Editing Communications Decency Act (section)

==Section 230==
{{Main|Section 230}}

Section 230 of title 47 of the U.S. Code, a codification of the Communications Act of 1934 (added by Section 9 of the Communications Decency Act / Section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) was not part of the original Senate legislation, but was added in conference with the [[United States House of Representatives|House]], where it had been separately introduced by [[United States House of Representatives|Representatives]] [[Christopher Cox]] and [[Ron Wyden]] as the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act and passed by a near-unanimous vote on the floor. It added protection for online service providers and users from actions against them based on third-party content, stating in part, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Effectively, this section immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts others commit on their websites or online forums, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving notice of the harmful or offensive content.<ref>
{{Citation
  | last=Myers
  | first=Ken S.
  | title=Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia
  | newspaper=[[Harvard Journal of Law & Technology]]
  | volume=20
  | pages=163
  | date=Fall 2006
  | ssrn=916529}}
</ref>

Through the so-called Good Samaritan provision, this section also protects ISPs from liability for restricting access to certain material or giving others the technical means to restrict access to that material.

On July 23, 2013, the attorneys general of 47 states sent Congress a letter requesting that the criminal and civil immunity in section 230 be removed. The ACLU wrote of the proposal, "If Section 230 is stripped of its protections, it wouldn't take long for the vibrant culture of free speech to disappear from the web."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-proposal-could-singlehandedly-cripple|title=New Proposal Could Singlehandedly Cripple Free Speech Online|publisher=American Civil Liberties Union|access-date=2016-12-04|archive-date=2015-04-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150401120427/https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-proposal-could-singlehandedly-cripple|url-status=live}}</ref>

===FOSTA-SESTA===

[[Ann Wagner]] introduced the [[Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act|Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act]] (FOSTA) in the U.S. House of Representatives in April 2017. [[Rob Portman]] introduced the similar [[Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act]] (SESTA) in the U.S. Senate in August 2017. The combined FOSTA-SESTA package passed the House on February 27, 2018, with a vote of 388–25<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/02/27/house-passes-anti-online-sex-trafficking-bill-allows-targeting-of-websites-like-backpage-com/|title=House passes anti-online sex trafficking bill, allows targeting of websites like Backpage.com|first=Tom|last=Jackman|date=February 27, 2018|newspaper=The Washington Post|access-date=April 9, 2018|archive-date=April 7, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180407182535/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/02/27/house-passes-anti-online-sex-trafficking-bill-allows-targeting-of-websites-like-backpage-com/|url-status=live}}</ref> and the Senate on March 21, 2018, with a vote of 97–2.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00060|title=U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 115th Congress - 2nd Session|website=www.senate.gov|access-date=2018-04-09|archive-date=2018-04-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180413151009/https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=2&vote=00060|url-status=live}}</ref> President [[Donald Trump]] signed the package into law on April 11, 2018.<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/us/backpage-sex-trafficking.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-3&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article |title=Trump Signs Bill Amid Momentum to Crack Down on Trafficking |author=Elizabeth Dias |work=New York Times |date=2018-04-11 |access-date=2018-04-11 |language=en |archive-date=2018-04-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180412003103/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/us/backpage-sex-trafficking.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-3&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2018/04/06/doj-seizes-backpage-com-weeks-after-congress-passes-sex-trafficking-law/#6e55a89750ba |title=DOJ Seizes Backpage.com Weeks After Congress Passes Sex Trafficking Law |author=Larry Magid |work=Forbes |date=2018-04-06 |access-date=2018-04-08 |language=en |archive-date=2018-04-08 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180408051549/https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2018/04/06/doj-seizes-backpage-com-weeks-after-congress-passes-sex-trafficking-law/#6e55a89750ba |url-status=live }}</ref>

The bill makes it illegal to knowingly assist, facilitate, or support sex trafficking, and amends the Communications Decency Act's section 230 safe harbors (which make online services immune from civil liability for their users' actions) to exclude enforcement of federal or state sex trafficking laws from immunity. The intent is to provide serious legal consequences for websites that profit from sex trafficking and give prosecutors tools to protect their communities and give victims a pathway to justice.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 |title=H.R.1865 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017 |first=Wagner |last=Ann |date=March 21, 2018 |website=www.congress.gov |access-date=April 9, 2018 |archive-date=April 8, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180408082712/https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865 |url-status=live }}</ref>

The bills were criticized by pro-free speech and pro-Internet groups as a "disguised internet censorship bill" that weakens the section 230 safe harbors, places unnecessary burdens on internet companies and intermediaries that handle user-generated content or communications, with service providers required to proactively take action against sex trafficking activities, and requires lawyers to evaluate all possible scenarios under state and federal law (which may be financially unfeasible for smaller companies).<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-opposing-sesta|title=ACLU letter opposing SESTA|work=American Civil Liberties Union|access-date=2018-03-25|language=en|archive-date=2018-03-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324175718/https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-opposing-sesta|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.new.swopusa.org/2017/08/11/call-to-actionpress-release-swop-usa-stands-in-direct-opposition-of-disguised-internet-censorship-bill-sesta-s-1963-call-your-state-representatives-and-tell-them-to-fight/|title=SWOP-USA stands in opposition of disguised internet censorship bill SESTA, S. 1963|publisher=Sex Workers Outreach Project|access-date=2017-10-23|language=en-US|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171024095814/http://www.new.swopusa.org/2017/08/11/call-to-actionpress-release-swop-usa-stands-in-direct-opposition-of-disguised-internet-censorship-bill-sesta-s-1963-call-your-state-representatives-and-tell-them-to-fight/|archive-date=2017-10-24|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/11/16637774/wikipedia-sesta-serious-concerns-section-230-internet|title=Wikipedia warns that SESTA will strip away protections vital to its existence|work=The Verge|access-date=2018-03-08|archive-date=2018-03-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180309054413/https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/11/16637774/wikipedia-sesta-serious-concerns-section-230-internet|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="verge-proxyfight">{{cite news|url=https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/14/16308066/sex-trafficking-bill-sesta-google-cda-230|title=Sex trafficking bill is turning into a proxy war over Google|work=The Verge|access-date=2017-09-20|archive-date=2017-09-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170921045757/https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/14/16308066/sex-trafficking-bill-sesta-google-cda-230|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tech-community-fighting-online-sex-trafficking-bill-over-fears-it-will-stifle-innovation/article/2634402|title=Tech community fighting online sex trafficking bill over fears it will stifle innovation|last=Quinn|first=Melissa|work=Washington Examiner|access-date=2017-09-20|language=en|archive-date=2017-09-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170919142831/http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tech-community-fighting-online-sex-trafficking-bill-over-fears-it-will-stifle-innovation/article/2634402|url-status=live}}</ref>  Online sex workers argued that the bill would harm their safety, as the platforms they use to offer and discuss their services (as an alternative to [[street prostitution]]) had begun to reduce their services or shut down entirely because of the bill's threat of liability.<ref>{{Cite magazine|url=https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/controversial-anti-sex-trafficking-bill-screw-over-sex-workers-w518323|title=How a New Senate Bill Will Screw Over Sex Workers|magazine=Rolling Stone|access-date=2018-03-25|archive-date=2018-03-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180324180235/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/controversial-anti-sex-trafficking-bill-screw-over-sex-workers-w518323|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/sex-workers-fear-for-their-future-how-sesta-is-putting-many-prostitutes-in-peril|title=Sex Workers Fear for Their Future: How SESTA Is Putting Many Prostitutes in Peril|last=Zimmerman|first=Amy|date=2018-04-04|work=The Daily Beast|access-date=2018-04-07|language=en|archive-date=2018-04-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180407080216/https://www.thedailybeast.com/sex-workers-fear-for-their-future-how-sesta-is-putting-many-prostitutes-in-peril|url-status=live}}</ref> Since FOSTA-SESTA passed, sex workers have reported economic instability and increases in violence, as had been predicted.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Blunt |first1=Danielle |title=Erased: The Impact of FOSTA/SESTA and the Removal of Backpage |url=https://hackinghustling.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Erased_Updated.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200308114239/https://hackinghustling.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Erased_Updated.pdf |archive-date=2020-03-08 |url-status=live |publisher=Hacking-Hustling |access-date=August 5, 2020}}</ref>