>Two, what the heck does "knowingly facilitate" mean? Is it enough to know that, in the abstract, your service is used to facilitate sex trafficking? One would

>Two, what the heck does "knowingly facilitate" mean? Is it enough to know that, in the abstract, your service is used to facilitate sex trafficking? One would hope that the courts interpret this to mean that the defendant knew that a specific act (e.g., accepting a specific ad) would facilitate a violation but still performed this act. (Or maybe the courts could simply declare the amendment void for vagueness.) Unfortunately it will probably take expensive lawsuits to resolve this. >Because its guaranteed that services like gmail are used to facilitate sex trafficking. Since 18 USC 1591(e) isn't limited to online services, one can even go further and show that a "knowledge in the abstract" standard would catch even electricity providers.