its 2016 broadband privacy order, and over recent Republican moves and proposals to roll them back. There was some agreement that common ground could be found on open internet rules, that much of the fight is over FCC authority under the Communications Act, and that a legislative fix is needed but difficult.
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., will be interviewed by Internet Association President Michael Beckerman in a live-streamed event Tuesday at 6 p.m. EDT. An IA spokesman said issues likely to be discussed include Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, copyright and digital trade, in addition to questions from online viewers. The event is billed as a fundraiser for Wyden, who was re-elected last year to his fourth full Senate term.
An attorney for Dawn Hassell's law firm, which sued a former client for a "defamatory" review posted on Yelp, said Yelp's challenge to a California court order to remove the comment doesn't stand on solid ground. "Contrary to what appears to be a chorus of misinformed voices, this case is not a First Amendment case and does not threaten the structure or purpose of the Communications Decency Act," emailed Duckworth Peters attorney Monique Olivier Wednesday, referring to Hassell v. Bird. "Instead, it presents a narrow issue: what remedy does a party have to stop the republication of statements that have been adjudicated by a court of law -- after review of an evidentiary record -- to be false and defamatory. The First Amendment does not protect lies, whether in a print publication or an anonymous internet bulletin board. No constitutional interest is advanced by such a notion." Olivier represents Hassell, who sued Ava Bird in 2013 for posting what Hassell said is a defamatory review. Yelp wasn't party to the suit but Hassell, who won the case by default judgment, asked a state court to enter an order to have both Bird and Yelp remove the content. Yelp challenged the order but the California Court of Appeal last year upheld it. The company appealed to the California Supreme Court. In recent days, major civil society, media and tech organizations rallied around Yelp, filing amici briefs (see 1704180017) saying the company is protected by the First Amendment and from liability through Section 230 of CDA. They argued Yelp also wasn't given due process rights since it wasn't party to the lawsuit.