FOSTA – the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 – and SESTA – the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 are some likely unconstitutional, certainly unnecessary jackassery. While I agree with the EFF that this is terrible law, I don’t think it’s the end of the world.
(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.
By no plausible interpretation is Free Radical a website meant to “unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution” or “facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims”. I’ve never seen such a post in the fediverse, let alone one that originates on Free Radical, and it’s certainly not meant for that purpose any more than is any other general public forum.
(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.
Same as above. I have never and would never own, manage, or operate a website to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person. Regardless of whether prostitution should be illegal in the first place, it’s not something I’m going to directly participate in.
(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.
Again, I’m not going to be promoting or facilitating prostitution. Note that this is different from carrying traffic that may incidentally facilitate illegal activities. For example, I guarantee that people use Gmail to do illegal things. That’s not its designed or advertised for, though.
(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.
Key word: knowingly. I won’t be knowingly doing any of that stuff. I explicitly don’t read, monitor, analyze, or moderate all traffic flowing through the system. I don’t pretend to. I specifically don’t want to.
I side with the EFF that this is a bad idea and I oppose it. That said, I can’t imagine a plausible scenario where FOSTA/SESTA affects me – an American admin using American hosting resources – in any way. And if some dipshit prosecutor sees it otherwise, I’ll fight it. As an EFF member and friend to many a lawyer, I’m not going anywhere any time soon. These ridiculous bills won’t scare me away.
edit: Upon the excellent suggestion of a friend, I’ve added:
No solicitation of prostitution