And what the courts have done of late is ask congress to come in visavis the issue of sex trafficking and Human Trafficking and clarify the Communications Decency act some 20 years later. Host so who would be affected by section 230 . What kinds of companies . Would it be a google . A craigs list . Backpage . Guest well, actually, many Different Actors can be affected by the Communications Decency act. But what were doing with my piece of legislation is to make sure that we are very narrowly going in and amending section 230 to make sure the congressional intent is clear when it comes to the issue of sex trafficking. Because right now a lot of these Online Internet actors and providers, web sites like backpage. Com and a whole host of others that have been been blossoming, sadly, over the last handful of years, to make sure that they cannot hide behind the Communications Decency act and its immunity. Host so the fight online sex trafficking act, fosta, that you are working on, how would it amend the Communications Decency act . Guest it goes in very, very narrowly and makes clear, it adds sex trafficking into the Communications Decency act and says that they are not these web sites that are knowing and in a reckless way posting information especially about underage children, that they would not be able to use that immunity and hide behind section 230 when it comes to criminal law. So were going after these criminals both at the state and local level, at the federal level, civilly and criminally to make sure that we shut down these bad actors. As weve watched over time, sex trafficking move from the streets, frankly, to the internet. The National Center for missing and expointed children has made it exploited children has made it very clear that in the last several years the issue of child sex trafficking has exploded 846 . And 81 of the time it is happening to these poor victims online. Host but, representative wagner, do these web sites know what theyre being used for . Guest many of them, even like backpage, has been after the Senate Investigations came out and other detective work and prosecutorial work with, they actually were dealing with content and massaging and changing content even. So many of them do know that they are facilitating the act of sex trafficking especially when it comes to minors and children. Host would this open up, though, one of the arguments that the Internet Association and some of the other groups have made is that this would open up servers to a wide variety of lawsuits and liability. Guest thats just not the case, and its a totally red herring. This goes just after criminal conduct only. And, you know, the Communications Decency act even covers things like intellectual property rights. So ive said over and over again, for instance, taylor swift, her music is covered under the Communications Decency act. But sadly, some of the young girls nay be victims of online sex trafficking are not. So we are going in very narrowly into the cda and into section 230 and making it clear that if it is illegal, if its criminal activity offline, it ought to be criminal activity online. Host where did you come up with this concept . Guest you know, weve worked to build such a coalition. It probably began with Law Enforcement are and prosecutors, state attorneys general, district attorneys that came to us and said the courts are batting down these cases that are brought against backpage. Com and other online predators time and time again because theyre hiding behind the immunities in the Communications Decency act. And quite honestly, it was the First Circuit and several other courts too especially in california that stated in their judgments that they Want Congress to legislate on this issue, not litigate. They believe it is high time for us to make sure the congressional intent is clear when it comes to the Communications Decency act. And cda at its inception some 20 years ago was never meant to make the internet a red light district. Thats clearly laid out in the congressional record. But its been watered down and misinterpreted time and time again by the courts. And so because the courts have told us legislate, dont litigate, were going to go in, and were going to make sure that we make it clear, very narrowly, that sex trafficking crimes and if sill taters and the facile faters of that will be found criminally and civilly liable. Host youve mentioned the judiciary a couple times. Has anyone been prosecuted under section 230 at this point . Guest theyre all hiding behind section 230 and the Communications Decency act. Ever since the very first cases were brought probably as far back as 2010. And as a result, peter, were watching an explosion across the internet on these online predators. I could name you dozens and dozens of names at the local level and at the National Level that are selling our young women and children online. It is true sexual slavery of the most hideous and heinous kind. So its time that congress acts, but its tough. This is a big issue, and we have got some because its a lot of money thats at stake. These web sites are making a good deal of money off of this on the backs of the poor victims that they are abusing. Host i think i read that 93 of backpages revenues are coming from socalled adult services. Why has backpage become the poster representative for this . Guest well, i think, frankly, that the Senate Investigations and some of the subpoena power that they had brought, brought to light the fact that backpage, according to their research, was actually creating content and massaging certain parts of their web sites, making it very clear that they were trafficking underaged girls and young boys. So theyve, theyve been a real bad actor in this, but i cant stress enough there are so many others out there. Eros, massage troll, city x guide. If you work with any Law Enforcement agency or District Attorneys Office thats prosecuting, they can show you the absolute explosion online ever since backpage has been hiding behind section 230 and its immunity. Host well, now, Abigail Slater who is the general counsel for the Internet Association, in testimony she did for in the senate against the Senate Companion bill said that congress in 2015 supplemented an existing statute on trafficking by insuring that the knowing advertisement of minors for commercial sex was a federal crime. Basically arguing that, hey, its already in there. Guest well, that was the save act which i authored, so im very familiar with that piece of legislation. But the courts have said that is not enough. So thats an absolute red herring. And what, what were seeing now is that backpage and others like them are turning to section 230 of the Communications Decency act for immunity. And thus far the courts have upheld that. Some of the time even reluctantly so. To the fact that theyve said that there is tension between the congressional intent and the Communications Decency act and the current practices of online sex trafficking. So, yeah, i as i said, this is big business for them. Hundreds of millions of dollars that are made off of the absolute abhorrent crime of sex trafficking. So were going in to make sure that congressional intent is clear, to make sure that were protecting women and children and victims and allowing them to seek justice at the end of the day. This is about going after them criminally, but its also going to allow many of the victims to seek some of the civil pursuits that they can have and justice that they absolutely deserve. Host ann wagner, who is the sponsor of the fight online sex trafficking act, what is the difference between your legislation and legislation thats move moving in the senate which is known as the stop enabling sex traffickers act . Guest so weve been working with senator rob portmans office and other leaders in the u. S. Senate really in the same direction, the make sure that were shutting down these web sites that are facilitating modernday sex slavery. Theyre very similar pieces of legislation. There is a difference in terms of some of the standards that are set in what would be called the mens rea, a legal term that deals with issues like reckless disregard, knowing conduct, things of this nature. So were, were working out some of the differences on our legislation. But really at the end of the day, their legislation and our legislation is aimed at the same thing, shutting down these web sites that are involved in what we believe criminal activity and are selling upwards of about, as i said, about 80 now of the Human Trafficking movement that is happening not just in the United States of america, but also this is going on internationally too. Host some have argued that this is a First Amendment issue. Guest again, an absolute red herring. Criminal activity is criminal activity whether its happening offline or online. And those that are selling our children if there was a slave auction happening on the corner, you cant tell me that the auctioneer wouldnt be held as liable as those that are purchasing that slave. Its the same concept thats out there. And again, were up against big tech. This is big money. But at the end of the day, honestly, peter, to me this is a simple issue of good versus evil. We should be protecting the most vulnerable in our society, giving voice to the voiceless, making sure that those poor victims many of whom are 9 years old and underage, so many from being sold into this kind of hideous life that they have such a difficult time recovering from. Ive done a lot not just in the legislative area, but also in raising education and awareness on the issue of sex trafficking. It is happening in every neighborhood, in every faith community. Its hiding in plain sight. And its something that a country like the United States of america with its strong human rights should not stand for. Host you brought a victim in to see the speaker, is that correct . Guest thats correct. Theres a wonderful documentary thats out that weve been screening across the country and here in washington d. C. The director is mary mazio, and its called i am jane doe. I would submit it to any of your viewers. I am jane doe is a documentary that lays out the need for congress to come in and amend the Communications Decency act, and it tells the story of three victims, three Young Children that have suffered at the hands of these online predators who were complicit in selling them online. And one of the victims, j. S. , and her mother nicole came in to help us lobby for the legislation and sat down with them, with the advocacy groups. We had a hearing late just yesterday on the bill. And they did sit down with Speaker Paul Ryan w the majority leader with the majority leader, kevin mccarthy, and others on this bill. Im thrilled, peter. Weve got upwards of 155 to 160 cosponsors in the u. S. House of representatives on fosta, h. R. 1655. And a coalition of some 70 different advocacy groups, prosecutors, Law Enforcement. Its a diverse umbrella that has decided to team up with us here in the house in order to fight this scourge of Human Trafficking. Host ann wagner, what about the fact that the internet is borderless, in a sense, and if you do this legislation here, that doesnt mean that it wont happen somewhere else . Guest well, obviously, you know, were just looking at state pardon me, at federal statute and federal legislation. But the legislation also bolsters things at the state and local level. We know how to fight crime in the United States of america. We do it at the federal, state, local, civil level. We want to make sure that they all, all of these across the country at all Different Levels of jurisdiction, that they have the tools in their toolbox in order to lift up and hold up their state statutes and here at the federal level. We cannot have bad actors like backpage. Com and others hiding behind a misinterpreted Communications Decency act for immunity. You know, certainly we do a lot in the Foreign Affairs committee which i am a member of on the interNational Level to try and address these issues too. I just gave a speech last thursday at the United Nations on this very, on this very issue. Host weve been talking with representative ann wagner, republican of missouri, about h. R. 1865, the fight online sex trafficking act. Thank you for being with us. Guest my pleasure. Thank you. Host and we spoke with representative ann wagner a few weeks back about her legislation. Now joining us on the communicators is carl szabo who is Vice President and general counsel of a group called netchoice. Mr. Szabo, what is netchoice . Guest an ecommerce trade association centered on creating the internet and insuring the internet is open for innovationing and business and growth. Host what is your take on representative ann wagners legislation . Guest so h. R. 1865 is a strong approach to take down sex traffickers. It has a low mens rea, and thats the knowledge requirement, and one of the challenges we see with that is you may see some small or midsized Internet Companies inadvertently trip the mens rea requirement in h. R. 1865. So i think theres an opportunity to kind of bolster that up and amend that a bit. Host how is it different than the stop enabling sex traffickers act thats moving through the senate. Guest theyre different but similar. On their face they look the same because they both amend same two parts of federal law. 47us csection 230 of the Communications Decency act. Now, the differences are in the details and, essentially, what they do is under representative wagners bill, h. R. 1865, it includes a lower standard, as i mentioned, than what you see in senator port matchs bill. But portmans bill. But then on top of that, it gives a bit more power to the state a. G. S to enforce the federal law in their local courts, and it gives a bit more power to the civil prosecutors to bring cases. Host as you know, we talked with representative ann wagner about the stop enabling sex trafficking act. What is netchoices position on this legislation as it moves through the process . Guest you know, were not opposed to fosta at all, but what were working on is a different approach which kind of takes a stronger, more solid attack and enables Law Enforcement through 18usc which is the criminal code. So where some legislation wants to address something called section 230 which youve probably talked about already and 18usc, what were working on is something that goes straight into the criminal code and it enables Law Enforcement to bring strong criminal actions against these bad actors. At the same time, it allows state a. G. S to opt in to enforcing the criminal code, it provides courtordered restitutions to victims upon a successful criminal conviction, and it imposes penalties up to life in prison for these bad actors. Sex trafficking is a serious problem, and were really we are very serious about what abouting to deal wanting to deal with it. We need to get rid of it. And what were doing, were trying to find the best way to accomplish that end that doesnt have any unintended consequences. Host but the legislation changes section 230. You would leave section 230 alone . Guest correct. And its because the change is unnecessary. Section 230 specifically carves out what is federal criminal code, right . So the department of justice, for example, can enforce 18usc1591 which is the section of the criminal coat that fosta seeks to address. So the department of justice can enforce that without section 230 being any bar whatsoever. It is not a bar on federal criminal law or federal criminal prosecution. And by amending 18usc, the federal criminal code, and putting this new sex trafficking on the internet law right in the heart of 18usc, you dont even need to touch section 230. You can leave that where it is, and that carveout for federal criminal law will allow the federal government and state a. G. S to enforce the federal criminal law. Host but thats not under consideration right now. Thats not whats being considered. Guest in the senate. It is being considered in the house. And, you know, a lot of legislation starts in one chamber or the other. Sometimes theyre conflicting legislation, but in this case theyre not necessarily conflicting, its just another alternative. And what netchoice, what i personally want to see happen is that we get the best possible legislation that goes to the heart of taking down these sex traffickers, sends them away and gives victims the restitution they need. Host the Internet Association describes section 230 as a bedrock Legal Protection for online services. Do you agree with that . Guest yes, we do. Host why . Guest section 230 is designed to create whats called platform immunity for content posted by others. Good analogy would be if i went on to linkedin. Com and i made a defamatory statement about somebody, i, carl szabo, could be held liable, but linkedin would not. And the reason thats so necessary is because platforms would never be in a position to manage, monitor, regulate all the content thats on there. What it also does is it opens up a lot more free speech. And, you know, if you roll back to the yen sis of section the genesis of section 230, it started because of two services. Ones called prodigy, ones called compuserve. This was back in the mid 90s, and prodigy was the familyfriendly Internet Service provider. It would screen to make sure that it was contentappropriate for families and for children. And somebody had put a post on a Bulletin Board of prodigys a libelous statement about a Financial Institution in new york. Well, the Financial Institution couldnt find the actual poster themselves, so they went after prodigy. The new york court took a look at it and said, well, compuserve, we decided that they arent liable because they no screening whatsoever. Theyre more like a library where the library or librarians not really responsible for the content between the covers. But you, prodigy, buzz because you say youre going to screen and make it familyfriendly, youre a lot more like an Editorial Board at a newspaper. So were going to hold you liable for the content of others. And prodigy got hit up for a couple million dollars, and congressman chris cox was flying cross country, read this in the wall street journal and thought, this is absurd. Heres a company trying to do the right thing, trying to make it familyfriendly, take down fencive content, and were actually discouraging that. So he and, at the time, representative on wyden, nowsenator, sat down and they penned section 230. And from that grew the usergenerated content industry that we know today; twitter, youtube, facebook. All these Services Foundation is built upon section 230 and this platform immunity. But at the same time, section 230 ebb end courages sites encourages sites to remove content that they find offensive. If you take down that content you should whats called a Good Samaritan provision, were not going to necessarily imi buy you with liability to take down everything. So it struck a good balance. What were working on in the house and seeing efforts to do is to just sidestep that discussion and just say if we amend the criminal code and we give Law Enforcement the tools they need in the criminal code, we dont need to touch section if to 230. Section 230. Host isnt there a difference, though, between libelous comments and sex trafficking . Guest yes. Substantial difference. But the underlying principle remains the same. One of the challenges that we see online is when it comes to child pornography, its much easier to know it when you see it. When it comes to sex trafficking, weve been told that a lot of this is in coded language, its a lot harder to identify. Its one of the things that we can suggested, something of a clearinghouse where if a web site or Civil Society identifies certain types of code, certain language, certain ip addresses, certain email addresses or phone numbers that are known with sex traffickers, you kind of put that in kind of a central repository so that online sites and services can kind of scan against that and better identify these coded languages. Host now, carl szabo, the Senate Committee that was considering this legislation and in a bipartisan fashion passed it unanimously out of committee. If section 230 does get amended as described by representative wagner and the legislation, what effect would that have on some of your Member Companies . Guest you know, the thing is our Member Companies are working tirelessly. They have armies of people looking at and identifying, reviewing flagged content thats offensive in any nature. And when it involves stuff like sex trafficking, child predation, child pornography, they refer that information to the National Center for missing and exploited children. They refer it to local Law Enforcement to prosecute. So they are probably going to be less impacted than a lot of the smaller sites that dont necessarily have the teams to do the type of research and constant analysis and monitoring that some of the larger guys will be able to. Host is this an assault on free speech, in your view . Guest i think thats strong language. I really dont think thats the intent of anyone here. This is an assault on sex trafficking, and thats what were here to do, and thats what were here to get a good end to doing it. Nobody here is trying to hurt free speech. Everyone wants to take down these bad actors, and thats why were working in the house to do it in a way where we dont even have to have the free speech conversation. Host so why do you think, in your view, why do you think the legislators want to do it this way, through section 230 rather than through what youre proposing, the criminal code . Guest some legislators want to do it through section 230, and its because in a number of the civil cases, for example, or some of the state cases theyve run headlong into section 230 as a bar. Section 230 has a default platform immunity, so several cases have actually conflicted with that when theyre trying to go after this one site in particular, backpage. So when a lot of people saw section 230 as operating as this total barrier, the simple solution is, well, lets just add in some language in section 230 that says it no longer applies to sex trafficking and prosecution. Its an obvious approach. Its got some unintended consequences, and theres actually a way to achieve the same goal of kind of going around section 230 by amending the criminal code rather than going straight through it through an amendment of section 230. Host what are some of those unintended consequences . Guest one is, for example, you are now creating a dissimilar schism between laws. So criminal laws, so right now state criminal laws are not enforceable against platforms under section 230, but now youre creating a situation where one law is more criminal than others. So youre saying sex trafficking is substantially different from Something Like murder for hire or terrorism web sites and stuff like that. And it may actually impede e the ability to bring cases on those other things. Another unintended consequence is the challenge to whats called the Good Samaritan provision which we discussed previously where sites are beginning to be put in a position where they have to either monitor everything or monitor nothing. And then finally, one of dangers is once you start amending section 230 for something as vile as sex trafficking, we worry that it may open the floodgates for other things like defamation, libel or Something Like that that we may find less controversial, but there are still people who are impacted negatively. Host so the gatekeepers become very liable, and theres a chance of damages. Guest correct. Its not just gatekeepers. Its, as an attorney, for example, somebody came to me and said, well, if i do any sort of monitoring of my site, i may be exposing myself to liability as opposed to doing no monitoring while the obvious solution is dont do any monitoring on your site. And that may be one of the unintended consequences of amending section 230. Host carl szabo is Vice President and general counsel of netchoice. Thank you for being on the communicators. Guest thanks for having me. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Good morning. Welcome to the in american dialogue. My name is michael camilleri. I direct the dialogues will of law program. Almost three years ago president obama and castro embarked on a historic opening which the re