House Passes FOSTA Online Sex Trafficking Bill
The House passed the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (HR-1865) Tuesday evening on a 388-25 vote. The House approved a trio of amendments supported by lead sponsor Rep. Ann Wagner, R-Mo., amid continued opposition by some tech, privacy and open internet proponents to the possible changes. The amendments included one from Rep. Mimi Walters, R-Calif., to include language from the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (S-1693), which the House cleared on a 308-107 vote. Both bills would amend Communications Decency Act Section 230 to make it easier to bring criminal charges against websites that knowingly facilitate or promote sex trafficking. Opponents of adding the S-1693 language say HR-1865's existing language is a more targeted approach (see 1801040050).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The House approved the other two amendments on voice votes. One made “technical” changes to HR-1865's language from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, also successfully attached an amendment that would request the GAO study civil damages and restitution orders in cases involving online sex trafficking.
House floor debate on HR-1865, like House Rules' hearing on the bill, largely supported enacting the measure. HR-1865 would “ensure that websites that unlawfully contribute to the rexploitation of sex trafficking victims are no longer immune to punishment,” said Rep. Martha Roby, R-Ala., a co-sponsor of the legislation. HR-1865 “makes it clear” that Section 230 “was never intended to protect the facilitation of online prostitution or sex trafficking and calls out those websites that have acted recklessly in allowing” such activities to occur, said Jackson Lee, who also spoke in favor of the bill at the House Rules hearing.
Lofgren opposed the Walters amendment, saying including S-1693's language would “carve a hole” in Section 230 and make it actually more difficult than the underlying bill to prosecute traffickers online.” Wagner defended the amendment, saying it “reinstates critical pro-victim provisions” from the original text of HR-1865. “We should not allow big tech money and special interests” to “override our criminal justice system,” she said: S-1693 and HR-1865 “are two sides of the same coin and they must pass together. We need both criminal and civil tools” to effectively combat online sex trafficking. The Goodlatte and Jackson Lee amendments got unanimous support.
Tech and privacy groups from across the political spectrum urged the House Tuesday to vote down Walters' proposed addition of the S-1693 language. “The process failure here is astounding: conjoining two fundamentally incompatible bills on the House floor will harm the very people lawmakers are trying to protect,” TechFreedom and Engine said. HR-1865 “was carefully crafted by [House Judiciary], while [S-1693] has not been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee in either chamber. Combating sex trafficking is fundamentally a law enforcement problem and demands law enforcement expertise.” CTA President Gary Shapiro said an amended HR-1865 “should not be voted on by the House until [House Judiciary] has thoroughly reviewed it. This is highly complex legislation with significant legal implications. Deviating from regular order to rush through this bill on an artificial timetable without review could inadvertently harm lawful American entrepreneurs, small businesses and our world-leading internet economy.”
Others supported including S-1693's language in HR-1865, including Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg. IBM Vice President-Government and Regulatory Affairs Christopher Padilla also wrote House leaders in support of the changes, saying the company backs “limited, controlled exceptions to the CDA immunity provision that will help policy makers, law enforcement and victims combat this kind of illicit and criminal activity on the internet.”