Did Facebook Violate SESTA By Promoting Child Abuse Videos?

from the maybe-rethink-that-support,-sheryl dept

Facebook — and Sheryl Sandberg in particular — have been the most vocal supporters of SESTA. Sandberg wrote a bizarre Facebook post supporting the horrible SESTA/FOSTA Frankenstein bill the day it was voted on in the House. In it, she wrote:

I care deeply about this issue and I?m so thankful to all the advocates who are fighting tirelessly to make sure we put a stop to trafficking while helping victims get the support they need. Facebook is committed to working with them and with legislators in the House and Senate as the process moves forward to make sure we pass meaningful and strong legislation to stop sex trafficking.

Which is weird, given that the bill does nothing to actually stop sex trafficking, but it does place potentially criminal liability on any internet site that knowingly facilitates sex trafficking. Like… say… Facebook. You see, last week, there was a bit of a kerfuffle when Facebook suddenly started pushing horrific child abuse videos on its users.

The social network?s search suggestions, which are supposed to automatically offer the most popular search terms to users, apparently broke around 4am in the UK, and started to suggest unpleasant results for those who typed in ?video of?.

Multiple users posted examples on Twitter, with the site proposing searches including ?video of girl sucking dick under water?, ?videos of sexuals? and ?video of little girl giving oral?. Others reported similar results in other languages.

While Facebook has since apologized for this and claimed that it is committed to taking down such content, how hard would it be for someone to make a case that the company had just engaged in pushing child pornography on unsuspecting users, and there could be a credible claim that many of the videos involved victims of sex trafficking.

And, of course, this comes right after another possibly SESTA-violating fiasco at Facebook in which the company sent out a survey about whether the site should allow adult men to ask for sexual pictures of teenaged girls. No, really.

On Sunday, the social network ran a survey for some users asking how they thought the company should handle grooming behaviour. ?There are a wide range of topics and behaviours that appear on Facebook,? one question began. ?In thinking about an ideal world where you could set Facebook?s policies, how would you handle the following: a private message in which an adult man asks a 14-year-old girl for sexual pictures.?

The options available to respondents ranged from ?this content should not be allowed on Facebook, and no one should be able to see it? to ?this content should be allowed on Facebook, and I would not mind seeing it?.

A second question asked who should decide the rules around whether or not the adult man should be allowed to ask for such pictures on Facebook. Options available included ?Facebook users decide the rules by voting and tell Facebook? and ?Facebook decides the rules on its own?.

After this became public and people called it out, Facebook also claimed that this was “an error,” but it seems like it wouldn’t take a genius lawyer or prosecutor to argue that the company choosing to send out just such a survey shows it facilitating sex trafficking. I mean, it was directly asking if it should allow for the sort of activity directly involved in grooming victims for sex trafficking.

Oh, and remember, that even while this is blatantly unconstitutional, SESTA says the law applies retroactively — meaning that even though all of this happened prior to SESTA becoming law, Facebook is potentially still quite guilty of violating the poorly drafted criminal law it is loudly supporting.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,
Companies: facebook

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Did Facebook Violate SESTA By Promoting Child Abuse Videos?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
btr1701 (profile) says:

Re: Ex Post Facto

Has no one in Congress ever even read the Constitution?

Are they completely unaware of its prohibition on ex post facto laws? Or are they just passing a law they know is unconstitutional, fully expecting the court to strike it down, so that they can then go home to the constituents and boast proudly that “I tried to Do Something™ for The Children™, but the courts blocked my valiant effort, so vote for me again because I’m such a crusading patriot who’s fighting the Good Fight™!”

Anonymous Coward says:

Consistency in drafting

that even while this is blatantly unconstitutional, SESTA says the law applies retroactively

It’s nice to see that the authors of SESTA didn’t go for just a little bit of unconstitutional action in one part of the law, but instead weighed it down with multiple unconstitutional provisions across several areas.

ShadowNinja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Consistency in drafting

It essentially depends on what the judge(s) want to do.

Law makers at times put provisions in a law that says that if part of the law is struck down in courts, the rest of the law is to still stand.

Unless SESTA contains such a provision a judge is free to do either for having a blatantly unconstitutional clause.

Anonymous Coward says:

Actually, retroactive is okay when content is criminal NOW.

Masnick, you simply don’t understand law.

Corporations don’t get IMMUNITY for the past is what the language means.

SESTA just REMOVES STATUTORY PRIVILEGES granted to corporations while the actual law for new businesses was sorted out. That experimental period is OVER.

Now, does that mean prosecutors will be rummaging through a decade of Facebook posts? — I doubt it, maybe the most egregious, but those posts are criminal right now, so it’s fully Constitutional to FINE Facebook because it should have been policing by common law principles all along. Facebook neglected the duties it agreed to as condition of its very existence.

Corporations are to serve The Public’s Good, not just to gain money for the few.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Actually, retroactive is okay when content is criminal NOW.

“Masnick, you simply don’t understand law.”

Says the guy who not only doesn’t understand but seems to have a deep aversion in even trying to learn.

You cannot criminalize something and punish things that happened before the law took force. This is unconstitutional in any democracy.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...