CDA 230

Don’t Allow NAFTA to Undermine New Law Protecting Children from Sex Trafficking Online

Don’t Allow NAFTA to Undermine New Law Protecting Children from Sex Trafficking Online, 130 Advocates Tell U.S. Trade Rep

The new law that aims to combat child sex trafficking online could be undermined in the current NAFTA negotiations, according to a letter sent by 130 organizations and individuals to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. The group, led by anti-child trafficking organization ECPAT-USA, voiced concern that the tech community is trying to make an end run around the recently passed SESTA-FOSTA law (H.R. 1865).

On May 8, President Trump signed H.R. 1865, which ended websites’ ability to rely on a legal loophole in the law referred to as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996. The bill clarifies that websites may not rely on CDA 230 when they knowingly enable trafficking. In addition, the legislation adds a new tool for criminal prosecutors by expanding an existing federal prostitution statute to cover online sex trafficking.

Tech companies want the U.S. to include Section 230 without the FOSTA exception in the new NAFTA agreement. Such a provision may undermine the bipartisan legislative accomplishment in reforming blanket legal immunity for online platforms that aid child trafficking.

“We are putting our Trade Representative on notice not to bend to the tech lobbying community," said Carol Smolenski, Executive Director of ECPAT-USA. "SESTA-FOSTA passed with overwhelming support in both Houses of Congress. We are not going to turn a blind eye while the tech lobby undermines this new law via a trade deal.”

The letter was signed by 130 organizations and individuals from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.





Facts and Myths About SESTA

Carol Smolenski and Jason Matthews


The Bottom Line

The point that must be kept front and center in any discussion about SESTA (1) and its implications is that it is a debate about money—not freedom, not liberty, not the future of the internet or the safety of sex workers. A group of online websites were making money by knowingly aiding the sale of human beings, including children, on their sites. They were reluctant to stop this practice because it was highly profitable. SESTA changed the economic calculus for these companies, so many have shut down their adult personals sections, or gone out of business. Against this commercial priority, we believe there is another paramount one—the rights of vulnerable and exploited children, and the need to protect them.     

But unsurprisingly, entities with bottom lines at risk have been very vocal about spreading disinformation about what SESTA is and is not. We hope you will find this Facts & Myths document helpful in setting the record straight.


MYTH: SESTA is an attack on my First Amendment rights to free expression, and is a form of internet censorship.

FACT: SESTA does not implicate anyone’s free speech rights. SESTA concerns a victim’s right to bring a civil claim for damages against an online business. This is exactly the same sort of liability that every business in America faces. If a business harms someone, or even if they are injured accidentally on a business’ premises, an individual can bring a claim for damages against that business (2). For many years, internet companies have used an obscure provision of law to avoid civil liability for damages caused by or occurring on their websites. SESTA does not change the law for all those cases, but it does allow victims of human trafficking to seek civil damages against websites that allowed human trafficking (3).  


MYTH: The government ordered online personal ads to shut down.

FACT: Online personal ads remain entirely legal. SESTA takes no position on them at all. The bill expands a Federal criminal law concerning prostitution, and applies it to prostitution online (4).  However, websites have never been legally immune from criminal activity, only from the civil lawsuits brought by individual citizens. For trafficking victims at least, SESTA allows them the same rights of civil action against online businesses as citizens enjoy against brick and mortar businesses across the country.  Furthermore, trafficking children is not a form of free speech, neither is child pornography more generally. Criminal behavior is not, and never has been protected by the First Amendment (5).    


MYTH: Websites will now avoid moderating their sites for trafficking and other crimes.

FACT: As we have learned through the recent Congressional hearings with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, websites are monitoring our online behavior in great and particular detail. They do so because they are able to monetize the information they collect about us, and sell it to online advertisers. For many websites, including the largest internet giants, this is central to the model for how they make money (6). In all likelihood, websites will not alter their business model in any substantial way as a result of this law. And monitoring user behavior and then turning a blind eye to human trafficking is exactly what was occurring every day prior to SESTA’s passage.  


MYTH: SESTA will stifle innovation on the internet.

FACT: The internet is a global phenomenon with innovation occurring every day in every corner of the globe.  And yet, only the United States shields internet platforms from civil liability—not the UK, not Canada, not Japan, Korea, or a host of other countries around the world (7).  However, the internet continues to thrive there and elsewhere. Furthermore, blanket civil liability protection is not granted to any other sector of the U.S. economy, but that has in no way stifled innovation in other sectors. Commercial innovation tends to be driven by competition and customer expectations rather than the legal climate (8).  In any case, websites that facilitate the sale and rape of children are not an innovation that should be protected.      


MYTH: The Department of Justice’s closure of means we do not need SESTA.

FACT: did not start in the adult personal ad business.  When Craigslist closed its “adult services” section, which had been under legal scrutiny for its role in human trafficking, picked up where Craigslist left off.  And suddenly, which had once been a sleepy online element of the Village Voice in New York, became the second largest online classified website in the world, with the vast majority of its revenue coming from the adult classified  section (9).  Therefore, it is rational to conclude that the closure of one website, without a change in law, would just lead to a new “” just as the closure of the Craigslist adult section, spurred to get into the child trafficking business in the first place.


MYTH: SESTA is negatively affecting sex workers and making their work more difficult

FACT: This idea is based on the premise that there is a vast body of young women and men looking to become sex workers and that SESTA interferes with their chosen method of making a living (10).  While acknowledging that there is a very small segment of society that enters sex work with their eyes wide open, and in the absence of coercion, we have several real world examples that demonstrate otherwise. One state—Nevada—has  legalized prostitution and regulated brothels. If there are legions of young women and men looking to earn a living from sex work, human trafficking should be rare in Nevada, because people can earn a living in sex work in a regulated and legal environment there (11).  Just the opposite is true. In spite of the fact that Nevada has eight counties with legalized brothels,  human trafficking remains a huge problem for the state. Las Vegas is the 6th highest ranked city in the nation in terms of calls to the National Trafficking Hotline, it ranks 5th on a per capita basis (12). In fact, Nevada is amongst the worst states in the nation for human trafficking, and in spite of media portrayals, Nevada law enforcement reports that most of the girls they arrest are from local communities (13). Of course, it is not just Nevada. Amsterdam, known worldwide for its red light district and legalized prostitution, has also become a hotbed for human trafficking. Tragically, here too, local Dutch children are often the victims (14). The reason is simple.  Whatever percentage of the prostitution trade is composed of voluntary sex workers, it is far outmatched by demand. And one way the gap is filled is through the exploitation of vulnerable children.


MYTH: This is a victimless crime. Why is the government involved in regulating a financial transaction?

FACT: While studies are insufficient, most experts put the average age of a person entering prostitution between 12 and 15 (15). There is no real dispute that thousands of children are forcibly sexually exploited as prostitutes (16).  The world now recognizes that  minor children are not developmentally prepared to consent to sex work (17).  Advocacy groups often refer to a positive picture of  college students working their way through school, suggesting that prostitution in the United States is largely a voluntary activity (18). This illusion ignores the sexual exploitation of children.  Any review of research about the lives of sex workers reveals that for the vast majority of them, the “choice” one makes to sell sex occurs in a context of having no other options for survival (19).


MYTH: Some children, especially LGBTQ youth, leave abusive homes or are thrown out and therefore they need to sell sex to survive.  

FACT: It is undoubtedly true that economic hardship makes kids vulnerable to grooming techniques by pimps and traffickers (20). But it is beyond reprehensible that the wealthiest society in the world has responded to the economic insecurity of vulnerable children with a collective shrug. It is functionally saying that if a child is poor, it’s fine if they wind up in prostitution. And contrary to the Hollywood fiction of films like Pretty Woman, there is no Cinderella ending for these kids. There are well-documented, long term consequences for the victims’ mental and physical health, their possibility of completing their education, their reunification with their families and their long-term economic well being (21). Thus, to surrender children to this lifestyle is to abandon them to lifelong poverty and trauma.


MYTH: Sex workers need online sites to help screen dangerous johns.

FACT: Prostitution remains incredibly dangerous in this country and around the world.  Comprehensive studies indicate that the mortality rate for a female prostitute is 51 times higher than the next most dangerous occupation -- working in a liquor store (22).  The reasons for this extraordinarily high mortality rate are homicide and drug overdoses (23). While some prostitute and escort services might keep lists of buyers who they refuse to serve, this does very little to diminish the danger overall.  Anonymity is the hallmark of prostitution. People in the industry rarely know the john’s real or full name, and vice versa. An online blacklist may deflect a john from a particular sex site, but that only makes it more likely that he will find a trafficking victim who has no choice in whom they service.  These vetting lists offer at best a false sense of security, and at worst, an excuse to allow for the sexual exploitation of children online.


For more information about SESTA and how to combat child trafficking see:

End Notes

  1. The legislation that was taken up and passed with actually H.R. 1865, called the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act or FOSTA. H.R. 1865, was amended and merged with the original Senate bill, SESTA. As most commentators refer to the bill as SESTA we follow that convention here.  
  2. Andrew Suszek, When Can A Business Be Sued For Personal Injury — ALLLAW.COM

  3. Pub. L. 115-164 Sec. 4a et. seq.

  4. Pub. L. 115-164 Sec. 3a

  5. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

  6. Hope King, Facebook is Making More Money Off You Than Ever — CNN.COM

  7. Markham C. Erickson & Sarah K. Leggin, Exporting Internet Law through International Trade Agreements: Recalibrating US Trade Policy in the Digital Age, 24 Cath. Univ. J. of Law & Tech. 345 et. seq.

  8. Dr. Sridhar Balasubramanian, Insights Into Innovation: Why Companies Must Innovate, UNC Kenan-Flagler News, March 22nd, 2013.

  9. Emma Brazilian, Village Voice Media Sheds Prostitution Hub — Adweek, September 24, 2012.

  10. For a prime example of this type of thinking, see Chris Hall, Is One of the Most-Cited Statistics About Sex Work Wrong?, The Atlantic, September 5th, 2014.

  11. Barbara Brents & Kathryn Hausbeck, State-Sanctioned Sex: Negotiating Formal and Informal Regulatory Practices in Nevada Brothels, 44 Soc. Persp. 307, 324 (2001).

  12. Polaris, Ranking of the 100 Most Populous US Cities 2007-2016,

  13. Nevada Among Worst States for Human Trafficking, Public News Service, January 4th 2016.

  14. Anthony Deutsch, At least 1,300 Dutch Girls per year Trafficked, Exploited — Reuters, October 18th, 2017.

  15. Ric Curtis &  Karen Terry, The Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in New York City, Vol I, John Jay College, Center for Court Innovation, September 2008

  16. Ibid.

  17. UN Convention Against Transnational Crime, Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, Article 3(a) et seq. 2004.

  18. Andrea Di Nicola & Andrea Cauduro (ed.), Prostitution and Human Trafficking: Focus on Clients, Springer 2009.

  19. Elise White, et al, Navigating Force and Choice: Experiences in the New York City Sex Trade and the Criminal Justice System’s Response. Center for Court Innovation, February 2018.

  20. Holly Yzquierdo, Signs Your Teen is Being Groomed by Sex Traffickers — Catholic Charities and Community Services, December 30th 2015.

  21. Sarah Gonzalez Bocinski, The Economic Drivers and Consequences of Sex Trafficking in the United States, IWPR #B369 September 27, 2017.

  22. John J. Potterat  & Devon D. Brewer, Mortality in a Long-term Open Cohort of Prostitute Women, 159 Am. Journal of Epidemiology 8, April 15th, 2004.

  23. Ibid.

House Authors of FOSTA-SESTA Thank ECPAT-USA and Others

House Authors of FOSTA-SESTA Thank ECPAT-USA and Others

On March 6, 2018, Congresswoman Ann Wagner, joined by Congresswomen Joyce Beatty, Mimi Walters, and Carolyn Maloney, thanked ECPAT-USA and other leading advocacy organizations for their their input and expertise as the House considered H.R. 1865, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act. The Congresswoman also directed the letter to the more than 100 organizations that sent the February 26 support letter to Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi.  

ECPAT-USA Endorses House Floor Vote

This afternoon in a floor vote of 388 to 25, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1865 the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act or (FOSTA). The bill reported out of the Judiciary Committee was strengthened by an amendment by Rep. Mimi Walters (R-CA) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). This crucial amendment to the original bill by Rep. Ann Wagner, restores trafficking victims’ rights to pursue websites like for their role in human trafficking. The amendment also brings the House legislation more closely in line with the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act (SESTA) legislation in the Senate, which has garnered 66 cosponsors and awaits a vote by the full Senate.  

“This has been a long journey for these victims. They have fought for years in the courts, and they have have spent years in the halls of Congress trying to get justice. This bill is a giant step forward for them and we will keep fighting until the President signs it into law.” — Carol Smolenski, Executive Director ECPAT-USA

ECPAT USA has been an early advocate for trafficking victims seeking their day in court. These efforts have been repeatedly stymied by websites relying on a loophole in the law referred to as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Federal Courts have called on the Congress to provide clarity to the law, and that is what the House has done today.

"For a very long time, Backpage has been making a tremendous profit from sexual abuse of countless women and children. It is imperative that Backpage is held accountable for its nefarious actions—that is justice for its victims." — Iryna, Survivor-advocate



ECPAT-USA is the leading policy organization in the United States seeking to end the commercial, sexual exploitation of children through awareness, advocacy, policy, and legislation. ECPAT-USA is a member of the ECPAT International network, with offices in 93 countries. For more information, visit

Legislative Update on Section 230 Reform

Legislative Update on Section 230 Reform

Up until now, there have been two competing bills one in the Senate called Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) and the other in House, called Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act or FOSTA. The original bills took different approaches, but they ultimately ended up at the same place. They both allowed the victims of human trafficking to sue websites that knowingly assisted in the crime.  

The Mann Act: Or How is a 107 Year Old Law Suddenly Relevant to Online Sex Trafficking?

The Mann Act:  Or How is a 107 Year Old Law Suddenly Relevant to Online Sex Trafficking?

The Congress has been making important progress in reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 is the provision that provides legal protection to websites like, which facilitate the sale of children online. Congress has introduced two bills—SESTA in the Senate (Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act) and FOSTA (Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act) in the House. The two bills take different approaches in crafting a legislative solution, but the core of what they seek to do is similar. Both bills have enjoyed broad-based, and bipartisan support, and both bills have made real progress in moving through the legislative process this year.  

Celebrities Lend Their Voices to Fight Sex Trafficking Online

Celebrities Lend Their Voices to Fight Sex Trafficking Online

In a new public service announcement, Amy Schumer, Seth Meyers, AnnaLynne McCord, and other public figures lend their voices to fight sex trafficking online. The new PSA underscores the urgency to pass pending legislation that would allow trafficking victims to seek the justice they deserve.

The Case for Reform of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

Before Congress adjourned for its annual August recess, over 20 U.S. Senators introduced S.1693 the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017. This bill is the culmination of two years of intense investigation into the website Backpage and companies like it that are known to facilitate the sexual exploitation of children and adults.  

Led by Senators Portman (R-OH) and Blumenthal (D-CT) this bill would make three streamlined clarifications to the Communications Decency Act, to make anti-trafficking laws easier to apply to internet service providers. The legislation would allow victims of sex trafficking to seek justice against websites that knowingly facilitated human trafficking and child exploitation. It would eliminate special federal legal protections for websites who are assisting in the violation of federal sex trafficking laws, and it enables state law officials to take action against internet businesses violating federal sex trafficking laws.   

The focus of this bill is a seemingly innocuous provision of the Communications Decency Act (CDA)  of 1996. It prevents internet service providers from being treated as the “publisher” of information provided by an internet service user. “Publisher”, in this context, is a legal term used in cases involving slander and libel. Federal courts have taken this provision to provide near blanket immunity to anything internet service providers do—including aiding and abetting in the sale of children on the Internet.     

The CDA was passed by the Congress to limit sexually explicit material. It has been perverted by lower court decisions to actually protect the very thing it was designed to stop. Section 230 of the CDA was designed by Congress to encourage computer service providers in the 1990s to “police themselves” as regulators could not do it all. Instead of self-policing, Section 230 has now been used to create an atmosphere of lawlessness with websites actively enabling child sexual exploitation. In direct contradiction to its intent, courts have interpreted one provision of the Communications Decency Act to protect online businesses like Backpage, whose whole business model subverts public decency. Representative Bob Goodlatte was one of the primary authors of the Section 230 provision. He is now a co-sponsor to amend the law, to make clear to the Federal Courts that they are misinterpreting Congressional intent.  

The Tech industry opposes these amendments and cloaks itself in Free Speech, claiming Section 230 has made the modern internet possible. The world of technology is radically different today than it was 21 years ago. If nascent internet startups needed sweeping protection from litigation to thrive, that can’t possibly be argued now. Facebook is now a Fortune 100 Company, and rated #3 for fastest growing companies in America for 2017. When the CDA passed in 1996, there were 12 million Americans subscribed to services like Prodigy. Now billions of people are online every day engaging in commerce and activity that was unthinkable at the time the law passed.

Abusers and criminals get free speech, victims have to spend their lives trying to retreat from the internet. They get no speech at all. With the formation of “cyber mobs” generated by notorious hate groups who seek to harass and threaten people defending social justice, Section 230 is now actually impeding free speech.  

Online companies are using Section 230 as a shield to avoid laws that businesses with a physical presence must comply with. Online companies are using Section 230 to unfair commercial advantage. As it stands, if you publish a physical magazine and you fill it with child sexual abuse imagery (child porn) you will be subject to enormous civil and criminal liability. It does not make sense that we have one standard for the physical world, and another for the cyber one. The existence of libel and defamation laws for newspapers and magazines has not resulted in some great restriction on speech or limited innovation in publishing. All forms of publishing flourish in this country, expressing every viewpoint and every interest.

At this stage, the internet is not that fragile, nor is its future threatened. It seems more likely that the tech community’s defense is about something else than freedom and innovation. It seems much more likely that this is about bottom line decision making, and a disregard for human harm over immediate profits.  

Section 230 was expressly designed to protect Good Samaritans. We should insist the courts stop protecting the bad samaritans. This will not harm the Googles and Facebooks of the world. They already have robust policies to prevent abuse. But it will ensnare sites like Backpage, which were designed to aid and abet child sexual exploitation.