Mrebo said:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1865
(Sec. 2) This bill expresses the sense of Congress that section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 was not intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims. Section 230 limits the legal liability of interactive computer service providers or users for content they publish that was created by others.
(Sec. 3) The bill amends the federal criminal code to add a new section that imposes penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to 10 years, or both—on a person who, using a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, owns, manages, or operates an interactive computer service (or attempts or conspires to do so) to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person.
Websites have long been protected from liability for what its users do. The fact that this law allows criminal and civil penalties against a website that “facilitates” is problematic, if one cares about the internet remaining as open as it has been. Craigslist has closed its personals section in response to passage of this bill.
Now that there is a crack in the dam, how long before big copyright holders convince the government there should be liability for a website that “facilitates” copyright infringement? What other issues are important enough that the websites themselves should face criminal and civil claims?
Update on this story: the bill was passed as a response to the actions of the website Backpage which has been under investigation for years. And in very funny timing, after the bill was passed and shortly before Trump is set to sign, the website was seized by the government and the criminal indictment (filed last month) against the website founders was unsealed. It’s almost like the law wasn’t needed at all, only an excuse for it.
