Can SESTA Be Fixed?

from the will-it-be-fixed? dept

It appears that sometime this week (or even possibly today), the Senate is unfortunately likely to vote (perhaps by an overwhelming margin) for SESTA, despite the fact that it's a terribly drafted bill which no one can explain how it will actually stop sex trafficking. Indeed, it's a bill that many victims advocates are warning will not just make problems worse, but will put lives in danger. And that's leaving aside all of the damage it will do to free speech and tons of websites on the internet.

Much of this could have been avoided if anyone in Congress were actually interested in understanding how the internet worked, and how to write a bill that actually addressed problems around sex trafficking -- rather than buying into a false narrative (pushed mainly by Hollywood) that the liability protections of CDA 230 were magically responsible for sex traffickers using the internet. Two academics who are probably the most knowledgeable experts on intermediary liability, Daphne Keller at Stanford and Eric Goldman at Santa Clara University, have each posted thoughts on how to "salvage" SESTA. If Congress were serious, it would listen to them. But that's a big "if."

Let's start with Keller's suggestions that she helpfully put into a Twitter thread:

First up, she takes on the problematic "knowledge" standard used in SESTA/FOSTA. Again, a key part of the bill is that internet sites can become liable if they have "knowledge" of sex trafficking activity that is done on the platform. But what the hell is meant by "knowledge"? In other parts of the law, even when it's more spelled out, there are examples of legal cases lasting years while everyone wrangles over what "knowledge" means. In the copyright context, Viacom sued YouTube and were in court for more than half a decade, with much of that being over the simple question of whether knowledge meant "specific" knowledge or "general" knowledge. SESTA could solve many of its problems if it made its knowledge standard clear -- and, as Keller notes, one that wouldn't require "teams of lawyers."

Indeed, this is perhaps the largest problem with SESTA (and may also doom the bill in court). Prosecutors and the DOJ have already raised concerns about the standards in the bill, and even the politicians supporting it toss out very, very different definitions. Senator Rob Portman has claimed it requires "intent." Meanwhile, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers claims that the standard is "knowingly turning a blind eye." That's... extremely different. Senator Cory Booker claims its "a high standard" that requires "proving beyond a reasonable doubt." All of those mean very different things, and when you have the politicians backing the bill all spouting nonsense, and the law itself doesn't clarify, you're making a huge mess.

Keller's second suggestion is to add in real and meaningful penalties for bad faith accusers as well as an appeals process for the accused. This is also a big deal. Again, looking at the DMCA, we've talked about how the one part of that law dealing with bad faith accusations is basically toothless and almost never useful. And thus, the DMCA is abused all the time. We have all those lessons to learn from -- and it appears that Congress is ignoring them.

Up next would be a clear statement that the law does not require monitoring all speech. Such a mandatory monitoring system would have tremendous First Amendment issues -- but unfortunately it seems likely that some may read the bill to require mandatory filtering (oddly, others will read it as saying you shouldn't use filters at all to avoid knowledge -- and that dichotomy of results should just emphasize how poorly the bill was drafted).

Fourth, Keller suggests making it clear that merely monitoring should not be deemed as knowledge (this could be seen as related to clarifying the knowledge standard as well). On that front, there may be an amendment on the table that could help (see below...).

Fifth: the bills should make it clear that it applies to service providers that are end user facing, rather than further up the stack. Again, here's a lesson that we've learned from takedowns in the copyright space. As Hollywood got more and more upset about various things online it continued to move up the stack beyond services to hosting companies, data centers, registrars and even ICANN itself. We shouldn't allow SESTA to allow for the same nonsense.

Finally, Keller suggests that if we must go through with such a bad bill, there should be some requirements on transparency about the impacts for both tech platforms and government agencies, so that we can look back on the bill and determine what it did -- both good and bad.

Will Congress take any of these steps? It doesn't look like it.

As for Goldman, his post focuses on an amendment that Senator Wyden is offering. Last I heard, it appears that the Senate may actually consider this amendment. And it's an amendment similar to one that Goldman himself suggested -- with a very modest addition to SESTA clarifying the whole question of does "monitoring" equal "knowledge." Specifically the amendment would add the following language:

The fact that a provider or user of an interactive computer service has undertaken any efforts (including monitoring and filtering) to identify, restrict access to, or remove material the provider or user considers objectionable shall not be considered in determining the criminal or civil liability of the provider or user for any material that the provider or user has not removed or restricted access to.

As Goldman notes, this one amendment would fix the worst problems of SESTA (while still leaving in place plenty of others). If you at least support making SESTA less horrible, he suggests calling your Senators and letting them know:

If you think this is a meritorious fix to a bad bill, then *immediately* call your Senators (you have 2, remember!) and tell them:

1) You oppose SESTA/FOSTA because it’s not clear the law actually helps sex trafficking victims; and

2) You want your Senator to support Sen. Wyden’s proposed content moderation amendment because it ensures online services will keep being the first line of defense in the fight against sex trafficking.

Note 1: This issue could be moot as early as Monday afternoon, so literally CALL NOW.

Note 2: CALL, not email. The EFF has made it easy for you to do.

It seems quite likely the bill is going to pass very soon and then get signed into law. The fact that there are simple and reasonable ways to improve on the bill, which Congress is blatantly ignoring, is problematic.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 19 Mar 2018 @ 1:47am

    That's... one way to put it, sure

    The fact that there are simple and reasonable ways to improve on the bill, which Congress is blatantly ignoring, is problematic.

    In the same way that a proposed seatbelt that experts in the field have stated will not only not decrease injuries but make them worse would be 'problematic', sure.

    Now me, I'd probably go with such terms as 'disgusting', 'grossly irresponsible', 'perfectly highlighting what a vile PR stunt this is', things like that. Calling the blatant indifference towards the significant harm that stands to result from the passage of the bill, including to the ones it's claimed to be for, goes well beyond 'problematic'.

    You want to 'fix' the bill, you can do it in one simple step: Kill it. Get rid of it entirely. It won't do what the supporters claim it will do, it will make things worse... you don't 'rehabilitate' something that bad by moderating some of the problems, you sack it entirely.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    DONT MAKE ME LAUGH, 19 Mar 2018 @ 4:21am

    hahahahahaha

    no....now back to warframe

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Gary (profile), 19 Mar 2018 @ 6:05am

    CDA 230 Removal will fix sex trafficking

    I think this bill could completely end internet based sex trafficking. Without CDA 230, sites will have to shut down the free wheeling user generated content. Sites will be run like old newspapers with only content from the actual publishers. YouTube and comments sections will wither.
    Weakening CDA 230 is the only point of the bill, isn't it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2018 @ 7:08am

      Re: CDA 230 Removal will fix sex trafficking

      If you're gonna do that, then you might as well do it all. I see no reason why sex trafficking should be privileged over hiring a hit man....

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2018 @ 12:37pm

      Re: CDA 230 Removal will fix sex trafficking

      Unlikely they will be able to shut down the free wheeling user generated content.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    DONT BE STUPID BE EDUCATED, 19 Mar 2018 @ 6:14am

    @gary

    are you saying youtube sex traffics???
    and im in canada remember that your stupidity while slightly infectous doesn't pertain to us yet....

    and who cares about commenting anymore its just troll haven ...if what you envision then facebook would also die...wont happen cause data mining by feds and friends

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gary (profile), 19 Mar 2018 @ 7:47am

      Re: @gary

      That's my point - SESTA isn't about the sex trafficking. Every crack in CDA 230 brings the web closer to being a walled garden designed by big businesses. That is the only potential result of this bad bill.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2018 @ 12:39pm

        Re: Re: @gary

        And they wont be able to turn the web into a walled garden.

        Court challenges are likely to happen against this bill.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2018 @ 6:49am

    as has been said countless times, congress members are interested only in making it appear that they are doing something helpful, even though in the majority of cases they actually fuck things up further, so as to continue getting 'campaign contributions' from as many directions as possible, while doing whatever Hollywood and the whole host of members of the entertainment industries want so as to give them, eventually, the control of the Internet they so desperately want and will go to whatever lengths necessary to achieve!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 19 Mar 2018 @ 8:21am

    Big fish

    It will be interesting to see if the Feds are willing to nail Facebook with this law or not.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Brian Shock, 19 Mar 2018 @ 8:59am

    Periodically you publish a story asking if some legal construct or another can be "fixed." I get a little tired of this, since the legal constructs in question are usually created in malice, stupidity, or some putrid combination of both.

    No, you don't "fix" a train wreck. There are no good train wrecks. There are no functional train wrecks. The only reasonable course of action is to stop train wrecks before they happen or assist the victims of them afterwards.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Thad, 19 Mar 2018 @ 10:40am

      Re:

      Which is swell, but doesn't work in real life.

      The bill has already passed the House. It's unlikely that the Senate has the votes for a filibuster. Trump's not going to veto it.

      It's not a choice between "pass it" and "don't pass it". It's a choice between "pass it as it is" and "try to fix it before it passes."

      No, you don't "fix" a train wreck. There are no good train wrecks. There are no functional train wrecks. The only reasonable course of action is to stop train wrecks before they happen or assist the victims of them afterwards.

      You're reducing train wrecks to a "before" and an "after" stage. What about during? If you can see the train speeding toward a wreck, and you know you can't stop it, you do what you can to try to mitigate it -- like, say, hitting the brakes.

      That's where we are right now. The train wreck is coming. We probably can't stop it. So we do the best we can to minimize the casualties.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Mar 2018 @ 11:29am

        Re: Re:

        That's where we are right now. The train wreck is coming. We probably can't stop it. So we do the best we can to minimize the casualties.

        Yes. This.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2018 @ 12:42pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          But like others have said court challenges are likely to happen against this bill and if they find it unconstitutional meaning CDA 230 is put back to how it was before SESTA.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Mar 2018 @ 3:09pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            But like others have said court challenges are likely to happen against this bill and if they find it unconstitutional meaning CDA 230 is put back to how it was before SESTA.

            Hopefully. Not definitely. In the meantime, why not try to improve the bill?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2018 @ 9:26am

    " if anyone in Congress were actually interested in understanding how the internet worked, and how to write a bill that actually addressed problems ... "

    It's always baffled me why so many laws are so badly written. Many laws are of course written by Washington lobbyists for the sole purpose of protecting (if not enriching) their industries, so that part is understandable. Gun control laws are often written by the people who have the least practical knowledge about recreational firearms, so that helps explain their incompetence. But what about laws that are neither corporate givaways nor vehicles of ideological zealotry?

    Why is apparently so hard for congressman -- in the internet age, no less -- to enlist the help of competent people like Daphne Keller when crafting bills? Could it be because creating some kind of "wikified" input process for non-special-interest bills would make it harder for congressmen to slip through special-interest paybacks in other bills where public input is not wanted?

    Daphne Keller definitely needs to be invited for another Techdirt Podcast, it's been a long time since 2015.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Mar 2018 @ 9:58am

      Re:

      Daphne Keller definitely needs to be invited for another Techdirt Podcast, it's been a long time since 2015.

      She was on in late 2016 also! And we had invited her on to our most recent SESTA podcast, but she was unavailable that week. She'll be back soon, I'm sure...

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Annonymouse, 19 Mar 2018 @ 9:54am

    How to FIX a bad bill

    Rusty pruning shears.
    Iodine is optional.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    norahc (profile), 19 Mar 2018 @ 10:44am

    The only wayit can be fixed is by running it through a crosscut shredder.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    DannyB (profile), 20 Mar 2018 @ 5:58am

    Fixing SESTA

    SESTA can be fixed, in the same sense that you take your dog or cat to the vet to be "fixed".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.