They're asking Congress to add two words to the CDA:
"Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation of children) of Title 18, or any other Federal or State criminal statute."
(Addition emphasized.)
This is in response to a W.D. Wash. decision that determined that the CDA preempted state criminal law. They're asking for it to be modified to say that the CDA does not preempt state criminal law.
Are there no other laws on the books state AGs can rely upon to facilitate investigation and prosecution of alleged criminal activity?
How exactly will holding one actor liable for the actions of a different actor increase the desired ends of further protecting and decreasing underage/illegal human trafficking?
How ought one defend the principle that service providers (and other third parties) are going to be required to interrogate everyone who posts an ad, violate their privacy, and work for free as surrogates for the criminal justice system to cover their ass? That burden seems awfully high.
If the goal is to stop underage sex trafficking, what is the argument for spending public time and money prosecuting alleged facilitators for the actions of those who are trafficking, instead of pursuing the criminals themselves, helped by the existing laws at investigators' disposal?
Are there not enough statutes criminalizing trafficking and other unwanted activity that can be enforced?
Do you find no problem at all with the letter stating that sites like backpage.com "have constructed their business models around income gained from participants in the sex trade"? From the standpoint of language, that sure appears to be playing rather loosely with words, suggesting that these business exist to facilitate sex trading, rather than recognizing they have constructed their business models around income gained from people placing classified ads, and that service is being [ab]used by sex traffickers, arguably against the providers' desires.
However, that is not the same as assessing whether this is a warranted change that ought to be made.
What the states are asking for is that clause be extended to state criminal law. Since criminal law is the primary province of the states, this is not an unreasonable request. Could states use this in a way that would invoke the parade of horribles you mention? Possibly, but remember states must still have personal jurisdiction over a defendant to extend their criminal laws (and simply making something available over the internet in a state does not count). If you think a state treats online hosts unfairly in its criminal laws, you can simply refuse to do business there.
Now it's our last line of defense? What the hell happened?
George Mason wept.
What else would anyone expect from a bunch of drug-war prosecutors?
This would be bad. People who operate ISPs/forums/etc. should oppose this attempt to change the law.
In particular, the Attorneys General are trying to shut down backpage.com (craigslist competitor) because some people use it to post smutty ads. But if the change they suggest were to be made, it would be open season to enforce any state law via attacks on the online services that people use.
