3 ms·

I'm not thrilled with EFF's response. I don't necessarily think it's hysterical, but it certainly reads as a bit too extreme an interpretation, injecting unveri

I'm not thrilled with EFF's response. I don't necessarily think it's hysterical, but it certainly reads as a bit too extreme an interpretation, injecting unverifiable malice where legitimate interest in protecting people and prosecuting criminal activity likely resides. 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.

rayiner 13y ago
It is nothing other than hysterical. The whole gamut of possible consequences you mentioned are already possible, because the CDA already contains a clause saying it shall not be construed to prevent the enforcement of any federal criminal law. The federal government can already do all the things you claim they might do (but largely doesn't). 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.

rayiner 13y ago

It is nothing other than hysterical. The whole gamut of possible consequences you mentioned are already possible, because the CDA already contains a clause saying it shall not be construed to prevent the enforcement of any federal criminal law. The federal government can already do all the things you claim they might do (but largely doesn't). 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.