    [Senate Hearing 115-590]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-590

                        S. 1693, THE STOP ENABLING SEX
                            TRAFFICKERS ACT OF 2017

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                          SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 19, 2017

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
                                 Transportation

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                    Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                  __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    36-159 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-mail,
    gpo@custhelp.com.

           SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                       JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi         BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
    ROY BLUNT, Missouri                  MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DEAN HELLER, Nevada                  CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
    JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma               TOM UDALL, New Mexico
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       GARY PETERS, Michigan
    RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
                           Nick Rossi, Staff Director
                     Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
                        Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
                     Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
                  Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
                          Renae Black, Senior Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on September 19, 2017...............................     1
    Statement of Senator Thune.......................................     1
        Prepared statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator from
          Arizona....................................................     3
    Statement of Senator Nelson......................................     4
    Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................     8
    Statement of Senator Blunt.......................................    38
    Statement of Senator Duckworth...................................    39
    Statement of Senator Schatz......................................    41
    Statement of Senator Hassan......................................    43
    Statement of Senator Booker......................................    45
    Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................    47
    Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................    49
    Statement of Senator Young.......................................    52
    Statement of Senator Markey......................................    54
    Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    56
        Report entitled, ``Labor and Sex Trafficking Among Homeless
          Youth'' by Laura T. Murphy, Anchorage, Alaska..............    57
        Report entitled, ``Labor and Sex Trafficking Among Homeless
          Youth--A Ten-City Study, Executive Summary'' by Laura T.
          Murphy.....................................................    65

                                   Witnesses

    Hon. Rob Portman, U.S. Senator from Ohio.........................     5
    Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator from Oregon.........................     9
    Yvonne Ambrose, Mother of Desiree Robinson.......................    12
    Hon. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, State of California.......    14
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
    Eric Goldman, Professor, Santa Clara University of Law...........    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    20
    Yiota G. Souras, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The
      National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.............    25
        Prepared statement...........................................    27
    Abigail Slater, General Counsel, Internet Association............    30
        Prepared statement...........................................    32

                                    Appendix

    Nicole S., Mother of a Child Sex Trafficking Victim, prepared
      statement......................................................    77
    Love146, prepared statement......................................    78
    Letter dated July 27, 2017 to Hon. Richard Blumenthal from
      William J. Johnson, Esq., Executive Director, National
      Association of Police Organizations, Inc.......................    79
    Letter dated August 1, 2017 to Senator Portman and Senator
      Blumenthal from Shared Hope International; PROTECT;
      Rights4Girls; National Children's Alliance; 50 Eggs Films;
      Exodus Cry; and Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW)..    80
    Letter dated August 16, 2017 to Hon. Roger Wicker, Hon. Brian
      Schatz, Hon. Marsha Blackburn and Hon. Michael Doyle from
      Attorneys Generals from 49 states and territories..............    81
    Letter dated August 30 2017 to Senators Portman, Blumenthal and
      McCaskill from Andy Florance, CEO, CoStar Group, Inc...........    84
    Letter dated September 5, 2017 to Hon. Rob Portman and Hon.
      Richard Blumenthal from Kenneth Glueck, Senior Vice President,
      Office of the CEO, Oracle......................................    84
    Letter dated September 14, 2017 to Hon. Rob Portman and Hon.
      Richard Blumenthal from Tresa E. Zielinski, DNP, RN, APN-NP,
      CPNP-PC, President, National Association of Pediatric Nurse
      Practitioners..................................................    85
    Letter dated September 15, 2017 to Hon. Richard Blumenthal from
      Brian K. Sibley, Sr., Senior Assistant State's Attorney, New
      Haven State's Attorney's Office................................    86
    Letter dated September 18, 2017 to Hon. Richard Blumenthal from
      Vanessa Sinders, Senior Vice President, American Hotel &
      Lodging Association............................................    87
    Letter dated September 18, 2017 to Hon. Rob Portman from Nathan
      Diament, Executive Director; and Jerry Wolasky, Chairman,
      Advocacy; Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America....    88
    Letter dated September 18, 2017 to Hon. Rob Portman and Hon.
      Richard Blumenthal from John F. Schultz, Executive Vice
      President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Hewlett
      Packard Enterprise.............................................    88
    Letter dated September 18, 2017 to Hon. Rob Portman and Hon.
      Richard Blumenthal from Richard M. Bates, Senior Vice
      President, Government Relations, The Walt Disney Company.......    89
    Letter of support dated September 18, 2017 to Hon. John Thune and
      Hon. Bill Nelson from an alliance of survivors of sex
      traffickers and commercial sexual exploitation.................    89
    Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez
      Masto to:
        Abigail Slater...............................................    93
        Eric Goldman.................................................    93
        Hon. Xavier Becerra..........................................    94
        Yiota G. Souras..............................................    95

             S. 1693, THE STOP ENABLING SEX TRAFFICKERS ACT OF 2017

                                  ----------

                          TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2017

                                           U.S. Senate,
            Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in
    room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Nelson, Schatz,
    Wicker, Cantwell, Blunt, Cortez Masto, Inhofe, Klobuchar, Lee,
    Blumenthal, Cruz, Markey, Fischer, Booker, Udall, Sullivan,
    Heller, Peters, Gardner, Duckworth, Young, Hassan, Capito, and
    Johnson.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

        The Chairman. Good morning. Thank you for joining us today
    for our hearing on S. 1693, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers
    Act of 2017, our second Committee hearing on human trafficking
    this year.
        I'm particularly thankful that we will have the benefit of
    hearing from Yvonne Ambrose, who very courageously will share
    her heartbreaking family story with us.
        We'll also hear from Senators Portman, Blumenthal, and
    Wyden, who will offer their perspectives about the current
    state of the law and the proposed changes.
        We'll then have the opportunity to hear from our panel of
    expert witnesses, who will share their views on this
    legislation, which has garnered significant support, but also
    raised some questions.
        Last month, Senators Portman and Blumenthal introduced the
    Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 with a bipartisan
    group of more than 20 cosponsors, a number that has grown since
    then, and which includes eight members of this Committee.
        As many already know, this bill would amend Section 230 of
    the Communications Decency Act to enable victims, as well as
    State and Federal law enforcement to bring to justice websites
    that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking.
        Sex trafficking is an evil that affects every community
    across America. I think everyone agrees that more must be done
    to address this horrendous problem. That's why the conversation
    that we're having today is so important.
        As I mentioned, earlier this year, this Committee held a
    hearing to examine ways that our Nation's transportation
    providers and supply chains can fight the growth of sex
    trafficking in the United States and slave labor in the global
    economy. That same week, Senators Klobuchar, Nelson, and I
    introduced two bills to address human trafficking prevention
    and enforcement in transportation. I am proud that both bills
    passed the full Senate last week, and I'm hopeful that the
    House of Representatives will act soon to send these bills to
    the President's desk.
        There is, however, more that can be done. And that brings
    us to the legislation before us today. I want to be clear: the
    website Backpage.com has been the impetus for much of the
    discussion around Section 230, and nearly everyone agrees that
    the website should be held accountable. But this is not the
    ``Anti-Backpage.com Act of 2017.'' This legislation is intended
    to address a larger problem, not a specific website.
        Backpage may have suspended its ``adult services'' section
    amid pressure from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
    Investigations, but what about the next online haven for such
    activity?
        At the same time, some argue that because we frequently
    know exactly where this sort of activity is taking place
    online, that law enforcement can better monitor it and fight
    it. Such observers caution that if our legislative solution is
    too broad, it could have the opposite of its intended effect.
        Given this challenge, I believe the cooperation of the tech
    industry will be critical to any effective solution this
    Committee and our Senate colleagues might hope to forge. There
    are many positive stories to be told about how Internet
    companies work with law enforcement and victim's rights
    organizations to fight sex trafficking, but I believe that
    these companies, like the rest of us, have an obligation to do
    more.
        I look forward to hearing more from Ms. Abigail Slater, who
    is here today representing the Internet Association, and who
    will tell us more about the specific work the association's
    member companies do, and will do, to fight those who would use
    their platforms for evil.
        We will also hear from California Attorney General Becerra,
    who will offer testimony from his perspective as the chief law
    enforcement officer of the State of California. Attorney
    General Becerra is currently prosecuting a case against
    Backpage.com, and can offer insight into the legal history of
    such cases. He can also speak to the recent request by 50 state
    and territorial attorneys general to be allowed to enforce
    their respective criminal laws pertaining to sex trafficking in
    this arena.
        Ms. Souras is here today representing the National Center
    for Missing and Exploited Children, which serves as the
    national clearinghouse for reports relating to child sex
    trafficking, and as the coordinator of the national response to
    problems relating to missing and exploited children.
        Finally, Mr. Goldman is a law professor at the Santa Clara
    University School of Law, who has devoted much of his
    professional life to analyzing laws and their impact on the
    Internet, and will be able to speak about the potential legal
    consequences of the proposed changes contemplated by this
    legislation.
        I want to thank all of you for being here and for the
    advocacy and work that you're engaged in. These are issues that
    are often difficult to discuss, but I believe that this
    Committee provides an appropriate venue for serious
    consideration of difficult matters, and I appreciate your
    participation in our discussion.
        Finally, before I turn to Ranking Member Nelson for his
    opening statement, I just want to acknowledge that our
    colleague Senator McCain had also hoped to join us today, given
    his long leadership on efforts to combat human trafficking, but
    he had an unavoidable conflict at the Armed Services Committee,
    which he chairs. Without objection, Senator McCain's statement
    will be included in the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator From Arizona
        I would like to thank Chairman Thune and Ranking Member Nelson for
    allowing this hearing to take place today and all my colleagues for
    their bipartisan support in standing up against human trafficking. I
    would also like to thank Senator Portman not only for his leadership on
    this important issue, but also for defending the vital role of Congress
    in addressing the victimization and exploitation of children through
    human trafficking.
        Congress has a duty to defend the Constitution of the United States
    and to uphold the principles for which it stands. We also have a duty
    to eliminate all forms of modern-day slavery and human trafficking.
    These are appalling crimes that target the most vulnerable individuals
    in our society and undermine human dignity and the most basic of human
    rights. Sadly, the problem of trafficking is far more severe than most
    people realize as it is understated in law enforcement data. I commend
    the Committee for its leadership in proceeding with a hearing on the
    Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017.
        The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)
    recorded an 846 percent increase in reports of suspected child sex
    trafficking from 2010-2015, a spike the organization found to be
    ``directly correlated to the increased use of the Internet to sell
    children for sex.'' We are dealing with a $150 billion illicit industry
    in the United States, one in which few perpetrators face appropriate
    punishment. According to attorneys general and judges across the
    country, it will take an act of Congress for victims to obtain justice
    for the crimes committed by sites like Backpage.com, which facilitate
    child exploitation with impunity due to the immunity Internet service
    providers (ISP) receive from Section 230 of the Communications Decency
    Act.
        Last month, the Superior Court of Sacramento County granted a
    motion to dismiss pimping charges against Backpage.com in the The
    People of the State of California vs. Carl Ferrer, Michael Lacey, and
    James Larkin. Superior Court Judge Lawrence Brown dismissed these
    charges against Backpage.com executives Carl Ferrer and Michael Lacey,
    explaining that ``If and until Congress sees fit to amend the immunity
    law, the broad reach of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
    even applies to those alleged to support the exploitation of others by
    human trafficking.'' It is clear that until Congress acts, we will
    continue to hear horrifying stories of children being bought and sold
    for sexual abuse on websites like Backpage.com.
        I would like to thank Yvonne Ambrose for her courageous testimony.
    Her family's tragic story serves as a reminder that our work on this
    issue must continue. I would also like to thank my wife, Cindy McCain,
    for her tireless efforts in this field and to those organizations that
    have come forward to support the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act of
    2017. Your contribution is vitally important.
        I am proud to cosponsor the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of
    2017, which would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
    to allow victims of sex trafficking to seek justice against websites
    that knowingly or recklessly facilitate their victimization. The
    legislation would criminalize commercial activity that assists,
    supports, or facilitates a violation of Federal sex trafficking laws
    and enables state law enforcement officials--not just the Department of
    Justice--to take action against individuals or businesses that violate
    Federal sex trafficking laws.
        We know that Backpage.com is a market leader in commercial sex
    advertising and that the website has been linked to hundreds of human
    trafficking cases. We cannot allow these heinous crimes to go
    unprosecuted. It is our duty as members of Congress to work tirelessly
    to combat human trafficking and aid the victims of this monstrous
    crime. I will continue to work vigorously with my friends from both
    sides of the aisle on this very important issue. Thank you.

        The Chairman. And I would note, however, that we're honored
    to have Mrs. Cindy McCain in our audience today, along with a
    number of distinguished guests, including Senator Heitkamp.
        With that, I will now turn to Senator Nelson for his
    opening statement.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA

        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As we have this hearing today, there is an untold number of
    women and children in the U.S. that are being sold at this
    moment, into sexual slavery via the Internet. In just using a
    few clicks, victims from all walks of life and all parts of the
    country are being forced to endure brutal and unspeakable
    crimes. Let me repeat: women and children are being forced into
    sex slavery in modern-day America, and it could very well
    happen to someone that you know.
        Now, if that's not a wakeup call, then I don't know what
    is. And, sadly, it's the truth that my fellow Floridians
    tragically know all too well. According to the Human
    Trafficking Hotline, Florida ranks third in the country for the
    number of cases reported last year. The question before us
    today is simple: Why aren't we doing everything we can to stop
    this heinous practice? After all, we're talking about modern-
    day slavery, and our children are the ones that are at risk.
        The bill we have before us today would help us shut down
    despicable websites that promote sexual trafficking. Don't kid
    ourselves, these shady and highly profitable website operators
    know full well how their sites are being used. What's more,
    they're hiding behind a decades-old legal shield in Federal
    communications law to immunize themselves from prosecution.
        This bill, by the two Senators here and a host of others
    that the Chairman mentioned, would eliminate this safe harbor
    for sex traffickers and allow state attorneys general and other
    state and local prosecutors and victims to go after the
    websites that knowingly provide a platform for sex trafficking.
    It would not, as some claim, take a sledgehammer to the
    Internet.
        We've got to take a stand. Rather, instead of a
    sledgehammer, it takes a common sense, responsible, and
    targeted approach, one that the courts tell us that we can take
    to limit the scope of the current law and help end the scourge
    of child sex trafficking on the Internet.
        And while some stakeholders have concerns about this bill,
    I strongly believe that we cannot sit idly by any longer while
    the websites aid and abet child sex traffickers. The cost of
    inaction is way too high.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
        As Senator Nelson mentioned, we're joined today by two of
    our colleagues in the Senate, and the lead sponsors of the
    SESTA legislation, and so we're very privileged to welcome
    Senators Portman and Blumenthal. Senator Blumenthal, of course,
    is a member of this Committee. We look forward to hearing from
    each of you about your legislation. I'll start on my left, and
    your right, with Senator Portman and Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Portman, welcome.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. ROB PORTMAN,
                         U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO

        Senator Portman. Thank you, Senator Thune. I appreciate
    your holding this hearing and your personal commitment and
    Senator Nelson's personal commitment to combating this horrific
    crime of sex trafficking.
        I want to thank my colleagues around the panel, many of you
    who have stepped up early on and cosponsored legislation and
    played a critical role in us getting to this point. You know,
    we have passed legislation. Senator Thune has been part of that
    over the years. This Congress has done more in the last few
    years on sex trafficking than we have in our history, but the
    reality is it's on the increase, and it's for one reason,
    according to all the experts, and that's online sale of girls,
    children, women. We've got to face that reality and deal with
    it.
        And again I appreciate the fact that you're having the
    opportunity to hear not just from us--and I appreciate my
    colleague being here, Senator Blumenthal and I are cofounders
    of the Caucus on Trafficking, and we're partners in this
    effort--but you're going to hear from victims, too, as I
    understand it. I think Yvonne Ambrose is here, and Yvonne is
    going to talk about her tragic personal story, and it's
    heartbreaking. And as a father of three, and I see many parents
    around the panel here today and behind us, it's unimaginable
    this would be going on in the 21st century.
        So again thank you to all the witnesses, but particularly
    Yvonne for showing the courage to come forward and talk about
    the horror that she has experienced and sharing that story with
    us.
        This increase in sex trafficking is a stain on our national
    character. It is. The fact that it's going on in this country
    at this time. Based on the information we've received from law
    enforcement--and law enforcement, by the way, is strongly
    behind this legislation. As you know, they have endorsed it
    across the board, the district attorneys, U.S. attorneys, and
    the FOP, but they tell us the increase is real and that it's
    primarily based on this increase on the Internet.
        By the way, the tech community does not deny that. For
    example, a Google executive wrote an op-ed earlier this spring
    saying, quote, ``Technology's role in human trafficking cannot
    be ignored, as the example of Backpage demonstrates. The sad
    reality is that three out of four child sex trafficking victims
    in the United States have been exploited online, and predators
    often make their first connections to victims on the
    Internet.'' This is a Google executive. I believe Google wants
    to fight back against trafficking, and I think she's right.
        I see this reality myself as I visit with survivors, and
    I'm sure all of you have had this experience back home in
    talking to victims and survivors. Repeatedly, they tell you the
    same thing, the trafficking is on Backpage. Usually drugs are
    involved as well.
        As traffickers have told me, or sex trafficking victims
    have told me, and, you know, this comes from probably a half
    dozen different victims, the same thing, which is that,
    ``Senator, this has moved from the street corner or the street
    to the smart phone.'' That's where it's moved, and that's where
    there is this ruthless efficiency.
        Last month, I spoke to some victims in Youngstown, Ohio,
    and, of course, Backpage came up because they said that's how
    they were trafficked. A young woman told me she was first sold
    on Backpage at age 9. She told me tearfully that her father
    would take her from city to city for major sporting events and
    sell her up to 20 times a day. Ruthlessly efficient.
        With Ranking Member Claire McCaskill, the Permanent
    Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has spent the
    last couple of years investigating Backpage. We took a deep
    dive. We found, unfortunately, that the website is far more
    complicit in these crimes than anyone previously thought. We
    were able to show Backpage was actively and knowingly involved
    in illegal sex trafficking, and it covered up evidence of its
    crimes in order to increase its profits.
        Thank you, every member of this panel, for voting with us
    to hold them in contempt when they refused to testify. When
    they refused to provide information, we took it all the way to
    the Supreme Court. Thanks to the Senate, for the first time in
    21 years, holding a private actor in contempt of Congress, and
    we were successful in getting a million documents that showed
    clearly that they were actively and knowingly involved in
    illegal sex trafficking.
        Despite these facts, efforts by trafficking survivors and
    law enforcement to hold Backpage accountable have failed
    repeatedly. Why? Because courts around the country have ruled
    that Backpage has brought immunity under a Federal law, the
    Communications Decency Act. It's a 1996 law that has not kept
    up with the times. When Congress enacted the law, I do not
    believe it intended to shield anyone for responsibility for
    serious Federal crimes, much less sex trafficking. Looking at
    the legislative history, I believe the goal was to protect
    website operators who were acting in good faith, and that made
    sense, who lacked knowledge that third parties were posting
    harmful or illegal content on their sites.
        We all believe in free speech. I think everyone on this
    panel believes that we ought to have Internet freedom, but the
    Communications Decency Act was never intended to protect those
    that engage in illegal conduct, and it was certainly never
    intended to protect online predators and sex traffickers. In
    fact, nothing in the original text of this law suggests that
    there should be an all-encompassing immunity for websites like
    Backpage that knowingly engage in sex trafficking.
        Judges across the country, by the way, have made it clear
    that it is Congress' responsibility to fix this law. They have
    invited us to fix this law. Last year, the First Circuit Court
    of Appeals recognized Backpage's role in the horrific crime of
    sex trafficking, but the court ruled that its hands were tied
    stating the remedy is through legislation, not litigation.
        And just last month, a court in Sacramento threw out
    pimping charges against Backpage because of the Communications
    Decency Act. That court made an even more obvious call to
    Congress stating, quote, ``If and until Congress sees fit to
    amend the immunity law, the broad reach of Section 230 of the
    Communications Decency Act even applies to those alleged to
    support the exploitation of others by human trafficking.''
        It's up to us. Because of this interpretation of the law
    over the last 20 years, only the Congress can fix this
    injustice. That's why we've introduced this legislation. It's
    bipartisan. It's common sense. It's targeted. It's called the
    Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. It would do just two things.
    First, it would allow sex trafficking victims to get the
    justice they deserve against websites that knowingly,
    knowingly, facilitate sex trafficking against them. Second, it
    would allow state and local law enforcement to prosecute such
    websites that violate Federal sex trafficking laws. I know
    Xavier Becerra, Attorney General of California, is going to
    talk about this.
        This knowing standard, by the way, in our legislation is a
    high bar, as the lawyers around this panel know. They have to
    be proven to have knowingly facilitated, supported, or assisted
    in online sex trafficking to be liable in the first place.
    Because the standard is so high, our bill protects good tech
    actors and targets rogue online traffickers like Backpage.
        Our bill also preserves the Good Samaritan provision in the
    law that protects good actors who proactively screen for
    offensive material. I believe Google, Facebook, and other
    legitimate websites do that, and they should have that Good
    Samaritan protection, and that's in the law.
        Support is growing for the legislation. As I mentioned,
    we've got lots of support from the law enforcement community,
    also dozens of survivor groups, some are here today, anti-
    trafficking coalitions, faith-based groups.
        We appreciate the encouragement from some prominent members
    of the tech community, by the way. Oracle has endorsed the
    legislation. 21st Century Fox endorsed it last week. Just
    yesterday, Hewlett Packard Enterprise endorsed the legislation,
    as did Walt Disney Company. They've all joined in this mission
    to stop this criminal sex trafficking online.
        Fifty attorneys general from across the United States
    recently urged Congress to support this legislation. Again,
    we'll hear from California Attorney General, our former
    colleague, Xavier Becerra.
        But let me say this, the fact that instances of human
    trafficking and sex trafficking are actually increasing in this
    country in this century is an outrage. It's a disgrace. And I
    believe history is going to judge us on how we respond to it.
        Silicon Valley, Mr. Chairman, holds itself out as being
    more than just another industry, but, rather, a movement to
    make the world a better place. In so many ways the Internet has
    contributed positively to our world, but the selling of human
    beings online is the dark side of the Internet. It can't be the
    cost of doing business, and it doesn't make the world a better
    place.
        And there's something we can do about it. This legislation
    will help. This Committee can act to stop criminal sex
    trafficking online.
        Thank you for allowing me to testify today, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Portman.
        Senator Blumenthal.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
    to you and the Ranking Member for bringing us together today on
    this very important subject. And I want to thank both of you
    for your personal commitment to action on this important topic.
        And I also want to thank Senator McCain. I just left him at
    the Armed Services Committee, which he chairs, and there's a
    very important hearing going on there now, so I know he will
    try to be here if he can. But Cindy McCain is with us today,
    and she has been a tireless and tenacious advocate on this
    subject, so I want to thank her as well.
        I particularly want to thank our colleagues, nearly a third
    of the Senate, many members of this Committee, who have
    cosponsored this bill. Senator Hassan and Senator Duckworth
    have just cosponsored it, joining Senator Nelson, Senators
    Klobuchar, Blunt, Sullivan, Cruz, Lee, and Capito. And I want
    to thank others who have not yet joined it. We are talking very
    diligently with Senator Harris, for example, as well as Senator
    Cortez Masto, Senator Booker, Senator Schatz, others who are
    helping us to clarify and make this legislation even more
    precise. And I look forward to continuing our work with this
    group to make sure that the language achieves our goal without
    any unintended or unforeseen consequences.
        And I want to finally join the survivors who are with us
    today, Yvonne Ambrose. We are here in large part because of
    three incredibly courageous young women. These three women were
    each 15 years old when they were first sold for sex. They were
    sold invisibly, but in plain sight. The ads that sold them used
    coded language to indicate that they were, in fact, underage.
    Over the course of roughly 4 years, they were raped thousands
    of times.
        In 2014, these three young women had the courage to go to
    court. They brought a lawsuit against Backpage for facilitating
    sex trafficking. The First Circuit reviewed their case, and as
    Senator Portman has said, they called this an outrage. They
    used that word, ``outrage,'' but they said that there were no
    remedies, there were no legal claims that could be recognized
    in court because of this section in the law, Section 230 of the
    Communications Decency Act. Nothing could be done for them.
        The court in effect said to us, the Congress of the United
    States, You made this mess, now fix it. These women are in a
    legal black hole without justice. Congress must fix it. That's
    why we're here.
        This problem is hardly new or novel. My efforts against sex
    trafficking in fact began almost a decade ago, exactly this
    problem, when I led a coalition of 39 states investigating the
    online classified company Craigslist for facilitating and
    profiting from sex trafficking. In 2010, Craigslist voluntarily
    took down its adult services section. We won the battle, but
    the war was far from won.
        As purchasers of sex moved away from Craigslist, they went
    to Backpage.com. In fact, the National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children, which I should note is represented here
    today, reported an 846 percent increase in reports of suspected
    sex trafficking between 2010 and 2015. In other words, after
    Craigslist settled, there was an 846 percent increase in sex
    trafficking over those 5 years, and it was directly correlated
    to the increased use of the Internet to sell children for sex.
        In 2016 alone, the National Human Trafficking Hotline
    received 5,551 reports of sex trafficking incidents. Shutting
    down one website is not enough. Shutting down Backpage, even if
    it would occur, is not enough. We need to pass this measure. If
    we fail to do so, if we fail to close this gap and fill this
    legal black hole, we become complicit.
        And those numbers, by the way, underestimate this problem.
    Think of it for a moment. Those reports require the same
    courage that these young women demonstrated to come forward and
    brave the stigma and shame of acknowledging that they have been
    sold for sex.
        So when the critics of this legislation say there will be a
    deluge of lawsuits, that there will be frivolous or unfounded
    claims, think of it for a moment. Survivors have to come
    forward and establish their standing under the law by making
    the case that they have been sold for sex. There will be no
    deluge of frivolous lawsuits as a result of this measure.
        It's time to say, ``No more.'' Congress must stop allowing
    websites to promote and profit from sex trafficking. Senator
    Portman has outlined the provisions of this bill. They are
    narrowly targeted and carefully crafted. We are working to make
    them even clearer and more precise to avoid unintended
    consequences.
        I understand that some of the companies may wish to
    continue the shield from liability that they have. Companies
    rarely welcome additional legal accountability. I understand
    that point. But this is about social and moral responsibility
    as well as giving survivors and victims a day in court. It is
    time to open the courthouse doors to victims of sex trafficking
    who have been sold into slavery as a result of ads that right
    now can enjoy absolute immunity for sites that knowingly
    facilitate, support, or assist--knowingly facilitate, support,
    or assist. It's a high bar. These companies should be compelled
    to meet it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. And again
    thank you to both you and Senator Portman and the cosponsors of
    your legislation for your strong advocacy and for the
    conversations that you have entered into with members of this
    Committee and others in the Senate to try and make sure that we
    get this right. But certainly we all recognize the need to act,
    and we appreciate your leadership on this. Thank you for being
    here.
        I will now recognize another colleague of ours, Senator
    Wyden, the great State of Oregon. And we appreciate you,
    Senator Wyden, being here and sharing your perspective.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    Senator Nelson. And I also come as an alum of this Committee,
    and as one of the coauthors of Section 230 of the
    Communications Decency Act.
        Numerous experts obviously have pointed out that Section
    230 was absolutely necessary to bring our legal system into the
    21st century. It has been the legal foundation for the growth
    of the Internet, particularly in areas like education, jobs,
    and a platform for free speech around the world, and I believe
    it ought to be kept intact.
        Now, when I wrote Section 230 more than 20 years ago, it
    was in recognition of the fact that the Internet was just going
    to change everything, the way we interact with each other, the
    way we do business. It would change virtually every corner of
    our lives and our society. And we understood that no amount of
    legislation and political bloviating could stop the change, but
    we could influence how it came about.
        And the key question, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, was,
    Would there be an Internet dominated by private networks with
    the worst impulses of human beings going on in impenetrable
    dark corners, or would the Internet be a platform open to the
    world where such impulses would be exposed to sunlight and the
    law? That's why we made it crystal clear that absolutely
    nothing in the 230 statute protects against violation of
    Federal criminal law, and, more importantly, nothing in the
    statute protects individuals from the full force of the law
    when they commit and leave evidence of their crimes online.
        The Net has exposed much about human behavior that we might
    prefer to remain hidden. It's exposed much that many,
    particularly those in law enforcement, already knew about, but
    it's exposed them. And the question now is--and you've touched
    on this, Mr. Chairman--is, How do you respond? Do we react like
    politicians, mindlessly bludgeoning deep pockets, driving away
    innovation, and utterly failing to stop the worst behavior, but
    simply just drive it underground? Or does the Congress react
    with resolution and purpose, providing law enforcement with the
    resources to effectively attack this horrible scourge that is
    far older than the Internet and we end up actually aiding the
    victims of this horrendous crime?
        So the issues to be addressed are not whether to eliminate
    the freedom that makes the Net a place of innovation and
    opportunity; the issue is how to address, how to identify, and
    lock up these horrible criminals who use the Net, as they've
    abused a thousand tools before them, to create victims and
    destroy lives. If law enforcement needs more resources,
    colleagues, or the tools to crack down in crime-laden Internet
    neighborhoods like Backpage, let's give them what they've got
    to have, and that includes a change in law to hold responsible
    those who might cynically design to profit from illegal
    behavior under the guise of providing a legal service.
        And I have fought alongside many of you on this panel, in
    this Senate, to end sex trafficking at home and abroad and
    support survivors of trafficking by getting those resources to
    the key enforcement officials who are on the front lines to
    fight this modern-day slavery. And I'm going to continue to do
    whatever it takes to provide strong protections and bring
    support to survivors to stop this kind of exploitation.
        Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I take a back seat to no one,
    no one, in this Senate in the fight against sex trafficking.
    That's a matter of public record. I just believe that the
    legislation being considered today is the wrong answer to an
    important question. It wasn't very long ago that Members of the
    Congress were calling the Net a series of tubes. When it comes
    to legislation, we've had the most success when protecting
    Americans' rights and protecting incumbent industries from
    smothering the innovators.
        Now, I don't think anybody on the Committee today says,
    ``Hey, let's undermine this thing that created a trillion
    dollars' worth of economic value.'' That is part of the
    question being considered today. America may have played the
    biggest role in creating the Net, but important to the
    discussion today, the barriers to entry are very, very low.
        The reason another nation with more people, including more
    computer users, like China or India, that had a functioning
    interactive network before us, like, say, France, have failed
    to dominate the Net is our foundation of Internet laws that
    kept lawyers and politicians and tax collectors from hobbling
    innovation and hobbling growth. Those forces never give up, and
    I'm sad to say they're at work right now.
        When I helped author Section 230, I didn't know all the
    effects it would have, but I did know three things.
        First--and I'll wrap up with this, Mr. Chairman--I wanted
    to help the gutsy startup by allowing them to hire engineers
    and developers and designers before they went out and hired a
    team of lawyers.
        Second, I wanted to protect good actors by allowing them to
    take down some material without being liable for everything. I
    think we all can agree that's a better scenario than having
    websites hide their heads in the sand.
        And, third, it was absolutely essential to me, my bottom
    line, is making sure that bad actors would still be subject to
    Federal law. People who commit crimes can and ought to be
    prosecuted, whether they're online or whether they're on a
    street corner. Protecting that startup from discriminatory
    state law is vital, but it is equally important to make sure
    criminals of all kinds are held accountable.
        So as you consider making changes to Section 230, I hope
    you keep looking out for that person we were talking about 20
    years ago, the little guy, the person who has taken a big risk.
    Technology has been important for the last 20 years, and we
    need to make sure that we have policies like Section 230 in
    place to make sure it stays that way.
        And I think this Committee, in its tradition, has always
    been to pursue the regular order when it considers changes. And
    I look forward to having the opportunity to talk with you, our
    friend Senator Nelson, all of our colleagues, as this debate
    goes forward.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wyden.
        I want to thank our colleagues all for being here this
    morning and inform everybody that a vote has been called. And
    so we're going to keep rolling here, and we'll try and figure
    out a way to juggle the chairs so that we can continue to hear
    from the people that are here.
        And I want to invite up now to share her very personal
    experience with this, Ms. Yvonne Ambrose. And she'll be next.
        Ms. Ambrose, welcome to the Committee. Thank you for your
    willingness to share your personal story with us. We look
    forward to hearing from you.

                     STATEMENT OF YVONNE AMBROSE,
                       MOTHER OF DESIREE ROBINSON

        Ms. Ambrose. Thank you so much, Senator Thune and Ranking
    Member Nelson and members of the Committee for holding this
    hearing today and inviting me to come and testify.
        When you have your first child, it changes your life. You
    become a different person. Your whole world revolves around
    them. You get butterflies every time you kiss their little
    feet, every time you hold their hand. Their smile brightens
    your whole life. Your life revolves around this person, and you
    would give them the world if you could. You think you will have
    forever with them, so you start planning for their future.
        My daughter, Desiree Robinson, was born March 29, 2000, at
    2:52 p.m. She was the light of my life, my firstborn, my only
    daughter, my heart, my world. And Desiree made me a better
    person because she was a beautiful person. She had the
    brightest smile that could light up a room. And with your
    permission, I would like to share a photo of her with the
    Committee.
        During her grammar school years, she made friends
    everywhere she went, whether it was on vacation, at school, at
    church, the Boys and Girls Club, or walking around the mall.
    Everyone wanted to be her friend. She was loved by all, and
    everyone she encountered, she loved as well. She was a bright
    student, great athlete, and took joy in helping others.
    Throughout grammar school, she won numerous awards for her
    academics, citizenship, athletics, and volunteered within the
    community.
        Desiree had dreams of one day becoming a physician in the
    U.S. Air Force. She attended Air Force Academy High School on
    the South Side of Chicago with hopes of graduating and going to
    captains school in Colorado to help further her dream. Her
    future was very bright.
        Desiree was a good person who just wanted to be loved and
    accepted by all. Desiree struggled in the last year of her
    life. She was bullied for her diverse racial background, and
    always tried to fit in with her friends, like a lot of other
    teenagers. She knew she was loved by her family and friends,
    but she looked for love and acceptance anywhere she could find
    it. She was only 16 years old and just wanted to make friends.
    We now know that adult men found Desiree on social media,
    reached out to her, pressured her, and used her to make money.
    She was preyed on and sold online by pimps who took advantage
    of her. Desiree didn't know what Backpage.com was or the harm
    that would come from this website.
        On December 23, 2016, a 32-year-old man by the name of
    Antonio Rosales was looking through Backpage.com for a child to
    have sex with, just like countless others before him. They knew
    that this is a website that they could go to, to engage in sex
    with minors. He knew Backpage.com was a site to go to in order
    to find young underage girls to have sex with. During his
    search, he came upon a picture of my 16-year-old daughter under
    the posting, ``New girl in town looking to have fun,'' which
    was posted by her pimp. Desiree was driven to Antonio's
    residence by the pimp with the intent of having sex with this
    32-year-old man, a man twice her age.
        This was the last night of my daughter's life, and her
    pictures were posted and moderated by Backpage.com, and this
    was the reason for her demise. On Christmas Eve, December 24,
    2016, Desiree, my baby, was brutally murdered, and now my life
    has changed forever. She had been beaten, raped, strangled, and
    if that wasn't bad enough, he slit her throat, all because she
    said, no, she didn't want to do this again. She screamed for
    help, and there was no one around to help her.
        Desiree's death should have never happened. The sex
    trafficking of minors should not be happening in our country.
    Taking advantage of our children on the Internet has become
    such a common thing in this country that people turn the other
    cheek just because they don't want to believe it's actually
    happening right here in our backyards. This is not a race,
    gender, or economic problem; this is a people problem, a human
    problem.
        If there were stricter rules in place for postings on these
    websites, my child would still be alive with me today. The
    truth is Backpage.com and other sites are making millions of
    dollars by exploiting our children and allowing them to be
    taken advantage of by predators. If we don't speak up now,
    these websites will continue to profit off trafficking our
    babies. It could be your child, your niece, your nephew, your
    cousins, your friends' children next if you don't stop this.
        The tragic death of my baby girl made me take a step back
    and think about her life. She was a good person, a good
    student, and had a great personality. She gave her all to make
    sure that people were happy. She even had a tattoo on her arm
    that said, ``Be the change that you would like to see in the
    world.''
        The day my baby was taken away from me was the worst day of
    my life. The hurt and pain that my family continues to endure
    is unimaginable. I struggle to believe that a loving and
    talented girl such as Desiree is gone from this earth because
    an Act such as 230 allowed the Internet to exploit her. And
    now, Section 230 is standing in the way of justice for my child
    and other Jane Does out there like her. Backpage.com and other
    companies like this must be held responsible for what they have
    created. I'm sure when this Act was put into place in 1996, the
    Internet was in its infancy, and it was not intended to allow
    companies to legally sell children on the Internet, but somehow
    a dollar has become more important than a human life. If you're
    going to fix this problem, fix it.
        I was suppose to make this transition from this Earth
    before her. Parents are not supposed to bury their children.
    All of the plans that we made together for her life will never
    happen. I would not wish this pain and hurt on my worst enemy,
    and I pray that Desiree's life can make a difference so no one
    else has to ever endure this pain again.
        I'm asking you, the U.S. Senate, to amend Section 230 and
    be the change you want to see in this world, not only for the
    justice for Desiree, but for all the countless Jane Does out
    here and the other little girls to come who don't have a voice.
    We have to be the change now to protect our babies from
    websites like Backpage.com that open the door for predators
    without any accountability.
        My name is Yvonne Ambrose. I am the mother of the late
    Desiree Robinson, and I'm asking you, the U.S. Senate, to
    change Section 230, and support the bipartisan legislation, the
    Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, not only for my baby, but
    for the protection of yours and others to come.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Ambrose, for sharing in a very
    compelling and powerful way and helping personalize the issue
    that we're dealing with for all of us here on this Committee
    this morning. Thank you for being here.
        Ms. Ambrose. Thank you.
        The Chairman. I want to invite our next panel to come
    forward. We have the Attorney General of California, Mr. Xavier
    Becerra.
        Xavier, welcome.
        Mr. Eric Goldman is Professor of Law at Santa Clara
    University School of Law. And Ms. Abigail Slater, who is
    General Counsel at the Internet Association. And Ms. Yiota
    Soros--Souras I should I say.
        So we want to welcome all of you to the panel and thank you
    in advance for the testimony that you're going to share with
    us. And we will start on my left, and your right, with Attorney
    General Becerra, and we'll proceed from there. And if you can,
    as much as possible, confine your oral remarks to 5 minutes, we
    will ensure that your entire statement is included as part of
    the record, but it will enable members of the Committee to have
    time to ask questions.
        So General Becerra, welcome back to Congress, and great to
    have you here.

     STATEMENT OF HON. XAVIER BECERRA, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF
                               CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Becerra. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and to
    Ranking Member Nelson and to all the members of the Committee,
    thank you for letting me join you today. It's always a pleasure
    to be back where I spent more than 24 years of my career.
        I want to thank, first of all, Senator Portman and Senator
    Blumenthal, the sponsors of this legislation, 1693, for their
    hard work and their tenacity. To my Senator, Senator Kamala
    Harris, I want to thank her for all the work that she has done
    over the years, previously as the Attorney General for the
    State of California before she became now our U.S. Senator,
    joining Senator Feinstein here in Washington, D.C.
        It's important to thank the tech industry. As all of you
    know, many in the tech industry have stepped up to be partners
    with law enforcement and child advocates to combat human
    trafficking. And certainly we have to thank our tireless
    advocates, who somehow give hope to so many women and children
    and help provide critical services to survivors of sex
    trafficking. But most of all, I want to thank the men and women
    of law enforcement, who stay in the ring even though we've got
    one hand, if not both hands, tied behind our back in this fight
    against child sex trafficking.
        S. 1693 is a serious effort to balance the virtues of a
    free and open Internet with the bedrock American value that our
    children are our greatest asset, each one of them, and we must
    hold those who exploit them accountable.
        Senate Bill 1693 recognizes and balances on one hand the
    Communications Decency Act success in promoting and propelling
    the Internet and its innovation, and on the other, the swift
    and lucrative migration of sex trafficking from the pavement to
    the Internet. S. 1693 goes to the heart of one of the critical
    concerns 49 state generals and I expressed in a recent letter
    to Congress, the need to clarify the Communications Decency Act
    so there is no mistake about the authority of state and local
    prosecutors to prosecute those involved in online child sex
    trafficking.
        Human trafficking is one of the fastest growing criminal
    enterprises worldwide. The Internet has made it so much easier,
    faster, and safer to make big bucks. Pimps use virtual brothels
    to sell vulnerable children online on a daily basis. As much as
    we've all tried to do our best, whether it's Congress, the tech
    community, law enforcement, we are losing the fight against sex
    trafficking, which means we're losing our children. Ask Yvonne
    Ambrose.
        So here's my plea, Mr. Chairman: be thorough, but
    courageous, like the kids who overcome their trauma in crossing
    the finish line with S. 1693. We're all here ready to help
    however we can to get a bill that gets the votes.
        Second, don't let sex trafficking or our children believe
    that we're going to allow people who traffic in sex with our
    kids hide in plain sight on the Internet. And let's not let
    ignorance of the law be anyone's excuse.
        Three, don't be dissuaded. Regardless of what anyone says,
    prosecution for sex trafficking requires criminal intent. No
    one can be convicted for acting in good faith.
        Four, amending the 21-year-old Communications Decency Act
    is not a sin. Even the Constitution was amended within 14 years
    of its adoption. And that's, of course, when we accepted the
    First Amendment and the remainder of the Bill of Rights to the
    Constitution. And I must also mention, having served in this
    body for 24 years, that here in the Senate and the House, you
    have the power of Congress' legislative record to buttress the
    underlying purpose of any changes that you choose to make to
    the CDA. Remember that the CDA is older than all of the
    children we're fighting to protect. So let's look at the CDA
    with fresh, but experienced eyes.
        The First Amendment in the CDA will continue to stand the
    test of time. But you can't yell, ``Fire!'' in a theater, you
    can't sell kids on the street for sex, and you shouldn't be
    allowed to traffic children for sex on the Internet. It's time
    to clarify the Communications Decency Act so that we can
    prosecute those who would sell our children for sex. Senate
    Bill 1693 gives us a chance to save our children from the
    unspeakable exploitation we can only imagine, and for that
    reason, Mr. Chairman, I will work as hard as I can with you and
    all those who believe it's time that we finally amended the
    Communications Decency Act to protect our children.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Becerra follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Hon. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General,
                              State of California
    I. Introduction
        Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and all the
    Members of the Committee for the opportunity to be here today. It is my
    privilege to testify before the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation on Senators McCaskill and Portman's bipartisan S. 1693,
    The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017.
        As the Attorney General of California--our state's top law-
    enforcement officer--I have a unique role to play in combating the
    heinous crime of human trafficking. Today, I am here to explain why the
    Communications Decency Act needs to be clarified so that we can more
    effectively do our jobs in enforcing laws that protect children and
    help us eradicate this crime for good.
        Human trafficking is one of the fastest-growing criminal
    enterprises worldwide. All too often, criminals prey on women and
    children and profit from sex trafficking without fully facing the
    consequences of their crimes. California has more reported cases of
    human trafficking than any other state. As Attorney General, I am
    committed to doing everything in my power to prosecute traffickers and
    disrupt the criminal organizations that profit from the exploitation of
    human beings.
        The Urban Institute examined the underground economy of sex
    trafficking in eight major U.S. Cities, including San Diego, and found
    that pimps and traffickers interviewed for the study took home between
    $5,000 and $32,833 a week. Notably, in this study, multiple pimp
    offenders reported, ``no one actually gets locked up for pimping''. \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Urban Institute, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/
    estimating-size-and-structure-underground-commercial-sex-economy-eight-
    major-us-cities
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The perpetrators of human trafficking have become more
    sophisticated and organized, requiring an equally sophisticated
    response from law enforcement and its partners to disrupt and dismantle
    their networks.
    II. Amending the Communications Decency Act
        Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was passed in 1996.
        Unfortunately, some courts have interpreted the Communications
    Decency Act as currently written to limit our ability to go after
    companies that actively profit from sex trafficking and crimes against
    children. We believe that those judicial decisions misconstrued what
    Congress intended when it originally enacted the Communications Decency
    Act. I therefore applaud the current efforts to make clear that the
    Communications Decency Act does not bar states from pursuing these
    important prosecutions.
        The world was a different place in 1996, the last time this
    Congress passed a major telecommunications act--in particular, the
    Communications Decency Act--before most of today's victims of sex
    trafficking, adults or children, were even born. The modes of
    trafficking children are different. The horrendous crime is the same,
    but the venue for it has changed. The Internet has caused an explosion
    of sex trafficking, where virtual brothels are used by pimps to exploit
    and sell vulnerable children on a daily basis.
        Maggy Krell is a career prosecutor at the California Department of
    Justice who has taken the lead on sex trafficking cases for our office,
    including against the owners of Backpage.com. She said that,
    ``virtually every human trafficking case now involves a website
    component. Law enforcement needs to be able to disrupt the criminal
    networks.'' This point underscores the importance of amending the
    Communications Decency Act.
        I therefore support passage of S. 1693 and its amendments to
    Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It's an important step
    we should take to make clear the authority of state and local law
    enforcement to protect victims of trafficking from those who promote,
    facilitate and benefit from sex trafficking online.
        I appreciate the work of Senators McCaskill and Portman and many of
    you on this Committee in leading the effort of the United States Senate
    on this bipartisan bill. I also want to thank Senator Harris for all
    that she has done to combat trafficking in California.
        I know that the Internet Association and others have come out
    against this bill, but this bill is narrowly crafted to target sex
    trafficking. I appreciate the help of many of these companies that are
    helping California and other states more effectively target traffickers
    and pimps and encourage them to come to the table to work with us on
    this bill. I hope they will join us at the table on this bill to
    address this critical issue.
        This bill is about protecting our most vulnerable. This is not a
    Republican or Democratic issue. This is an issue of justice, and
    ensuring that our Nation's top cops--my fellow attorneys general across
    the country--are able to enforce the law. In fact, recently, 49 of my
    colleagues--representing nearly every U.S. state--signed a letter to
    this Committee urging Congress to act.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-
    becerra-urges-congress-amend-communications-decency-act-empower
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In fact, in that letter, my colleagues and I urged Congress to go
    broader than S. 1693, and encouraged amendments be applicable to not
    only sex trafficking but all criminal enforcement action. I believe
    that this action will make the bill even stronger, and protect against
    other crimes such as child pornography and other forms of cyber
    exploitation. I encourage the Congress to continue thinking about and
    working on this bill and issue. California welcomes the opportunity to
    be a part of the discussion.
    III. California's Experience and Perspective
        According to the National Human Trafficking Hotline, 4,460 cases of
    human trafficking have already been reported for 2017, 705 of which
    were reported in California since the start of the year. In fact, over
    the past five years, California has consistently had the most human
    trafficking cases reported in the United States.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ National Human Trafficking Hotline, https://
    humantraffickinghotline.org/states
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In recent years, transnational criminal organizations and
    affiliated domestic gangs have expanded from drug and firearm
    trafficking to the trafficking of human beings. From cross-border
    tunnels for transporting victims to domestic recruiting of vulnerable
    populations in our local communities, these criminal organizations have
    set aside traditional rivalries to set up commercial sex rings that
    profit from the sale of human beings, in particular, young women and
    girls.
        California has led the Nation in the fight against human
    trafficking--from increasing penalties against traffickers to providing
    resources to help survivors heal from the trauma of their experience
    and seek and find justice. Our state has passed legislation to finally
    treat sexually exploited children as victims, not criminals. We also
    have a law in California that requires large companies doing business
    here to provide information to consumers about their efforts to fight
    human trafficking. And we are continuing to push innovative legislation
    aimed at prevention to teach our children in the classroom how to
    recognize and avoid predators.
        Further, my office runs a Human Trafficking Taskforce with local
    law enforcement in San Diego that disrupts and dismantles human
    trafficking and child exploitation organizations through a
    comprehensive, collaborative and regional law enforcement and
    prosecution response. The Taskforce works to identify victims and hold
    exploiters accountable; along with promoting community awareness,
    expanding the exchange of information, and enhancing law enforcement
    resources and training.
        The State of California is committed to combatting all human
    trafficking and has demonstrated this consistently and will continue to
    work with partners across the country on this important issue.
    IV. Backpage.com Case
        The California Department of Justice brought charges alleging that
    the owners of Backpage.com committed conspiracy, money laundering, and
    pimping by profiting financially from advertisements used to promote
    and solicit the sex-trafficking of teenagers, including victims under
    the age of 16.
        However, the defendants argued in court that the Communications
    Decency Act gave them broad immunity from all of the charges.
    Ultimately, the judge allowed us to go forward on the conspiracy and
    money laundering charges, but as to the other charges, the Judge said:
    ``If and until Congress sees fit to amend the immunity law, the broad
    reach of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act even applies to
    those alleged to support the exploitation of others by human
    trafficking.''
        We are pursuing our prosecution of the conspiracy and money
    laundering charges. But regardless of our success in California, the
    amendment is aimed to ensure that state and local law enforcement,
    across the board, have the unquestioned authority to enforce our laws
    and protect our most vulnerable citizens. This bill takes an important
    step forward in serving that goal and helping victims.
        Although I support the bill as an important step, it is essential
    to note for the Committee that the bill can be made even stronger. The
    focus of this bill is narrow, in the sense that it specifically
    mentions only state prosecutions involving sex trafficking. We believe
    that the original intent of Congress in enacting the CDA was to
    preserve state prosecutorial authority more generally, just as the
    original CDA preserved Federal prosecutorial authority. I understand
    and respect that Congress is seeking to strike a balance here in
    narrowly crafting this bill. My team at the California Department of
    Justice and I would be happy work with Senators Portman, McCaskill and
    this Committee to make the bill even stronger.
    V. Conclusion
        But let's be clear, this discussion today is not just about
    tweaking a statute. It's about real lives.
        Flip through any newspaper. Countless instances of child sex
    trafficking--and its online promotion--occur every day in the United
    States. Federal and state law enforcement recently arrested a Chicago
    man accused of pimping a 16-year-old girl via an online website,
    leading to her murder. The man ``shopped [the girl] around'' online,
    delivered her to a customer, and then fell asleep in his car outside a
    parking garage. When he awoke, he discovered the girl's body in the
    garage, ``her throat slit and her body badly beaten.'' We can, and we
    simply must, do better.
        I am sure our panelists today will share the degree to which this
    crime is plaguing our country.
        We can't deny that the Internet plays a significant role in sex
    trafficking and has created virtual brothels where victims are bought
    and sold online. And we won't turn a blind eye to the biggest
    beneficiaries of sex trafficking because they were owners of a website
    instead of pimps on a street corner.
        Amending the Communications Decency Act is a critical step we can
    take in the fight against human trafficking and one that we must take.
    To that end, we look forward to working with Congress to on this very
    important issue for Americans across the country.

        The Chairman. Thank you, General Becerra. Great to have you
    back and with us today.
        Mr. Goldman is up next. I'm going to go vote, and Senator
    Inhofe will have the gavel here.

                 STATEMENT OF ERIC GOLDMAN, PROFESSOR,
                  SANTA CLARA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

        Mr. Goldman. Chairman Thune, members of the Committee, I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify today about the Stop
    Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017. As we've heard today, sex
    trafficking is a horrific crime, and I applaud Congress'
    ongoing efforts to combat it. However, I'm concerned that SESTA
    is not the right solution to stop sex trafficking.
        Specifically, SESTA will counterproductively lead to more
    socially harmful content and more online sex trafficking
    promotions. Instead of stopping bad actors, SESTA will help
    them proliferate. To understand why, it's helpful to review why
    Section 230 has worked so well.
        When I started practicing law, Internet law, in 1994,
    before Congress enacted Section 230, we advised online services
    to handle third-party content and activity in one of two ways.
    The service could either: one, accept that it will be fully
    liable for third-party content and manage that risk by
    exercising editorial control through content prescreening or
    other costly and cumbersome editorial procedures; or, two, take
    minimal steps to moderate third-party content, and thereby
    avoid any knowledge that might lead to liability.
        Section 230 mooted that advice. Section 230 instead allows
    online services to safely adopt a wide range of moderation
    practices between those two extremes. By reducing online
    services' moderation costs and liability exposure, Section 230
    spurred new innovative services and fostered their growth,
    contributing to the Internet's success. Virtually every waking
    hour of every day we use online services that owe their
    existence to Section 230s protections.
        SESTA would reinstate the moderation dilemma that Section
    230 eliminated. Because of Section 230, online services today
    voluntarily take many steps to suppress socially harmful
    content; that could include false and malicious content, sexual
    material, and other lawful but unwanted content. And they can
    do so without fearing for liability for whatever they miss.
        Post-SESTA, some services will conclude that they cannot
    achieve this high level of accuracy or that moderation
    procedures would make it impossible to serve their community.
    In those cases, the services will reduce or eliminate their
    current moderation efforts. As more services do less to
    moderate third-party content, we will see more socially harmful
    content online that would have been moderated today. Indeed,
    some online services that are actively suppressing sex
    trafficking promotions will stop those efforts, leading to the
    unintended consequence that SESTA will foster the expansion of
    online sex trafficking promotion.
        SESTA tries to avoid this moderation dilemma by focusing
    on, quote, ``bad actors'' who promote sex trafficking. This
    doesn't work because only some sex trafficking promotions
    clearly self-identify as such. Sex trafficking promotions can
    take less obvious forms, such as online prostitution ads, ads
    for adult services that are legal, and, indeed, every type of
    user content ranging from videos to dating profiles to message
    board comments to tweets, and they can do so using coded
    phrases and euphemisms to mask their promotional objective.
        As a result, online services can't magically find and
    eradicate only the online sex trafficking promotions. Automated
    filters are costly and suffer from high error rates.
    Furthermore, if the services decide to moderate their content,
    they will have to undertake the larger and harder effort to
    review their entire universe of third-party content, even
    content that lacks obvious red flags, to find every
    impermissible promotion. So SESTA doesn't limit itself to bad
    actors; it applies to the entire Internet, and it forces
    services to do--that are doing moderation to comprehensively
    review all the content they receive.
        Finally, SESTA isn't necessary to fight online sex
    trafficking promotions. Section 230s immunity expressly does
    not apply to Federal criminal prosecutions. Congress has
    enacted numerous crimes against sex trafficking and its
    promotion, including most recently the SAVE Act that this body
    passed just 2 years ago to target sex trafficking promotion on
    Backpage. If the Department of Justice prosecutes Backpage or
    any other sites for the crimes that they have committed,
    whether it's the SAVE Act or based on other crimes, Section 230
    will not shield them.
        A Federal grand jury is currently investigating Backpage.
    Congress should wait for the results of that investigation,
    which I hope will come soon, to identify if any gaps exist in
    the law and how Congress should best respond.
        SESTA is a complex law implicating important social issues.
    I'm grateful that this Committee is paying close attention to
    it. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Goldman follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Eric Goldman, Professor,
               Santa Clara University School of Law *
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \*\ Professor of Law, Co-Director of the High Tech Law Institute,
    and Co-Supervisor of the Privacy Law Certificate, Santa Clara
    University School of Law. I'm testifying on own behalf, not on behalf
    of my employer or anyone else. I started practicing Internet Law in
    1994, and I started teaching Internet Law in January 1996--in both
    cases, before Section 230 was enacted. E-mail: egoldman@gmail.com.
    Website: http://www.ericgoldman.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Members of the Committee:

        I appreciate this opportunity to testify about the Stop Enabling
    Sex Traffickers Act of 2017. Sex trafficking is a horrific crime, and I
    applaud Congress' ongoing efforts to combat it. However, I am concerned
    that SESTA is not the right solution to stop sex trafficking.
        Specifically, SESTA will counterproductively lead to more socially
    harmful content and more online sex trafficking promotions. Instead of
    stopping bad actors, SESTA will help them proliferate. To understand
    why, it's helpful to review why Section 230 has worked so well.
        When I started practicing Internet Law in 1994, before Congress
    enacted Section 230, we advised online services to handle third party
    content and activity in one of two ways. The service could either: (1)
    accept that it will be fully liable for third party content, and manage
    that risk by exercising editorial control through content pre-screening
    or other costly and cumbersome editorial procedures, or (2) take
    minimal steps to moderate third party content and thereby avoid any
    knowledge that might lead to liability.
        Section 230 mooted that advice. Section 230 instead allows online
    services to safely adopt a wide range of moderation practices between
    those two extremes. By reducing online services' moderation costs and
    liability exposure, Section 230 spurred new innovative services and
    fostered their growth, contributing to the Internet's success.
    Virtually every waking hour of every day, we use online services that
    owe their existence to Section 230s protections.
        SESTA would reinstate the moderation dilemma that Section 230
    eliminated. Because of Section 230, online services today voluntarily
    take many steps to suppress socially harmful content (including false
    and malicious content, sexual material, and other lawful but unwanted
    content) without fearing liability for whatever they miss. Post-SESTA,
    some services will conclude that they cannot achieve this high level of
    accuracy, or that moderation procedures would make it impossible to
    serve their community. In those cases, the services will reduce or
    eliminate their current moderation efforts. As more services do less to
    moderate third party content, we will see more socially harmful content
    online that would have been moderated today. Indeed, some online
    services that are actively suppressing sex trafficking promotions will
    stop those efforts, leading to the unintended consequence that SESTA
    will foster the expansion of online sex trafficking promotion.
        SESTA tries to avoid the moderation dilemma by focusing on ``bad
    actors'' who promote sex trafficking. This doesn't work because only
    some sex trafficking promotions clearly self-identify as such. Sex
    trafficking promotion can take less obvious forms, such as online
    prostitution ads, ads for adult services that are legal, and indeed
    every type of user content ranging from videos to dating profiles to
    message board comments to tweets (and use coded phrases and euphemisms
    to mask the promotional objective).
        As a result, online services can't magically find and eradicate
    only the online sex trafficking promotions. Automated filters are
    costly and suffer from high error rates. Furthermore, if the services
    decide to moderate their content, they will have to undertake the
    larger and harder effort to review their entire universe of third party
    content--even content that lacks any obvious ``red flags''--to find
    every impermissible promotion. So SESTA doesn't limit itself to bad
    actors; it applies to the entire Internet and force services doing
    moderation to comprehensively review all content they receive.
        Finally, SESTA isn't necessary to fight online sex trafficking
    promotions. Section 230s immunity expressly doesn't apply to Federal
    criminal prosecutions. Congress has enacted numerous crimes against sex
    trafficking and its promotion, including most recently the SAVE Act
    passed just two years ago to target sex trafficking promotions on
    Backpage. If the Department of Justice prosecutes Backpage for any
    crimes Backpage may have committed (whether the SAVE Act or other
    crimes), Section 230 will not shield Backpage. A Federal grand jury is
    currently investigating Backpage. Congress should wait for the results
    of that investigation--which I hope will come soon--to help identify if
    any gaps exist in the law and how Congress should best respond.
        SESTA is a complex law implicating important social issues. I'm
    grateful that this committee is paying close attention to it. Thank you
    for the opportunity to testify.
                                    *  *  *
        I supplement my oral remarks with two attachments:

       ``Congress Is About to Ruin Its Online Free Speech
            Masterpiece,'' an essay more fully outlining my concerns about
            the bill.

       ``SESTA Would Eliminate the Good Samaritan Defense,'' an
            essay rebutting Sen. Portman's claims that SESTA would not
            modify Section 230s ``Good Samaritan'' defense.
                                     ______

        Attachment 1: Congress Is About To Ruin Its Online Free Speech
                            Masterpiece *
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \*\ A version of this was first published as Eric Goldman, Congress
    Is About To Eviscerate Its Greatest Online Free Speech Achievement,
    ACSblog, Sept. 11, 2017, https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/congress-is-
    about-to-eviscerate-its-greatest-online-free-speech-achievement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 1996, Congress became concerned that excessive liability would
    threaten the free flow of information over the Internet. To protect the
    Internet from this risk, Congress passed 47 USC Sec. 230 (Section 230),
    which eliminates (with limited exceptions) the liability of online
    services for publishing third party content.
        By any measure, Section 230 has been a remarkable success. Think
    about the Internet services you use daily, such as Google, Facebook,
    YouTube, Wikipedia, Twitter, eBay, Snapchat, LinkedIn, and Yelp. All of
    them publish third party content, and all of them have flourished
    because of Section 230s immunity. Section 230 also promotes competitive
    markets by reducing entry costs. New entrants can challenge the
    marketplace leaders without having to match the incumbents' editorial
    investments or incurring fatal liability risks.
        Section 230 is a globally unique policy; no other country has
    passed a law similar to it.\1\ As a result, the United States has a
    global competitive advantage for online services that republish third
    party content. This has helped create trillions of dollars of social
    wealth in the U.S.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Eric Goldman, Internet Law: Cases & Materials 330 (July 14,
    2017 ed.).
        \2\ Christian M. Dippon, Economic Value of Internet Intermediaries
    and the Role of Liability Protections, NERA Consulting, June 5, 2017,
    https://cdn1.internetassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/
    Economic-Value-of-Internet-Intermediaries-the-Role-of-Liability-
    Protections
    .pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    *  *  *
        Section 230 has remained essentially unchanged since its
    passage,\3\ but that could change imminently--in significant and
    troubling ways.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Eric Goldman, WARNING: Draft ``No Immunity for Sex Traffickers
    Online Act'' Bill Poses Major Threat to Section 230, Tech. & Marketing
    L. Blog, Mar. 25, 2017, http://blog.ericgold
    man.org/archives/2017/03/warning-draft-no-immunity-for-sex-traffickers-
    online-act-bill-poses-major-threat-to-section-230.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Backpage is an online classified service that publishes
    prostitution ads. Protected by Section 230s immunity, Backpage has
    defeated multiple legal challenges. Frustrated by Backpage's continued
    existence, and fueled by anti-trafficking advocates who want Backpage
    gone, Congress is considering two bills to amend Section 230. The
    Senate bill is Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 (SESTA), S.
    1693,\4\ and the House bill is Allow States and Victims to Fight Online
    Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, H.R. 1865.\5\ Both bills have many co-
    sponsors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ For more discussion about SESTA, see Eric Goldman, Senate's
    ``Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017''-and Section 230s Imminent
    Evisceration, Tech. & Marketing L. Blog, July 31, 2017, http://
    blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/07/senates-stop-enabling-sex-traffic
    kers-act-of-2017-and-section-230s-imminent-evisceration.htm.
        \5\ For more discussion about H.R. 1865, see Eric Goldman, The
    ``Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of
    2017'' Bill Would Be Bad News for Section 230, Tech. & Marketing L.
    Blog, Apr. 10, 2017, http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/04/the-
    allow-states-and-victims-to-fight-online-sex-trafficking-act-of-2017-
    bill-would-be-bad-news-for-section-230.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For simplicity, I'll focus on SESTA's provisions. SESTA would make
    three major substantive changes to Section 230s immunity. It would:

      (1)  Exclude state criminal prosecutions related to sex trafficking
            from Section 230s immunity. State attorneys general and other
            local prosecutors could prosecute online services for
            trafficking-related crimes without any Section 230 limits.

      (2)  Exclude Federal and state civil causes of action related to sex
            trafficking from Section 230s immunity. Sex trafficking victims
            (and others) could obtain money judgments and injunctions
            against online services.

      (3)  Expand the scope of the existing Federal crime (and associated
            civil claims) of sex trafficking. Section 230 expressly does
            not restrict Federal criminal prosecutions, so the U.S.
            Department of Justice (DOJ) could pursue a wider range of
            prosecutions against online services.

        I'm glad that Congress is combating sex trafficking, but SESTA is
    not the right policy solution for at least six reasons:

      (1)  SESTA may not help sex trafficking victims. It might hurt them.
            Online prostitution ads are evidence of crimes being committed,
            providing a roadmap for law enforcement to find and prosecute
            criminals. That has occurred countless times. The ads also can
            help rescue sex trafficking victims.\6\ By investigating the
            ads, law enforcement and victim advocates have found and
            rescued many victims.\7\ SESTA might reduce the visibility of
            online prostitution ads; but sex trafficking will still occur,
            and so will the marketing of sex with trafficked victims via
            less visible means (such as ``walking the streets''). SESTA
            will make it harder to find--and rescue--those victims.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Alex F. Levy, How Section 230 Helps Sex Trafficking Victims
    (and SESTA Would Hurt Them), Tech. & Marketing L. Blog, Aug. 15, 2017,
    http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/08/how-section-230-helps-sex-
    trafficking-victims-and-sesta-would-hurt-them-guest-blog-post.htm;
    Alexandra F. Levy, The Virtues of Unvirtuous Spaces, 50 Wake Forest L.
    Rev. 403 (2017).
        \7\ For a recent example of a rescue, see People v. Jones, 2017 WL
    3633962 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2017), a case involving Craigslist ads.

      (2)  Congress is fighting sex trafficking on many fronts. Congress is
            currently considering more than 30 bills referencing ``sex
            trafficking;'' and Congress' prior two sessions each included
            over 50 bills referencing ``sex trafficking.'' (Note: an anti-
            sex trafficking bill may not reference the term, so the number
            of anti-sex trafficking bills may be higher). So SESTA is far
            from Congress' only anti-sex trafficking policy option; and
            even if Congress doesn't pursue SESTA, Congress can and will
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            redress sex trafficking other ways.

      (3)  Congress already has statutorily targeted Backpage. The 2015
            SAVE Act \8\ created a new Federal crime for publishing online
            ads that promote sex trafficking victims. A Federal grand jury
            in Phoenix is currently investigating Backpage,\9\ and the SAVE
            Act may be part of that investigation (grand jury proceedings
            are secret). So the DOJ already may be using the new crime to
            achieve Congress' goal without SESTA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act Sec. 118 (2015); see
    also Eric Goldman, Backpage Can't Challenge the SAVE Act-Backpage v.
    Lynch, Tech. & Marketing L. Blog, Nov. 10, 2016, http://
    blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/11/backpage-cant-challenge-the-save-
    act-backpage-v-lynch.htm.
        \9\ E.g., Sarah Jarvis et al, As Allegations Increase Against
    Backpage, Founders Have Become Big Political Donors In Arizona, Ariz.
    Republic, Apr. 14, 2017, http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/
    phoenix/2017/04/14/allegations-increase-against-backpage-founders-have-
    become-big-political-donors-arizona/100421528/.

      (4)  Other crimes may already apply to Backpage. Though Backpage has
            had significant success in court, recently a California state
            court ruled that Backpage executives must defend charges of
            violating state money laundering laws.\10\ Also, in the past
            couple of years, the U.S. Department of Justice successfully
            prosecuted and shut down two sites publishing online
            prostitution ads (Rentboy \11\ and MyRedbook \12\). The DOJ
            should be able to deploy similar legal theories against
            Backpage.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ People v. Ferrer, 16FE024013 (Cal. Superior Ct. Aug. 23,
    2017), http://digitalcommons.law
    .scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2543&context=historical, see also
    Eric Goldman, Backpage Executives Must Face Money Laundering Charges
    Despite Section 230-People v. Ferrer, Tech. & Marketing L. Blog, Aug.
    24, 2017, http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/08/backpage-
    executives-must-face-money-laundering-charges-despite-section-230-
    people-v-ferrer.htm.
        \11\ E.g., U.S. v. Easy Rent Systems, Inc., No. 1:16-cr-00045
    (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 27, 2016); USA v. Hurant, No. 1:15-mj-00780 (E.D.N.Y.
    Aug. 18, 2015).
        \12\ E.g., U.S. v. Omuro, No. 3:14-cr-00336 (N.D. Cal. Jun 24,
    2014).

      (5)  No one knows how SESTA would change the law. By reducing Section
            230s immunity, SESTA would allow a range of laws to apply to
            Internet services for the first time. Which laws? Apparently,
            no one knows; I'm unaware of any attempt to inventory those
            laws. So what criminal prosecutions and civil claims will be
            brought post-SESTA, by whom, and against which services? Again,
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            no one knows.

      (6)  SESTA would damage the Internet, perhaps radically. We can only
            speculate how SESTA might affect the Internet services we know
            and love. For example, Airbnb has had numerous issues with
            short-term rentals being used for prostitution,\13\ likely
            including sex trafficking victims; and it's well-known that
            prostitution historically has been advertised on Facebook.\14\
            After SESTA, will Airbnb and Facebook look radically different
            as they try to avoid substantial criminal and civil liability
            exposure?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ `My Airbnb Flat Was Turned into a Pop-up Brothel', BBC, Apr.
    8, 2017, http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-39528479.
        \14\ Rich Schapiro, Facebook Friends Take on New Meaning as Hookers
    Are Said To Be Flocking To Social Networking Site, N.Y. Daily News,
    Feb. 27, 2011, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/facebook-friends-
    new-meaning-hookers-flocking-social-networking-site-article-1.136789. I
    understand that Facebook subsequently undertook additional efforts to
    suppress such advertising.

        Even if we could figure out how SESTA changes the law today, we
    can't contemplate how future state laws will take advantage of the new
    regulatory zones enabled by SESTA. Imagine a new state law requires
    services to prescreen all third party content to find and block sex
    trafficking ads. How would Twitter work with prescreened tweets?
        Finally, Section 230 does not distinguish between services that
    passively display third party content or actively manage that content:
    in both cases, publishers aren't liable for third party content. This
    policy allows online services to try to suppress illegal or socially
    harmful content without fearing legal exposure for whatever they miss.
    In response to SESTA's curtailed Section 230 immunity, many services
    probably will reduce their current suppression efforts to avoid having
    scienter that would create liability. If that happens, SESTA's attempt
    to suppress one type of illegal content will counter-productively cause
    the proliferation of illegal and socially harmful content--including,
    ironically, the proliferation of online prostitution ads if services
    dial back existing suppression efforts.
                                     *  * *
        The First Amendment is the foundation of free speech in our
    society. However, legislators can supplement the First Amendment's
    protections. Section 230 is a premier example of speech-enhancing
    legislation that enriches the free speech rights of speakers and their
    publishers. Undoubtedly, Section 230 has done more to advance free
    speech than anything else Congress has done in the past quarter-
    century; and Section 230 may be Congress' greatest pro-free-speech
    achievement ever. It's hard to believe that Congress would ruin its
    free speech masterpiece, but that's exactly what SESTA would do.
                                     ______

        Attachment 2: SESTA Would Eliminate the Good Samaritan Defense
                                  *
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \*\ A version of this was first published as Eric Goldman, Sen.
    Portman Says SESTA Doesn't Affect the Good Samaritan Defense. He's
    Wrong, Tech. & Marketing L. Blog, Aug. 9, 2017, http://
    blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/08/senportmansestawrong.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When introducing the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 (S.
    1693), Sen. Portman said (emphasis added):

            There are some groups who have been critical of this effort to
            hold Backpage accountable and stop this online exploitation.
            They have suggested that this bipartisan bill could impact
            mainstream websites and service providers--the good actors out
            there. That is false. Our bill does not amend, and thus
            preserves, the Communications Decency Act's Good Samaritan
            provision. This provision protects good actors who proactively
            block and screen for offensive material and thus shields them
            from any frivolous lawsuits. That is in the legislation and
            needs to be in there.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Cong. Record S4671 (Aug. 1, 2017), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
    pkg/CREC-2017-08-01/pdf/CREC-2017-08-01-pt1-PgS4669.pdf#page=3.

        This positioning makes it sound like websites who object to SESTA
    are overreacting. Why should they complain if they still have immunity?
    Unfortunately, Sen. Portman's statement is wrong.
        Section 230 has two main operative provisions. Section 230(c)(1)
    says websites aren't liable for third party content. Section 230(c)(2)
    says websites aren't liable for filtering content they consider
    offensive. Sen. Portman's statement indicates that he thinks SESTA
    would create new exclusions only to Section 230(c)(1) and would not
    amend 230(c)(2). However, the bill clearly changes both 230(c)(1) and
    230(c)(2) equally.
        Section 230(e) enumerates four modifications to the immunity,
    including Section 230(e)(1), which the bill would amend to read (new
    language bolded):\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ S. 1693 Sec. 3(a).

            Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair (A) the
            enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71
            (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation
            of children) of title 18, Section 1591 (relating to sex
            trafficking) of that title, or any other Federal criminal
            statute or (B) any State criminal prosecution or civil
            enforcement action targeting conduct that violates a Federal
            criminal law prohibiting (i) sex trafficking of children; or
            (ii) sex trafficking by force, threats of force, fraud, or
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            coercion.

        The bill also would create a new Section 230(e)(5):\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Id.

            No effect on civil law relating to sex trafficking. Nothing in
            this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement or
            limit the application of section 1595 of title 18, United
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            States Code.

        The added language to Section 230(e)(1) and the new Section
    230(e)(5) would expose Internet services to countless new enforcement
    actions by state law enforcement and civil plaintiffs.\4\ Notice how
    both Section 230(e)(1) and the proposed Section 230(e)(5) start off
    with the statement: ``Nothing in this section shall be construed to
    impair . . .'' The only possible reading of ``nothing in this section''
    is that it refers to all of Section 230, including both Section
    230(c)(1) and (c)(2). I didn't find any cases interpreting what ``this
    section'' means, but I found several cases implying that Section
    230(c)(2) defenses are subject to Section 230(e)'s exceptions.\5\
    Applying standard methods of statutory construction, Section 230(c)(1)
    and (c)(2) are equally affected by the existing and proposed Section
    230(e) exceptions. As a result, Section 230(c)(2) would not limit any
    new enforcement actions unleashed by the proposed amendments.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Eric Goldman, Senate's ``Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of
    2017''-and Section 230s Imminent Evisceration, Tech. & Marketing L.
    Blog, July 31, 2017, http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/07/
    senates-stop-enabling-sex-traffickers-act-of-2017-and-section-230s-
    imminent-evisceration.htm.
        \5\ See, e.g., e360Insight, LLC v. Comcast Corp., 546 F. Supp. 2d
    605 (N.D. Ill. 2008); Holomaxx Technologies v. Microsoft Corp., 783 F.
    Supp. 2d 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2011); Milo v. Martin, 311 S.W.3d 210 (Tex.
    Ct. App. 2010) (concurring opinion); Davis v. Motiva Enterprises,
    L.L.C., 2015 WL 1535694 (Tex. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        [Caveat 1: A 2001 district court opinion contains a sentence
    saying: ``Immunizing Mindspring from Plaintiff's claims, therefore,
    would ``limit'' the laws pertaining to intellectual property in
    contravention of Sec. 230(c)(2).'' \6\ Although this language seemingly
    confirms my analysis, I believe the Section 230(c)(2) reference is a
    typo. The court meant to say 230(e)(2).\7\]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Gucci America v. Hall & Associates, 135 F. Supp. 2d 409
    (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
        \7\ Ford Motor v. GreatDomains.com, 2001 WL 1176319 (E.D. Mich.
    Sept. 25, 2001) noted this error, and corrected it, when quoting the
    Gucci opinion's language.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        [Caveat 2: a few cases, including the Seventh Circuit's Doe v. GTE
    \8\ and Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law v.
    Craigslist \9\ cases, have suggested that Section 230(c)(1) acts as a
    definitional section for Section 230(c)(2). These cases make a strained
    reading of the statute, but they also would further undermine Sen.
    Portman's statement because, under this reading, Section 230(c)(2)
    would be the only operational immunity the bill could amend.]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Doe v. GTE Corp, 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2003).
        \9\ Chicago Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights Under Law v.
    Craigslist, Inc., 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Eric Goldman,
    Craigslist Gets Seventh Circuit 230 Win in Fair Housing Act Case-
    Chicago Lawyers' Committee v. Craigslist, Tech. & Marketing L. Blog,
    Mar. 14, 2008, http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2008/03/
    craigslist_gets.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Because I don't see any possible way of interpreting the statutory
    language to say that Section 230(c)(2) is subject to different
    exclusions than Section 230(c)(1), Sen. Portman's claims to the
    contrary appear to be a misreading of the existing statute or a
    misunderstanding of how the bill fits into the existing statutory
    language. Either way, Congress could easily effectuate Sen. Portman's
    claim through different drafting. Instead of preceding Section
    230(e)(1) and (e)(5) with ``Nothing in this section . . .'' the
    amendment could say ``Nothing in Section 230(c)(1) . . .'' thereby
    making Section 230(c)(2) not subject to those exclusions.
        There is another problem with Sen. Portman extolling Section
    230(c)(2)'s protection: it's basically a defunct safe harbor \10\ that
    does not provide much protection from ``frivolous'' lawsuit. Unlike
    Section 230(c)(1), Section 230(c)(2) has a good faith requirement,
    i.e., to qualify for the safe harbor, the website's filtering decisions
    must be made in good faith. Plaintiffs can, and routinely will, allege
    that the defendant made a filtering decision in subjective bad faith,
    and courts routinely let those generic and unsupported allegations
    defeat a motion to dismiss. Thereafter, plaintiffs can do expensive and
    intrusive discovery into the website's subjective intent, raising
    defense costs substantially and extending the case to summary judgment
    or possibly a trial.\11\ As a result, few if any websites actually rely
    on Section 230(c)(2)'s protection; everyone relies on Section
    230(c)(1). Indeed, we've recently seen filtering cases--where Section
    230(c)(2) clearly should have applied--decided on 230(c)(1) grounds
    instead.\12\ It appears Sen. Portman may not appreciate how Section
    230(c)(2) has effectively failed in the field.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ See generally Eric Goldman, Online User Account Termination
    and 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230(c)(2), 2 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 659 (2012), https:/
    /ssrn.com/abstract=1934310.
        \11\ E.g., e-ventures Worldwide v. Google, Inc., 2:14-cv-00646-PAM-
    CM (M.D. Fla. Feb. 8, 2017); see also Eric Goldman, First Amendment
    Protects Google's De-Indexing of ``Pure Spam'' Websites-e-ventures v.
    Google, Tech. & Marketing L. Blog, Feb. 9, 2017, http://
    blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/02/first-amendment-protects-googles-
    de-indexing-of-pure-spam-websites-e-ventures-v-google.htm.
        \12\ See, e.g., Sikhs for Justice ``SFJ'', Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
    144 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2015), aff'd, No. 15-17441 (9th Cir.
    Sept. 13, 2017); see also Eric Goldman, Facebook Can Legally Block
    Pages Without Any Explanation--Sikhs For Justice v. Facebook, Tech. &
    Marketing L. Blog, Nov. 30, 2015, http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/
    2015/11/facebook-can-legally-block-pages-without-any-explanation-sikhs-
    for-justice-v-facebook-forbes-cross-post.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I hope this essay helps explain why so many in the Internet
    community have expressed grave concerns about SESTA's effects despite
    Sen. Portman's efforts to marginalize the concerns. The sponsors
    apparently think the bill wouldn't change Section 230 for ``good
    actors'' when, in fact, it would eviscerate the immunity.

        Senator Sullivan [presiding]. Thank you, Professor Goldman.
        Ms. Souras.

    STATEMENT OF YIOTA G. SOURAS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL
                   COUNSEL, THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR
                     MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN

        Ms. Souras. Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member
    Nelson, and members of the Committee. I am honored to be here
    today on behalf of the National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children.
        First, let me say how pleased I am to appear alongside
    NCMEC's valued partners representing law enforcement and the
    technology industry. NCMEC could not sustain its mission to
    protect children without the heroic efforts of law enforcement
    to remove children from danger and prosecute those who harm
    them, including the ongoing work of Attorney General Becerra to
    protect children and the prosecution of Backpage.com.
        Just as important are the significant contributions of the
    technology industry to support child safety online. Technology
    companies such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and others have
    devoted tremendous resources to reduce child sexual
    exploitation on their platforms.
        NCMEC has been designated by Congress as the national
    clearinghouse on issues relating to missing and exploited
    children, including victims of child sex trafficking. Based on
    our experience, NCMEC has endorsed the Stop Enabling Sex
    Traffickers Act, or SESTA. SESTA will ensure access to justice
    for child sex trafficking victims and hold online entities
    legally responsible when they knowingly assist trafficking a
    child.
        At NCMEC, we are confronted daily with the reality that
    children are trafficked for sex, and this crime increasingly
    occurs on the Internet. So far this year, we have received more
    than 9,700 reports of suspected child sex trafficking to our
    CyberTipline. Over the past 5 years, 81 percent of NCMEC's
    child sex trafficking reports have related to the trafficking
    of a child for sex online. More than 73 percent of these
    reports from members of the public concern an advertisement on
    Backpage.com.
        Under current law, websites can commit these crimes with
    virtual impunity even when knowingly facilitating the
    trafficking of a child. In case after case, child sex
    trafficking victims have been deprived of their day in court
    against every entity, including websites, that knowingly
    support their trafficking.
        Congress has acted to protect children from sex trafficking
    through the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act,
    or TVPRA, and every state has a corresponding trafficking
    statute. However, these laws have proven inadequate based on
    the courts' current interpretation of the Communications
    Decency Act.
        Congress enacted the CDA over 21 years ago to protect
    online companies from liability when they host third-party
    content or engage in good-faith efforts to regulate explicit
    material. Courts have struggled and failed to reconcile the
    CDA's narrow immunity with the TVPRA's criminalization of sex
    trafficking.
        Over the past 7 years, over 20 legal cases have been filed
    involving Backpage.com. Time and time again, courts have
    acknowledged the horror of the allegations made by child sex
    trafficking victims, but held themselves powerless to act under
    the CDA.
        Courts across the country have called on Congress to
    clarify the intersection between valuable CDA immunities and
    the strong laws against human sex trafficking. NCMEC has worked
    closely with children victimized by online sex trafficking
    whose cases have been dismissed based on the CDA. We have
    witnessed the anguish of these children suffering and have
    heard their hopelessness when the courts dismiss their cases.
    We can't rely on a 1996 law to solve a 21st century problem. We
    need to be smarter and more sophisticated in protecting
    children, and this is the approach SESTA takes. It is also why
    SESTA is the first bill to amend the CDA that NCMEC has
    endorsed.
        We believe SESTA strikes an important balance between
    providing victims their day in court while sustaining the
    underlying protections of the CDA. NCMEC supports SESTA because
    it clarifies: first, that child sex trafficking victims may
    seek civil remedies against online entities that knowingly
    supported their trafficking; second, that state attorneys
    general may protect children in their own communities by
    prosecuting online entities that knowingly supported
    trafficking; and, third, that online entities may be liable for
    trafficking if they knowingly support, assist, or facilitate
    the trafficking of a child for sex.
        We are encouraged by the continuing dialogue, including at
    this hearing, to further understanding of the proposed
    legislation and ensure it fulfills its mission to protect
    children. We welcome the opportunity to provide additional
    support as SESTA moves through this process and look forward to
    continuing to work with you on these very important issues.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Souras follows:]

       Prepared Statement of Yiota G. Souras, Senior Vice President and
    General Counsel, The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
        Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the
    Committee, I am honored to be here today on behalf of The National
    Center for Missing and Exploited Children (``NCMEC'').
        First, let me say how pleased I am to appear alongside NCMEC's
    valued partners representing law enforcement and the technology
    industry. NCMEC could not sustain its mission to protect children
    without the heroic efforts of law enforcement to remove children from
    danger and prosecute those who harm them. Just as important are the
    significant contributions and voluntary efforts of the technology
    industry to support child safety online. For many years, technology
    companies such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft and many others have
    devoted tremendous resources to reduce online child sexual exploitation
    on their platforms. We share a collective interest in strengthening the
    laws and technical tools that can be used to further NCMEC's work to
    save children from sexual exploitation and prevent children from being
    victimized by sex trafficking.
        Based on NCMEC's mission to reduce child sexual exploitation and
    prevent child victimization, we have endorsed the Stop Enabling Sex
    Traffickers Act of 2017 (``SESTA''). SESTA uniquely addresses a legal
    loophole that once closed will ensure justice for child sex trafficking
    victims and hold legally responsible entities that knowingly assist the
    trafficking of a child for sex online. NCMEC hopes that following this
    hearing we can work together to ensure this legislation moves quickly
    forward and our Nation's most vulnerable victims have the legal
    protections they so urgently need.
    NCMEC History
        NCMEC was created in 1984 by John and Reve Walsh and other child
    advocates as a private, non-profit organization. It has been designated
    by Congress to serve as the national clearinghouse and to provide a
    coordinated, national response to problems relating to missing and
    exploited children. NCMEC works with families, victims, private
    industry, law enforcement, and the public to assist with preventing
    child abductions, recovering missing children, and providing services
    to deter and combat child sexual exploitation. More specifically to
    today's hearing, NCMEC serves as a national clearinghouse for reports
    relating to child sex trafficking and assists law enforcement, first
    responders, and victim specialists relating to the identification,
    location, and recovery of child sex trafficking victims.
    Online Child Sex Trafficking
        Child sex trafficking is a pervasive and underreported crime. Every
    year, thousands of children from across the United States are
    trafficked, sold for sex, repeatedly raped, and suffer traumatic
    physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. Child sex trafficking involves
    the rape or other sexual abuse of a child in exchange for something of
    value. There is no legal protection for selling, facilitating the sale
    of, or benefiting financially from the sale of a child for rape or
    sexual abuse. There is no situation in which child sex trafficking
    could be considered legal or an activity between consenting adults.
        Technology has fundamentally changed how children are victimized
    through sex trafficking in ways that would have been unimaginable just
    a few years ago. An adult can now shop from the privacy of his home or
    hotel room, often on a cell phone, to buy a child for rape. Traffickers
    lure and recruit children online. Websites can be used to create
    virtual marketplaces on which predatory offenders can peruse a variety
    of sexual experiences being offered for sale, including with children,
    and complete their purchase online.
        As the national resource center on missing and exploited children
    issues, NCMEC has learned a great deal about child sex trafficking.
    NCMEC operates the CyberTipline to provide the public and electronic
    service providers with an efficient method of reporting incidents of
    suspected child sexual exploitation, including child sex trafficking.
    So far in 2017, NCMEC has received more than 9,700 reports of suspected
    child sex trafficking to the CyberTipline. Because there is no
    mandatory requirement for reporting child sex trafficking to NCMEC, we
    believe the reports NCMEC receives reflect only a small fraction of the
    large number of children trafficked online each year.
        The crime of child sex trafficking has increasingly expanded to the
    internet. Traffickers have learned that by leveraging the power of the
    internet, they can more easily recruit, control and sell children for
    sex. Some website operators have also recognized the enormous
    profitability of creating online platforms to facilitate the sale of
    adults and children for sex. Over the past five years, 81 percent of
    NCMEC's reports regarding child sex trafficking relate to the sex
    trafficking of a child online. More than 73 percent of reports relating
    to child sex trafficking made by members of the public to NCMEC concern
    a Backpage.com advertisement. This trend will continue so long as
    online classified ad websites are able to knowingly assist human sex
    traffickers market children for sale for sex to a range of online
    customers.
        At NCMEC, we are confronted daily with the reality that children
    are being trafficked for sex online. Under current law, these crimes
    can be committed with virtual impunity for websites that knowingly
    facilitate the trafficking of a child. In case after case, child sex
    trafficking victims are failing to have their voices heard and are
    being deprived of their day in court against every entity that
    knowingly supported their trafficking, because of the legal protections
    provided to these entities under current law. SESTA narrowly addresses
    these judicial barriers and ensures that child victims have full rights
    to seek redress for the harm done to them.
    The Courts' Struggles to Reconcile Trafficking Laws and the
            Communications Decency Act
        Congress has acted to protect children from being trafficked for
    sex by enacting the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
    (``TVPRA''). The TVPRA establishes human trafficking as a Federal crime
    and recognizes the unique vulnerability of children to trafficking by
    imposing severe penalties on anyone who knowingly recruits, harbors,
    transports, provides, advertises or obtains a child for a commercial
    sex act or who benefits financially from such an act. Every state has
    an equivalent statute available to state prosecutors to bring to
    justice those who traffic children for sex. These laws have been used
    effectively to prosecute traffickers who conduct their business on the
    streets, in hotels, casinos or at truck stops. However, these laws have
    proven inadequate when a website participates in a venture to traffic
    children due to the Communications Decency Act (``CDA''), a law that
    predates the TVPRA.
        The CDA was enacted by Congress in 1996 to protect online companies
    from liability when they host third party content or engage in good
    faith efforts to regulate explicit material on their platforms.
    Unfortunately, courts have struggled, and failed, to reconcile the
    purpose of the immunity provided by the CDA with the mission of the
    TVPRA to criminalize the sex trafficking of children. This legal
    conflict has been building for years. The most frequent result is that
    children who have suffered undeniable and unimaginable harm, are
    completely barred from seeking judicial relief against a knowing online
    facilitator of their trafficking. As a further complication, courts
    have been uncertain regarding how to define what it means to benefit
    from ``participation in a venture'' of trafficking under the TVPRA,
    which is a significant element to prove in a trafficking case involving
    an online website.
        Over the past seven years, over 20 legal cases have been initiated
    involving Backpage.com. The majority of these cases involve child
    victims who sought judicial damages against Backpage.com or state
    legislatures compelled to defend attempts to enact stronger laws to
    protect children from being trafficked for sex online. Time and time
    again in these cases, courts acknowledged the horror of the allegations
    made regarding the child victims' trafficking, but determined
    themselves powerless to act under the CDA.
        The child sex trafficking victims who have been denied relief due
    to the CDA include:

       A 14-year old child who was trafficked online for two years
            and advertised with photos displaying her private body parts in
            sexually exploitive poses.

       A 15-year old child who estimates she was raped over 1,000
            times while trafficked on Backpage.com for a year and a half.

       A 15-year old child who was trafficked for two years with
            ads posted on Backpage.com an average of six times a day with
            five to fifteen customers a day.

        Unfortunately, these victims are not unique. NCMEC has managed tens
    of thousands of cases where children have been bought and sold by the
    commercialization of child sex trafficking online.
    Courts Call on Congress to Clarify the CDA's Application in Child Sex
            Trafficking Cases
        The judicial system has become increasingly aware that children are
    inadequately protected, and state prosecutors limited, when an online
    website (rather than a brick-and-mortar operation) is participating in
    a trafficking venture. Even when dismissing victims' trafficking claims
    on legal grounds, both criminal and civil courts have consistently
    called on Congress to clarify that there is no legal protection for
    those who facilitate the trafficking of children for sex online.
    Further, both criminal and civil courts have reluctantly dismissed
    online sex trafficking charges against Backpage.com, while bemoaning
    the lack of clarity in how they must apply the CDA.
        For example, last year the Sacramento Superior Court dismissed
    criminal pimping charges against Backpage.com, while recognizing the
    vital issues at stake:

            [T]he Court understands the importance and urgency in waging
            war against sexual exploitation. Regardless of the grave
            potential for harm that may result in the exercise of this
            article of faith, Congress has precluded liability for online
            publishers for the action of publishing third party speech and
            thus provided for both a foreclosure from prosecution and an
            affirmative defense at trial. Congress has spoken on this
            matter and it is for Congress, not this Court, to revisit.

        Also last year, the First Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
    trafficking charges in a civil case after recognizing the failure of
    the statutes to provide an adequate means to protect children and hold
    online sex traffickers liable because of the CDA:

            ``This is a hard case--hard not in the sense that the legal
            issues defy resolution, but hard in the sense that the law
            requires that we, like the court below, deny relief to
            plaintiffs whose circumstances evoke outrage . . . The
            appellants' core argument is that Backpage has tailored its
            website to make sex trafficking easier. Aided by the amici, the
            appellants have made a persuasive case for that proposition.
            But Congress did not sound an uncertain trumpet when it enacted
            the CDA, and it chose to grant broad protections to Internet
            publishers. Showing that a website operates through a
            meretricious business model is not enough to strip away those
            protections. If the evils that the appellants have identified
            are deemed to outweigh the First Amendment values that drive
            the CDA, the remedy is through legislation, not through values
            that drive the CDA, the remedy is through legislation, not
            through litigation.

        Most recently, less than a month ago, the Sacramento Superior Court
    again dismissed criminal pimping charges and bluntly assessed its view
    of the current state of CDA law to immunize a website from online sex
    trafficking:

            If and until Congress sees fit to amend the immunity law, the
            broad reach of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
            even applies to those alleged to support the exploitation of
            others by human trafficking.
    NCMEC's Support of SESTA
        NCMEC has worked closely with children victimized by online sex
    trafficking, their families, attorneys and prosecutors in many of the
    cases where child sex trafficking claims have been dismissed under the
    courts' interpretation of the CDA. Through our work, we have witnessed
    the anguish of their recovery and the long-lasting trauma their
    families suffer. We also have heard their hopelessness when their legal
    efforts to hold responsible websites that knowingly facilitated the
    crimes against them are dismissed by the court.
        Congress has now heard these children's voices as well. NCMEC
    applauds the introduction of SESTA by Senators Rob Portman and Richard
    Blumenthal, and their 26 bi-partisan co-sponsors, to address the legal
    roadblocks that child victims have faced. NCMEC's support for SESTA is
    reflective of our mission to combat the sexual exploitation of
    children, including the pernicious monetization of children for sex
    trafficking on websites, such as Backpage.com.
        NCMEC supports SESTA, the first such bill that NCMEC has supported
    proposing a clarification of the CDA, because the goals of the
    legislation are sufficiently narrow to help ensure justice for child
    sex trafficking victims and clarify remedies available to civil
    attorneys and state Attorneys General to assist victims in holding
    every entity that knowingly participated in their trafficking. We
    believe SESTA strikes an important balance between providing sex
    trafficking victims the opportunity to hold everyone actively
    participating in their victimization accountable with the need to
    continue encouraging innovation of technology on the internet.
        NCMEC is fundamentally aware that combatting child sex trafficking
    is a multi-faceted problem. SESTA will not put an end to online child
    sex trafficking. No single solution can accomplish this. But it will
    provide an essential tool to providing legal rights to child sex
    trafficking victims and ensuring that online entities that participate
    in the trafficking of a child are not legally immune for their crimes.
        Because Backpage has been for years one of the largest facilitators
    of online sex trafficking ads, it is not surprising that Backpage has
    been the focus of civil, criminal, and legislative efforts to curtail
    sex trafficking on the site. Backpage has shown that children can be
    trafficked for sex online through a functionally simple and wildly
    lucrative website, while both criminal and civil courts have
    demonstrated that a loophole exists that enables this type of website
    to invoke the immunity under the CDA. NCMEC is aware that there are
    many other websites on which children are trafficked for sex. If
    Backpage ultimately closes because of any of the pending legal actions,
    another website or multiple websites will surely fill the marketplace
    that Backpage currently dominates. SESTA's narrow goals are intended to
    make certain that the CDA's ongoing protections enjoyed by a robust
    Internet industry will not extend to next generation platforms like
    Backpage.com that knowingly assist, support, or facilitate child sex
    trafficking.
        SESTA narrowly focuses on criminal conduct--the sale of a child for
    sex--which does not implicate the First Amendment or the Good Samaritan
    exception under Section 230. The legislation will clarify that immunity
    under the CDA is not extended to actual criminal conduct--the knowing
    facilitation, assistance or support of trafficking--while maintaining
    the CDA's core publisher protections for the mere publication of third
    party content or the good faith removal of objectionable online
    material. The balancing of interests here involves the rights of child
    sex trafficking victims who are denied access to justice versus
    clarifications to the CDA twenty-one years after its enactment.
        Additionally, given the volume of this criminal activity online and
    the impact on state and local communities, State Attorneys General
    should be able to prosecute websites that knowingly assist the sex
    trafficking of children within their state which SESTA provides.
        We believe that SESTA provides essential clarifications to an
    important statute and are encouraged that well-intentioned dialogue is
    continuing in an effort to understand the proposed legislation and
    ensure it fulfills its mission to protect children, including today's
    hearing.
    Conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Committee with
    information on NCMEC's role in combating online child sex trafficking
    and our support for SESTA. As the Nation's clearinghouse on missing and
    exploited children issues, NCMEC's sole priority is to protect the
    interests of children victimized by sexual exploitation. SESTA would be
    a powerful tool to further the rights of child victims consistent with
    NCMEC's mission while protecting the provisions of the law that
    encourage a healthy and robust internet. We are aware that technology
    companies and other advocates have been meeting with sponsors of the
    bill to discuss this proposed legislation.
        We welcome the opportunity to provide additional support as SESTA
    moves through the legislative process and look forward to continuing to
    work with you on these very important issues.

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Ms. Souras.
        Ms. Slater.

        STATEMENT OF ABIGAIL SLATER, GENERAL COUNSEL, INTERNET
                              ASSOCIATION

        Ms. Slater. Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and
    members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify.
    My name is Abigail Slater, and I am General Counsel at Internet
    Association, which represents more than 40 of the world's
    leading Internet companies.
        On a personal note, if I may, I would like to acknowledge
    the testimony of Mrs. Ambrose here today and to convey my
    sympathy to her on her loss of her daughter, Desiree. No family
    should have to suffer what Mrs. Ambrose's family suffered.
        There are three overarching points I would like to make
    today. First, the legitimate Internet companies that Internet
    Association represents are 100 percent committed to the fight
    against sex trafficking. Our objective is to help stop these
    crimes from ever occurring in the first place so that there are
    no more victims. For this reason, we support targeted
    legislative changes, including changes to the Communications
    Decency Act, that would allow victims and survivors to seek
    justice against bad actors that knowingly facilitate sex
    trafficking.
        As one of the mothers interviewed in the ``I am Jane Doe''
    documentary so pointedly stated, ``I want my daughter to hold
    her head up high and know that none of this was her fault.''
    Everyone at this table should share this mother's sentiment.
        On this note, following the Senate's groundbreaking PSI
    report from earlier this year, a grand jury was convened in
    Phoenix to look at Backpage.com's conduct under existing
    Federal criminal law, and we agree that it's time to bring
    Backpage to justice.
        The second point I'd like to make today is that legitimate
    Internet companies are key partners in the fight to combat sex
    trafficking. They are part of any solution to this problem, and
    the partnership between law enforcement and companies is key to
    ending the underlying criminal behavior.
        This partnership manifests in several ways.
        First, legitimate Internet companies have robust community
    guidelines, internal policies, and proactive enforcement
    practices to remove content that promotes sex trafficking.
    After all, the power of good actors online is in many contexts
    often the most powerful tool against bad actors online.
        Second, legitimate Internet companies have long since
    partnered with non-governmental organizations, such as NCMEC,
    to combat sex trafficking. These efforts harness both our
    companies' financial resources as well as their engineering
    talent to help develop technological tools used to combat this
    heinous crime.
        I elaborate on these tools in detail in my written
    testimony, but I did want to highlight one in particular. It's
    the Spotlight tool developed by Thorn with support from several
    IA member companies. Spotlight is a web-based application used
    to detect and help rescue victims of sex trafficking. Today,
    Spotlight is used by 4,000 law enforcement officers at over 700
    agencies nationwide. More importantly, it has been used to
    identify over 2,000 perpetrators of sex trafficking.
        Understanding the positive role such as that developed at
    Thorn plays in providing solutions to sex trafficking brings me
    to my third, and final, point; namely, that legislation
    undermining the ability of legitimate Internet companies to do
    the right thing and invest in innovations and best practices
    that target criminal activity will only weaken our fight
    against this heinous crime.
        SESTA is a well-intentioned response to a terrible
    situation. Unfortunately, as currently drafted, SESTA
    introduces overly broad concepts of criminal and civil
    liability that create legal uncertainty and risk for legitimate
    actors. My written testimony provides greater detail, but I
    will provide a few key concerns which SESTA has currently
    drafted and how it interfaces with Section 230 of the
    Communications Decency Act for your consideration.
        First, we are concerned that SESTA creates a vague
    knowledge standard that will skew incentives for good online
    actors to keep in place their existing efforts to combat
    crimes, including sex trafficking, for fear of legal liability.
        Second, we are concerned that SESTA creates overly broad
    and unchartered state jurisdiction over well-intentioned online
    actors, both large and small.
        And, finally, we are concerned that SESTA opens up
    liability for frivolous lawsuits that do little for victims of
    sex trafficking.
        While we acknowledge that reasonable minds can and do
    differ, I should add for the record that these concerns are the
    consensus position of many industry experts and legal scholars,
    as well as civil society groups, who share our concerns about
    SESTA.
        Internet Association submits that a more tailored bill that
    truly targets actors such as Backpage.com without undermining
    the ability of legitimate actors to help combat sex trafficking
    is possible, and we stand ready to work with the Committee
    toward this goal.
        In conclusion, I want to be clear, we do not have to choose
    between justice against Backpage.com and protecting legitimate
    online services. This is not a binary choice. There is also no
    single solution. The fight against sex trafficking requires a
    multipronged approach and a committed partnership between the
    government and private sector.
        Again, thank you for allowing me to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Slater follows:]

            Prepared Statement of Abigail Slater, General Counsel,
                              Internet Association
        Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the
    Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. My name is Abigail
    Slater and I am the General Counsel of Internet Association, which
    represents more than 40 of the world's leading Internet companies.\1\
    Internet Association is the unified voice of the Internet economy. The
    Internet creates unprecedented benefits for society, and Internet
    Association is dedicated to empowering people through a free and open
    internet.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Member list available at https://internetassociation.org/our-
    members/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We appreciate the Committee holding this hearing on a topic that
    rightfully is at the top of mind for policymakers, our members, and the
    public. Sex trafficking is a horrific crime and must be stopped. We
    must end the crime of human trafficking in our country, and we must
    hold those that facilitate and take part in these crimes, like
    Backpage.com, fully responsible under our law. We also support targeted
    amendments to the Communications Decency Act that would allow victims
    of sex trafficking crimes to seek justice against perpetrators. The
    Internet industry stands ready to work with you on legislative
    approaches that ensure justice and contribute to the fight against
    trafficking.
        We believe that our goals are shared and that this hearing can and
    should provide a roadmap to achieving those mutual goals. Backpage.com
    broke existing law and we agree that it must be fully and quickly
    brought to justice for its horrific crimes in the trafficking of
    persons for sex. We must work together to combat trafficking and stop
    these crimes from ever occurring in the first place. Internet
    Association is confident that by working as partners on this issue we
    can fully achieve both goals.
        To be perfectly clear: our members are an integral part of the
    solution. They have a long track record of working with law
    enforcement, anti-trafficking groups, and victims to stop illegal
    activity.
        The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 (SESTA) \2\ is a
    well-intentioned response to a terrible situation. The crimes committed
    through and facilitated by Backpage.com are despicable. Our companies
    work with law enforcement every single day to actively take down
    illegal content and in an effort to prevent and end trafficking. SESTA,
    as it is written, would make our companies liable for all their ongoing
    work with law enforcement.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ S. 1693 (115th Congress).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As part of my testimony,

       First, I will outline just some of the ways that Internet
            industries are active partners in the fight to combat human
            trafficking.

       Second, I will provide a short background on Section 230 of
            the Communications Decency Act (CDA230), its history and
            foundational role in supporting legitimate online actors, and
            its applicability to Backpage.com.

       Third, I will discuss SESTA and the unintended consequences
            of broad legislation in light of CDA230s history and the work
            of online services to operate as good actors.

       Fourth, I will discuss potential ways forward in crafting a
            targeted approach to allowing justice against rogue, illicit
            actors without upending legal principles vital to legitimate
            industries.
    Legitimate online services are committed, key actors in the fight
            against human trafficking.
        Internet industries are indispensable to the fight to combat
    trafficking. Technology is part of the solution, and the partnership
    between law enforcement and private sector technology companies is key
    to ending the underlying criminal behavior.
        Internet companies that make up Internet Association have a zero-
    tolerance policy for facilitation of sex trafficking and exploitation
    of children. Our companies have robust policies and enforcement
    practices to remove all content that promotes sex trafficking. In
    addition, our companies partner with non-governmental organizations
    across the globe on the prevention of sexual violence and exploitation,
    including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; the
    International Center for Missing and Exploited Children; the
    International Women's Forum; End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography
    and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes; Thorn; Polaris; and
    more.
        Beyond significant financial support for organizations on the front
    lines of the global fight to end modern day slavery and human
    trafficking, technology companies are harnessing their technical
    expertise for innovative and groundbreaking technology that is used to
    great effect by other companies, law enforcement, and anti-trafficking
    groups.
        Engineers at companies including Google have worked with Thorn and
    the Hovde Foundation to develop a tool called Spotlight, which
    harnesses artificial intelligence to comb through millions of ads
    online and flag potential child victims. This tool is now used by law
    enforcement in all 50 states, and agencies using it have seen a 60
    percent reduction in their investigation time. In a single year,
    Spotlight helped identify over 6,000 victims and 2,000 traffickers.
    With advances in machine learning technology, we can continue to
    improve this technology and make it even more broadly available.
        In May 2016, Facebook hosted over 75 engineers from across the
    industry, including Microsoft and Google, as well as from child safety
    NGOs, such as NCMEC, Thorn, and InHope, for the first-ever cross-
    industry child safety hackathon to develop tools and products that
    enhance child online safety.\3\ The 2017 hackathon expanded in scope
    and reach, and one of the prototypes that came out of the hackathon is
    a tool that will enable people to match known photos of missing
    children against online trafficking ads.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ ``Hackathon Creates Tech Solutions for Child Safety,'' Thorn
    (2017) available at https://www.wearethorn.org/blog/hackathon-creates-
    tech-solutions-child-safety/?utm_campaign=cosche
    dule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=Thorn&utm_content=Hackathon%20C
    reates%
    20Tech%20Solutions%20for%20Child%20Safety.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Thorn Technology Task Force, which includes 20 technology
    companies ranging from Microsoft to Snap, is creating networks of
    digital defenders to develop new strategies to fight their adaptive
    adversaries.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See Thorn Technology Task Force, available at https://
    www.wearethorn.org/about-our-fight-against-sexual-exploitation-of-
    children/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Twilio and Salesforce Foundation partnered with Polaris and Thorn
    to develop the NHTRC SMS-based textline, which allows victims to text
    the shortcode ``BeFree'' for a discreet and time-efficient way to
    access the hotline.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ ``7 Ways Technology is Fighting Trafficking,'' Forbes.com (Jan.
    2016) available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccasadwick/2016/01/
    11/tech-fighting-human-trafficking/#4cb245ce6
    cac.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Amazon Web Services powers a number of tools, such as the
    Federation for Internet Alerts, which provide life-saving child
    abduction alerts as well as facial recognition technology that aids
    police in the fight against sex trafficking.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ ``Police can use this facial recognition technology to fight
    sex-trafficking,'' Mashable (2017) available at http://mashable.com/
    2017/06/28/facial-recognition-child-sex-trafficking/#o8_T3a
    MVCSq8.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Match Group is working with THORN to pilot new technology that
    would use THORN data to automatically detect users who attempt use
    Match Group sites to disseminate information associated with known sex
    traffickers and remove them from the sites.
        These are just a few of many examples that grow by the day.
    Recognizing the role technology plays in providing solutions is key to
    understanding why a narrow, targeted approach is the only way to truly
    achieve our goals: undermining companies' incentives to experiment and
    participate in the innovation that targets criminal activity will only
    undermine our fight against trafficking.
    Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and Backpage.com.
        Congress passed CDA230 in 1996 as a bedrock legal protection for
    online services, ensuring that legitimate businesses can exist by
    providing that unknowing intermediaries including platforms, websites,
    ISPs, web-hosting providers, and online advertisers are not held liable
    for the actions of users. Without this crucial protection, these
    service providers would be forced to err on the side of removing their
    users' content or face unsustainable liability for their users' content
    that would harm the creation of legitimate and diverse online services.
    CDA230 remains as crucial today for startups as it was in 1996: the
    diversity of services and products today is greater than ever before,
    and CDA230s clarity provides a pathway for innovation for legitimate,
    responsible new entrants.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See Letter by Copia Institute, Engine, and 30+ startups on S.
    1693 (2017) available at https://www.230matters.com/letter.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress struck a key balance in CDA230. CDA230 is not a complete
    bar on liability--it allows the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to
    prosecute rogue, illicit actors that conduct illegal activity. From its
    inception, there have been several clear exemptions to CDA230,
    including Federal criminal law, which ensures that that the DOJ is
    empowered to prosecute online providers that take part in criminal
    activity.\8\ Additionally, it does not apply to information that the
    platform operator has itself created or developed, ``in whole or in
    part.'' \9\ CDA230 also encourages online services to moderate their
    services through the combined protections of 230(c)(1) and 230(c)(2)'s
    Good Samaritan clause, which provides an incentive to moderate
    offensive, lewd, and/or violent content without the danger of creating
    additional liability.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230(e)(1)
        \9\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230(f)(3)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is a Federal crime to sell, solicit, or advertise the sexual
    services of persons who have been coerced into commercial sex under 18
    U.S.C. Sec. 1591.\10\ Congress has made clear that sex trafficking must
    be stopped and that law enforcement actions against perpetrators should
    be prioritized. In 2015, in great part due to strong desire to bring
    justice against Backpage.com, Congress supplemented an existing statute
    on trafficking by ensuring that the knowing advertisement of minors for
    commercial sex was a Federal crime.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591
        \11\ P.L. 114-22.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We also commend the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI),
    which concluded a twenty-month investigation of Backpage.com and found
    that Backpage.com knowingly concealed evidence of criminality by
    systematically editing adult advertisements and that Backpage.com
    executives knew the website facilitated illegal activity including sex
    trafficking of minors.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ ``Backpage.com's Knowing Facilitation of Online Sex
    Trafficking,'' Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, United States
    Senate (2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To date, the DOJ has not held Backpage.com accountable for its
    actions action under anti-trafficking criminal law. Congress must
    ensure the DOJ has the resources and priorities necessary. Backpage.com
    is not immune from liability for Federal crimes, including those under
    18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591, and U.S. Attorneys must use these and other legal
    avenues to undertake immediate and vigorous justice against
    Backpage.com for its knowing facilitation of criminal sex trafficking.
    State exemptions would create the potential for unpredictable,
    inconsistent enforcement against law-abiding intermediaries that
    operate without borders.
    SESTA's broad approach will harm good actors and undermine our shared
            goal of combatting trafficking.
        We share the goals of the sponsors and are committed to working
    with them to find an effective way forward that provides a mechanism to
    hold criminals accountable.
        At the outset, it is key to understand that SESTA does not require
    that an entity have knowledge of the illegal activity or a means to
    stop that activity. Section 4 of the legislation expands the scope of
    the term ``participation in a venture'' under current sex trafficking
    laws in Title 18 to ``knowing conduct by an individual or entity, by
    any means, that assists, supports, or facilitates'' sex trafficking.
    The term ``knowing conduct'' is not a defined legal term--it could
    include the fact that a platform simply knows that users communicate on
    its site. The phrase ``assists, supports, or facilitates'' has no
    requirement that an entity know that conduct is taking place, has means
    to prevent it, or any other discernible limitation. The term
    ``facilitate'' is extremely broad; courts have defined it to mean ``to
    make easier or less difficult.'' \13\ This means that a prosecutor
    could simply allege that the use of a platform for coded communication
    connected to trafficking, without knowledge by the platform,
    facilitated sex trafficking; because the platform knows that users
    communicate generally on the site, a prosecutor would have to go no
    further in introducing cause for liability.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ United States v. Rivera, 775 F.2d 1559, 1562 (11th Cir. 1985).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SESTA would introduce new legal risk not just for Internet services
    that do not knowingly and intentionally facilitate illegal conduct, but
    also create risk for an incredibly broad number of innocent businesses
    by expanding the notion of contributory liability. SESTA would hold
    potentially liable any entity that can be said to benefit from its role
    in facilitating a sex trafficking violation, even if it has no
    knowledge that it is doing so or no practical way of terminating such
    assistance.
        Under the regime of liability without knowledge or participation in
    the criminal activity, SESTA introduces new risks under CDA230 by
    creating state criminal and civil exemptions, as well as Federal civil
    exemptions. It is not hard to imagine that opportunistic lawyers will
    bring a deluge of frivolous litigation targeting legitimate, law-
    abiding intermediaries, as civil liability is unbounded by any actual
    knowledge or participation in trafficking.
        Key to the discussion of state-level exemption is that (1) there is
    no data on the current criminal and civil laws that would be exempt to
    CDA230 under this bill and (2) there is no full understanding or
    limitation of the types of laws that may be passed to introduce
    liability on online services providers unconnected to the true,
    knowledgeable facilitation of sex trafficking.\14\ CDA230s exclusion of
    state liability is appropriate. The Internet is a borderless medium,
    and the potential for inconsistent regulation and liability untethered
    to the fight against trafficking is counterproductive to the intended
    goals of the legislation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ See Goldman, Eric, ``Senate's ``Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers
    Act of 2017''--and Section 230s Imminent Evisceration'' (2017)
    available at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/07/senates-stop-
    enabling-sex-traffickers-act-of-2017-and-section-230s-imminent-
    evisceration.htm (discussing the potential for state laws not germane
    to the goal of combating trafficking under SESTA).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SESTA will not only risk the development of innocent online
    services key to the fight against trafficking, but threatens to be
    counterproductive to the stated goals. The proposed legislation does
    not address the underlying criminal behavior and playing whack-a-mole
    with URLs/domains in civil courts is unlikely to stop bad actor
    websites that will simply move overseas and change their URLs to avoid
    being shut down. Undermining the balance struck in CDA230 encourages
    the opposite behavior desired. It will create the incentive for
    providers not to look for evidence of trafficking and to cease
    proactively eliminating illegal and unsavory content, including by
    chilling the development of technological measures to address such
    content, as any such action could implicate civil and criminal causes
    of action.
        Introducing new ambiguity into CDA230 would send a dangerous signal
    to other countries that are seeking to require U.S. Internet services
    to filter dissenting political speech and allegations of corruption.
        We encourage Congress to target underlying criminal behavior that
    will be effective in preventing trafficking and protecting victims. I
    return to the point made at the outset of my testimony: while we are
    deeply concerned about the broad nature of SESTA, we strongly support
    its intended purpose, and stand ready to work with the Committee and
    the sponsors of the legislation on achieving justice without risking
    the harms that would be realized under such a wide approach.
    A narrow approach tailored to the goal of ensuring justice for victims
            will best serve the goal of combatting trafficking.
        Ensuring justice against Backpage.com is possible without
    undermining all the work currently underway to stop online sex
    trafficking. We do not have to choose between justice against
    Backpage.com and protecting legitimate online services.
        There is also no single solution. The fight against trafficking
    requires a multipronged approach and a committed partnership between
    the government and private sector. To start, we urge the DOJ to
    prioritize prosecutions of criminal actors in violation of Federal sex
    trafficking law, which is already exempt from CDA230. This includes
    immediate action based on the July 2017 referral of PSI's investigation
    to the DOJ.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ See Portman, Carper, McCaskill Send DOJ Criminal Referral for
    Backpage.com available at https://www.portman.senate.gov/public/
    index.cfm/press-releases?ID=6CF2AC67-EDB1-4F13-9372-C13D9C6E5D9F.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I would also like to highlight several areas we believe may be
    worth this Committee's attention for further exploration.
        If clarification under Title 18's reference to ``participation in a
    venture'' is necessary to the Federal accountability for rogue actors,
    we welcome language that clarifies the definition offered in SESTA to
    include a knowledge standard for ``assist[ing], facilitat[ing], or
    support[ing]'' trafficking.
        Lastly, we understand that exploring exemptions to CDA230 to allow
    for justice sought by victims is a key aspect of the reason we are here
    today. Under 18 U.S.C. 1595, victims are able to seek civil action
    against perpetrators of sex trafficking crimes.\16\ A tailored
    amendment that ensures civil suits were brought against online actors
    that acted with knowledge and intent is worth consideration.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ 18 U.S.C. 1595
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Conclusion
        The Internet community stands ready to work with this Committee and
    the sponsors of the legislation on targeted approaches that not only
    bring justice against Backpage.com, but also support the ongoing fight
    against sex trafficking.
        Thank you for allowing me to testify on this critical matter.

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Ms. Slater.
        And we appreciate the testimony of all the witnesses on
    this critically important issue.
        Senator Nelson.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Becerra, let's just get right to the nub of the
    question. The opponents of the bill argue that it's not
    necessary to modify Section 230, which would allow state and
    local law enforcement and victims to pursue those who assist
    and facilitate online sex trafficking. The opponents argue that
    the existing statute already provides justice with adequate
    authority in order to go after those wrongdoers. Rebut that
    argument so we can pass this bill.
        Mr. Becerra. Senator, I would ask each and every one of you
    to come to Sacramento with me, where we are right now in
    prosecution of Backpage. We filed 36 counts against Backpage,
    11 of them for pimping, the sex trafficking part, and 25 more
    based on money laundering and conspiracy.
        You heard Senator Portman mention the ruling of the
    Sacramento judge recently in that case about a month ago, where
    he said, and I will quote it as well, speaking about Section
    230 and its broad coverage shield against prosecution of those
    involved in sex trafficking. The judge said, ``The broad reach
    of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act even applies
    to those alleged to support the exploitation of others by human
    trafficking. Based on that, the judge dropped every single
    count relating to sex trafficking.'' And we are now left to
    prosecute based on the conspiracy charges and money laundering,
    which we will vigorously do, but Backpage has been spoken about
    over and over again, does more than just engage in conspiracy
    and money laundering, from our perspective.
        If we don't have the tools, the only winners are those who
    go to the Internet. This is no longer the brick-and-mortar
    stuff, and it actually was never good business on brick-and-
    mortar because it was always on the run on the streets. But now
    the Internet has become an easy way to make money in this
    criminal enterprise, and we need the tools to go after these
    folks. We're fighting with two hands tied behind our back.
        Senator Nelson. All right. Let me ask you and Ms. Souras,
    of course, the opponents to the bill are going to say this is
    going to end the Internet. They're going to say it's going to
    end the Internet economy. Give us the argument against that.
        Ms. Souras.
        Ms. Souras. Thank you, Senator. At NCMEC, we have over 3
    decades of working closely with the technology companies within
    the purpose of our mission. They have provided tools and
    partnered with us in a very collaborative manner to participate
    in ridding the Internet of child sexual exploitation material.
    There are good actors on the Internet, and there are actors
    that will always make extra efforts and collaborate with others
    to make sure that, you know, there is not criminal activity or
    other harmful contact on the Internet. They do that for
    business purposes. They do that for altruistic purposes as
    well. There is simply nothing in this bill that will curtail
    that activity. The narrow scope of this bill is drawn to ferret
    out and shine a spotlight on those bad actors, those who are
    not screening, are not engaging with others----
        Senator Nelson. All right, let me come back to you,
    General. So the argument is going to come, well, it's not going
    to allow websites to allow users to post restaurant reviews,
    family pictures, or comments because of the fears of liability.
    Rebut that.
        Mr. Becerra. I don't know what menus you're reading----
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Becerra.--but this is not what we're going after.
    Senator, I think everyone should realize here, at least from
    the perspective of attorney general or a district attorney, we
    have to prove criminal intent. We can't win a prosecution
    unless we can show that the individuals we're prosecuting, like
    Backpage, had the intent, the knowledge, to do what they're
    doing.
        The legislation that you have before you is very narrowly
    tailored. It goes only after sex trafficking. The broad
    exemption from any type of lawsuit for those who provide online
    services remains. It's only if it's sex trafficking, and I've
    got to prove that it's sex trafficking and that the defendants
    intended to violate that law.
        Senator Nelson. All right. Any one of you explain why this
    change in the law is so important in the larger fight against
    child sex trafficking?
        Mr. Becerra. I think you need Ms. Ambrose here to tell you
    the most important reason why.
        Senator Nelson. I agree. That was fairly dramatic.
        Mr. Becerra. It's the rubber hitting the road, Senator, and
    we're facing it all the time. We've got another prosecution
    going on right now, and it's only because we've got evidence of
    the street pimping that occurred. But we've got another
    prosecution going on where there were young girls--most of them
    under the age of 16--who were being taken from the Central
    Valley of California and then marketed in Southern California
    and the Bay area of California. And we found out. And Backpage
    was part of this operation, and we're going after them, we've
    got evidence. But if you have to depend on going after those
    based on the Internet, it's near impossible.
        Senator Nelson. I thank all of you for coming forward, and
    especially to Ms. Ambrose.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
        Senator Blunt.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. ROY BLUNT,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSOURI

        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
        Attorney General Becerra, it's good to see you again. We
    served together for a long time----
        Mr. Becerra. Yes, sir.
        Senator Blunt.--and it's fun to watch you take this
    responsibility, and it's a big one, and I know you're looking
    at this and lots of other areas. In our state, Attorney General
    Hawley has been investigating Backstage as well, and they've
    actually sued him and the office, taking them to court, using
    Section 230. Have you seen that same kind of response from
    Backstage?
        Mr. Becerra. We've seen that on a number of occasions. They
    affirmatively act because they feel empowered to use Section
    230 to defend themselves, and use it as an offense.
        Senator Blunt. Do they use that to suggest that your
    prosecution is frivolous? How do they use their defense of 230?
        Mr. Becerra. For the most part, they're saying, ``You can't
    touch us.'' And the court rulings unfortunately seem to imply
    that in many cases. We believe the courts have misconstrued
    what Section 230 was meant to say. I remember. I was here in
    1996, like you, when we voted on the Telecommunications Act,
    which was--and the Communications Decency Act was part of the
    Telecom Act. I don't remember 1996 ever believing that my vote,
    my yes vote, meant that I was going to allow 21 years later for
    kids to be sold out there through the Internet for sex.
        Senator Blunt. Ms. Souras, do you have any records that
    would indicate of the victims of sex trafficking, how many of
    them in one way or another involve Backpage as a specific entry
    level to that world as it relates to victims?
        Ms. Souras. We do, Senator. As the national clearinghouse,
    we are the recipient of reports relating to child sexual
    exploitation, including child sex trafficking. And over the
    past 5 years, approximately 73 percent of those reports that we
    receive from the public relating to child sex trafficking
    involve a Backpage.com advertisement.
        Senator Blunt. Seventy-three percent.
        Ms. Souras. Yes, sir.
        Senator Blunt. And I think you covered this in your
    testimony, but if this legislation would pass, how do you
    specifically think it would help in your effort to save kids
    from sex trafficking and others from sex trafficking?
        Ms. Souras. I think there would be two immediate benefits.
    I mean, in one way, NCMEC, you know, obviously is a victim
    advocate, speaks for and represents the voices of victims. And
    it will provide victims an incredibly powerful tool to come
    forward and seek civil remedies against a company that has
    actively participated in their trafficking. We believe in that
    right. It is a right that also exists for children who have
    been victimized through child pornography. It's a very powerful
    right to give victims, very empowering.
        You know, on the second side, from a more operational
    perspective, I think it goes without saying, and it has been
    said previously in this hearing, this is not a Backpage bill,
    children are not sold for sex only on Backpage. We talk about
    Backpage because it is the largest website, it has captured the
    market share, but when it goes away, there will be others. But
    our hope is that with the change to the CDA, while there might
    be others with criminal intent, with the desire to earn money
    in this way, and create a similar website, that will realize
    that there now is a legal bar to entering that marketplace.
        There is no such legal bar now. Backpage is the example for
    that. So our hope is that others coming up behind Backpage will
    not enter that market or will be more immediately prosecuted
    both at a Federal and state level.
        Senator Blunt. And, Ms. Slater, do you have a problem with
    us doing something that would reopen that legal pathway for
    people who have been victimized using--and the Internet becomes
    the pathway?
        Ms. Slater. Thank you for the question, Senator. At
    Internet Association, we stand behind the goals of SESTA. We
    want to see an end to sex trafficking online. And we would love
    to live in a world where there are no more victims of sex
    trafficking. So I wanted to say that up front.
        Where we have difficulty with SESTA, as currently drafted,
    is that it is overly broad in several respects. However, we
    have stated publicly that we would support a specific amendment
    that would allow victims to sue for civil penalties in court,
    to seek some form of redress for the horrible things that have
    happened to them.
        And we are in discussions with several members of the
    Committee. We heard those discussions referenced----
        Senator Blunt. On civil penalties?
        Ms. Slater. Yes, and other issues also.
        Senator Blunt. Let me go to Mr. Goldman. Mr. Goldman, do
    you want to respond to that same topic quickly?
        Mr. Goldman. As Ms. Slater said, I do think that it is
    important for the Committee to continue its work on sex
    trafficking promotion. But SESTA itself as a solution has some
    of the problems regarding when a site has knowledge. And
    knowledge doesn't come in a 0 or 1 format. Because of the
    different ways that sites might moderate, they might be exposed
    to different kinds of information that could lead to the
    knowledge. And that's the dilemma that creates the decision for
    them, are they going to take action or not?
        Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Sullivan. Senator Duckworth.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to take a moment again and thank Ms. Ambrose for her
    courage and willingness to share her family's tragic story.
    Without a doubt, Desiree Robinson's story sharpens my personal
    resolve to find solutions that will move us forward.
        It's difficult to fathom Ms. Ambrose's pain and anger or to
    know that thousands of other families across the Nation have
    shared her grief. As a mom of a two and a half year old girl, I
    am grateful to her for her willingness to speak with us today.
        Every year, thousands of sex trafficking cases are reported
    across the U.S. According to the National Human Trafficking
    Hotline, 156 of those cases were in Illinois last year. This
    year, at least an additional 75 cases have been reported in
    Illinois, and that's just reported. These statistics are truly
    alarming, and worse yet, they reflect only a fraction of the
    problem.
        Ms. Souras, you highlighted that NCMEC has received nearly
    10,000 reports of suspected sex trafficking on its
    CyberTipline. You also emphasized the underreported nature of
    child sex trafficking crimes. Do you have any sense of the full
    scope of these crimes? And are there any existing mechanisms
    that could be leveraged to better understand the scope of these
    crimes?
        In talking to Ms. Ambrose, for example, you know, she said,
    look, these kids are coming home at the end of the day, they're
    getting pimped out, they're going out there, they're coming
    back. The families don't know. Oftentimes the children, the
    victims, are being threatened with the safety of their families
    to keep quiet. So how do we even get our arms around what the
    full scope is?
        Ms. Souras. Thank you, Senator. It is a very difficult
    problem. NCMEC takes the position that we will rely on our own
    numbers. There are quite a few numbers out there, quite a few
    call centers and hotlines that receive these types of reports.
    And currently, I think it's important to understand there's no
    requirement that incidents of child sex trafficking be reported
    to the National Center as a clearinghouse on those issues, so
    the reports we receive are voluntary. It is wonderful that we
    do receive the volume we have, but because it's not mandatory,
    that is another reason why we know it is not near the full
    number.
        You know, the other complicating factors, as you mentioned,
    are many of these children are still in their homes. They may
    not necessarily have left, they may still be in school to some
    extent. So it is very difficult to identify. And, you know,
    also to have those adults who are in place, whether it's
    parents, communities, teachers, medical workers, be cognizant
    of the potential warning signs that a child might be being
    trafficked. It's an area that we focus on a great deal in our
    prevention and education work, as well as the operational work
    we do. We obviously would like to be able to intervene and help
    communities intervene before a child is lured into trafficking
    or, you know, before they end up on Backpage or another
    website.
        Senator Duckworth. Is there anything that health-related
    agencies and, as you mentioned, Federal law enforcement
    agencies can help us to paint a clearer picture since there's
    no national mandatory reporting clearinghouse?
        Ms. Souras. You know, I think every law enforcement agency
    certainly keeps its own numbers and statistics that are very
    valuable, but again there is an issue with these victims
    reporting, or also communities identifying what they are
    suffering truly as trafficking, and there is a bit of a
    disconnect. And, you know, I would go back again to the
    importance of education and the realization that this happens
    in every community. So when law enforcement sees or hears or a
    teacher feels like they are hearing or seeing a situation
    involving a child who might be trafficked, they need to
    acknowledge that could be what is happening. You know, again, I
    think there is a resistance often to accepting that this does
    happen in every large and small community here in the U.S. So I
    would say education and awareness again.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        Attorney General Becerra, good to see you again. It was a
    pleasure to serve with you in leadership in the House. I don't
    think anyone is under the illusion that a silver bullet exists
    to eliminate sex trafficking altogether, but most stakeholders
    agree addressing the legal inconsistencies between sex
    trafficking laws and Section 230 would strengthen the hand of
    courts and of prosecutors. Aside from the legal inconsistencies
    that I hope SESTA will address, what additional barriers
    undermine or limit your ability to attack sex trafficking head
    on?
        Mr. Becerra. I will tell you that California has pretty
    decent law when it comes to this issue. Our biggest obstacle is
    SESTA because we can't move forward on the sex trafficking and
    pimping charges because of the court rulings that say that the
    Section 230 protection makes it impossible for us to move
    forward on some of those prosecutions. If we could get past
    that, we would be able to help so many of these kids so much
    quicker.
        Senator Duckworth. Do these websites actively help the
    people posting change the wording of the ads in order to skirt
    the law?
        Mr. Becerra. We've seen evidence of that, and that's the
    disturbing part, is that that's a knowing act, and that's where
    we could go after someone under a bill like 1693, but, again,
    without the authority to do so, we're constantly told by too
    many courts, ``You don't have the authority.''
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Schatz.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

        Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you to all the testifiers and to the Members who
    testified before. The purpose of SESTA is to enable civil and
    criminal prosecution against bad actors, but we obviously want
    to provide space and not deter proactive actions by good actors
    that are doing the right thing to mitigate sex trafficking on
    the platforms.
        I'd like to ask each of you, there's a conversation going
    on about whether report language clarifying that the law is
    intended to apply to those actors who enable sex trafficking
    and not to those who promptly act in good faith to address a
    violation. And I'm wondering if that would be sufficient, if
    you think that that would be enough for counsel to hang their
    hat on for some of these big platforms who want to do the right
    thing, but are, at least in this conversation, worried that
    their knowing at all triggers the knowing part of the statute.
    And so wondering whether report language would suffice in your
    view?
        And I'll start with the Attorney General.
        Mr. Becerra. Senator, that's an excellent question. I will
    tell you that it's always a roll of the dice when you try to
    rely on report language or legislative history. We see today
    that the language of the Communications Decency Act has been
    interpreted by many, many courts to preclude state and local
    law enforcement from moving forward on a prosecution. That's an
    interpretation of the law that I would disagree with. I believe
    we have the authority right now. So if we had report language,
    would that help? That would probably get tested quite
    frequently in court. I can't tell you I would have the
    confidence that that would be enough, and every day that we
    don't do something, there are more kids who are being
    exploited.
        Senator Schatz. Mr. Goldman.
        Mr. Goldman. Yes, thank you. The report language, I agree
    with Attorney General Becerra, wouldn't override the expressed
    language in the statute. So if Congress wants to say something,
    it should say so as clearly as possible.
        I want to reiterate that the knowledge standard, especially
    in the case of civil claims, is a new thing for Section 230. In
    general, Section 230 has not had a civil exception that has
    been predicated on knowledge. So the opening up of the door to
    looking at a site's knowledge will be something that we haven't
    seen before, and because of that, we're going to have a lot of
    questions. What exactly did the site know and when? And what--
    and how do we characterize that under the legal standards?
    Those are all new questions for us.
        Senator Schatz. Just to probe a little deeper on that, on
    the knowing standard, when we imagine the knowing, we imagine
    the individual instance of sex trafficking, we imagine the
    instance that Senator Duckworth was talking about, where
    someone is being coached on what language to avoid. In other
    words, we're imaging Backpage or some similar enterprise or
    instance. The worry from some of these big platform companies,
    and I don't frankly know whether it's legitimate or not, is
    that they're saying, ``Listen, we're so large that it would be
    accurate to say that we know as a general matter that bad stuff
    happens on our platforms because we have billions of users.''
        And so the question becomes, if we're not trying to create
    an affirmative obligation for an Internet platform to
    essentially police all of their platform, and we are really
    going after the people whose primary enterprise is to make
    money off of this criminal enterprise, then can we craft a
    statute that holds harmless--``holds harmless'' is the wrong
    word, but that understands that there's a balance here?
        Mr. Goldman. Yes, thank you for the opportunity to clarify
    and follow up on that because I think the answer is we could
    create such a standard, but we would want to be extremely
    explicit about exactly when that knowledge occurred because
    otherwise there will be lots of discussion and debates over,
    well, you knew it based on you having taken this step or that
    step, or inferentially you should have known, or constructive
    knowledge, you should have been realizing what was taking place
    on your site. All of those will become the basis of which there
    will be plenty of disputes. Clarification from Congress about
    this exactly is what constitutes knowledge would be extremely
    helpful if you want to go down that route.
        Mr. Becerra. Senator, if I may? Oh, I'm sorry.
        Senator Schatz. Let me just go down the line.
        Mr. Becerra. Sure.
        Senator Schatz. I'm sorry.
        Ms. Souras.
        Ms. Souras. Yes. From our point of view, that provision
    within SESTA is already sufficiently narrowly drafted. And I
    know we're talking about knowledge, but the language in the
    actual statute is knowing conduct by an individual or entity
    that assists, supports, or facilitates basically an instance of
    human sex trafficking. So something more is required. And we
    could debate what is conduct, you know, in the context of an
    online platform. But I just want to make sure that, you know,
    we're clear that it is not just simply a blanket notice type
    standard.
        You know, that being said, I certainly acknowledge there
    could be complex, very specific business practices that certain
    platforms might, you know, utilize where they fear they could
    fit within that definition. I think that's where the nuance of
    the discussion can come. And I would just again kind of applaud
    the continuation of those discussions with Senator Portman and
    Blumenthal and the cosponsors.
        Senator Schatz. I'm over time, so, Mr. Chairman, should I
    take this one for the record?
        The Chairman. Do you have another one?
        Senator Schatz. No, no, just the last answer.
        The Chairman. OK. No, go ahead, Ms. Slater.
        Senator Schatz. So, Ms. Slater, go ahead.
        Ms. Slater. Thank you. So I would echo Mr. Goldman's
    sentiment. And I would also draw attention to the actual
    language in Section 4, which we've already heard about, which
    is knowing conduct that facilitates and assists. And to our
    members, having reviewed the text, this seems to be a more
    troubling standard, difficult standard to manage than the
    existing sex trafficking law standard.
        And we heard Senators Blumenthal and Portman talk earlier
    about a tighter standard, and we, our members, would be willing
    to talk with Committee staff, with individual offices, about
    how we think we can improve that language in Section 4 in a way
    that meets our shared goal, which is to deal with this heinous
    crime.
        Senator Schatz. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Schatz.
        Next up, Senator Hassan.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE

        Senator Hassan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And to
    you and the Ranking Member, thank you for holding this
    important hearing.
        Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. This
    is an issue I've been working on for some time, including
    working as Governor of New Hampshire with both parties to
    strengthen our laws against human trafficking. And I also want
    to take a moment to recognize Yvonne Ambrose for her courage,
    which really reflects the courage of all victims and survivors
    who come forward to shed light on the evil of exploiting people
    for sex. Sadly, that includes children like Desiree Robinson.
        My mom taught history at my local high school, and she
    always used to say that what kids need more than anything else
    is to have a grown-up in their corner. So I'm glad today that
    the U.S. Senate is working at doing that, being the grown-ups
    in the corner for our children. And I'm cosponsoring this
    legislation because I really support the goals of this bill, to
    ensure that justice for victims of sex trafficking is possible
    and to hold bad actors like Backpage accountable and liable.
        Look, I know there are conversations, we're having some of
    them, that are going back and forth about ways we can improve
    the bill, and that's part of today's purpose, to hear different
    perspectives. I just want, as a cosponsor, to encourage these
    conversations to go forward, and perhaps with that, I think the
    attorney general was about to add to answer Senator Schatz's
    question, because I would really like to hear, I think we'd all
    like to hear, some specifics about how we can make this law as
    effective as possible without the unintended consequences that
    we've heard here today.
        Mr. Becerra. Senator, thank you for a moment to also
    respond to the question from Senator Schatz. Let's first
    acknowledge that there are so many stakeholders within the tech
    community who have stepped up and they're doing what they can,
    but you have to have a concerted effort by all because it's so
    easy to hide in the corners.
        But let me see if I can give you some comfort about
    amending the CDA. If it's tough to have a knowing standard for
    a company or someone in the Internet space to know whether they
    are going to be found liable or not because they may be accused
    of knowing, think about what the standard then is for me and my
    prosecutors if I have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
    they knew. That's why I think that we can amend the
    Communications Decency Act and do it narrowly.
        So what we're doing, at least on the criminal prosecution
    side, we make it very difficult for prosecutors to sort of
    shotgun this and go after people all over the place. You have
    to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these folks
    knew what they were doing. Otherwise, they can't prove criminal
    intent. And so for that reason, if it's tough--if you think
    you're concerned about that stakeholder in the online community
    not knowing whether he or she could be accused, think about the
    standard I then have to face if the doubt, the uncertainty,
    lies there in the evidence. I have to have strong evidence that
    I can prove beyond reasonable doubt.
        Senator Hassan. Thank you. And I would encourage Professor
    Goldman, and, Ms. Slater, I thank you for your comments.
    Because my time is running low, I would encourage you to be--
    you and your members to be very specific about what good
    language would actually look like rather than raising
    objections.
        But before my time runs down, I did just want to turn to
    Ms. Souras because we know that online sex trafficking has
    affected people all over the country, it certainly has in my
    state. One case that received national attention in the past
    few years was a girl named Emily, who ran away from home. She
    was being advertised on Backpage by a pimp for sex all across
    New England, including in New Hampshire. She was 15 years old.
    I am grateful that she was located, but my understanding is
    that under current law, neither she nor other teenage victims
    of online sex trafficking can seek justice against the
    companies that enabled their exploitation.
        So, Ms. Souras, we've heard a lot today about how to change
    the laws and the impact that the changes would have on
    companies such as Backpage, but can you speak for a minute
    about the impact of being denied the ability to seek justice
    has on survivors such as Emily?
        Ms. Souras. Thank you, Senator. It is something that we
    certainly witness as victims move through recovery and then
    decide to bring a legal action. It is an incredibly empowering
    and self-revitalizing in many ways aspect of their recovery.
    They're able to stand up and say, ``This happened to me. It was
    wrong. And someone should pay for that in some way.''
        So the ability of victims to do that, as we see victims
    have the ability to do that in child pornography cases, you
    know, which certainly shares some victimology symptoms to child
    sex trafficking, is incredibly important and empowering for
    these victims. It also is an acknowledgement to them that
    society recognizes the harm that has been done to them, that it
    was not their fault, and also that they can move forward with
    their lives. So it's incredibly important.
        Senator Hassan. Well, thank you very much for your work and
    for your testimony today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
        Senator Booker.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. CORY BOOKER,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY

        Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, we call this sex trafficking, but clearly this is
    modern-day slavery, and it is at a scale that most don't
    understand, that this is a multibillion dollar industry with
    sophisticated individuals engaging in the most heinous actions
    of humanity, and it is something that I've been encouraged to
    see the kind of commitment in a bipartisan fashion, that we
    have to erase this scourge of slavery from our country that
    exists in every state and every type of community and has now
    grown far more sophisticated and enabled by the Internet.
        And so I'm appreciative of this hearing and I'm
    appreciative of the sense of urgency, and I just want to try to
    get to the root of what seems to be the balance that people are
    trying to achieve, which is to give great leaders and law
    enforcement, like General Becerra, the tools necessary to bring
    evil people to justice. But I hear a lot of, obviously, other
    arguments about not wanting to undermine good actors and what
    they're doing.
        Ms. Souras, in response to Senator Schatz's inquiry, you
    seem to in some way--that knowledgeable standard, the knowledge
    standard--you seem to have some concerns that you could go too
    far, that you have to strike a balance. Is that correct?
        Ms. Souras. Well, Senator, I think the knowledge standard,
    let's say, as drafted in SESTA, is already sufficiently narrow.
    Again, it targets very specific activity to knowingly assist,
    support, or facilitate the selling of a human being for sex. I
    do not think that is the sort of broad category of knowledge
    that could create an inadvertent violation.
        Senator Booker. And it's a pretty high standard in the
    legal sense----
        Ms. Souras. Absolutely.
        Senator Booker.--to prove, as was said, beyond a reasonable
    doubt.
        So, Ms. Slater, how do you respond to that? Because you
    clearly--and I appreciate you leading with your compassion and
    empathy and disgust at what's been going on and your belief
    that something needs to be done at the Federal level to address
    this. But do you disagree with Ms. Souras about that, that the
    knowledgeable standard, as written now in the legislation, is
    too low of a standard and good actors will be caught up?
        Ms. Slater. Thank you for the question, Senator. So as I
    mentioned previously, the standard in Section 4 of SESTA, as
    currently drafted, is different from existing Federal sex
    trafficking standard. And we did hear from Senator Portman and
    from Senator Blumenthal, that the standard they were talking
    about in their opening remarks was the higher standard. And so
    we're happy to have discussions about that and to seek that
    clarification with the drafters of the bill.
        We do absolutely share the goals of this Committee and of
    the Senate that we should work together to seek to put an end
    to sex trafficking online.
        Senator Booker. No, I understand. I'm really trying to get
    to the details now. What specifically would you want to see
    changed when it comes to the knowledge standard? What? Can you
    just be very granular for me?
        Ms. Slater. Yes.
        Senator Booker. I understand your intentions and the
    nobility behind them, but I'm trying to understand what's wrong
    specifically with the knowledge standard, as stated in this
    legislation.
        Ms. Slater. And so today the bill, in Section 4, states
    knowing conduct that facilitates and assists, et cetera, et
    cetera. And the standard that we previously talked about and
    the standard that Senator Portman and Senator Blumenthal
    referred to is knowingly facilitates and assists sex
    trafficking. And the advice that I am getting from legal
    council at the companies is that those are two different
    things, and they're seeking to clarify that difference. And,
    again, we're happy to talk to any members of the Committee or
    their individual staffs.
        Senator Booker. Thank you.
        Mr. Goldman, can you give me something that's very specific
    in how this might put a chill on--and Ms. Slater represents
    large companies. Obviously there are lots of startups out
    there. Could you be very specific and help me understand how
    this would put a chill on a small company, on an entrepreneur,
    a standard that for law enforcement is a very high standard to
    meet?
        Mr. Goldman. Right. And just to--thank you for the
    question. Just to clarify, there are both criminal and civil
    provisions. The civil provisions would not be subject to the
    same burden of proof that Attorney General Becerra talked
    about. So we already have two different things we're talking
    about simultaneously, and I think that's one of the confusions
    I have.
        The knowing conduct is different than knowing that an ad
    was promoting the victim of a sex trafficking--of a sex
    trafficker. So by focusing on knowing conduct, it actually
    focuses on the conduct, not on knowing that there was an actual
    legal violation taking place. And so right there, there seems
    an opportunity for us to clarify. If we mean that the service
    writer has to know about the violation, we should make that
    more clear.
        Otherwise, when we talk about knowledge generally, sites
    will take a number of steps to either reduce their knowledge,
    which means they'll turn off particular sections of their
    websites or they'll adopt filtering that will filter out more
    than the legal violation, or they will simply decide, ``We will
    do nothing, and therefore we could not possibly have knowledge
    of anything.''
        Senator Booker. Out of respect for my colleagues, I need to
    stop. But you're saying that the civil standard, it will be
    lower and invites civil lawsuits, not--you're not concerned
    about state and Federal law enforcement.
        Mr. Goldman. I have other reasons to be concerned about
    state attorney general prosecutions here, but the civil
    standard here would not be subject to that high level of proof
    that we would expect from a criminal prosecution.
        Senator Booker. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Booker.
        Next up is Senator Cortez Masto.

               STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Thank you for the conversation today. And let me just start
    off, because I think, like Senator Booker, I'm trying to really
    understand and get down to where we can come to agreement on
    this legislation, which I think is so important that we pass
    it.
        So let me start here. Under Section 230, as it's written
    now, the Federal Government, Federal law enforcement, has the
    authority to go in and shut down a website for sex trafficking,
    correct? I'm going to open it up to anybody. Is that correct?
        Mr. Becerra. Yes. The Federal Government has the ability to
    criminally prosecute.
        Senator Cortez Masto. And so that's what they have now, and
    that has not impeded any freedom of speech or the evolvement of
    the Internet, correct? I'm going to open it up to anybody. Is
    that true?
        Mr. Becerra. I'm going to give you an affirmative to that,
    but I'll let somebody else----
        Senator Cortez Masto. OK. I haven't heard anything
    differently. So what we're doing right now and what I
    understand is because the sex trafficking of our kids and
    adults is so prevalent, like any other criminal law enforcement
    activity that occurs, we are looking for the allowance of state
    law enforcement to also pursue and shut down these sites when
    sex trafficking is occurring. Is that correct, General?
        Mr. Becerra. Senator, from my perspective, yes. I am
    looking for the authority to do what Federal prosecutors can
    do, which courts are denying me right now. I believe under the
    statute I should have the authority, but it has been construed
    differently.
        Senator Cortez Masto. So the only thing we're doing is
    opening the door to now allow local law enforcement and state
    law enforcement to also do the same thing that the Federal law
    enforcement has to do under this, which is to shut down those
    sex trafficking sites, correct?
        Mr. Becerra. That's the principal reason why I'm here.
        Senator Cortez Masto. OK. And that's why as Attorney
    General, I signed onto a letter in 2013 to change the 230 CDA,
    and that's why I continue to support it.
        Now, I understand with your concern with respect to Section
    4. I do think it is overly broad. And the knowledge piece that
    we're looking for is already in the U.S.C. itself, Section
    1591. I mean, General Becerra couldn't have said it better. If
    we're going to prosecute, that mens rea of knowledge is already
    in the criminal statute.
        And so that's what we're looking to do, and I think that's
    the only piece that we're trying to do here, is because under
    the case law that I have seen as attorney general when I was
    pursuing these sex trafficking cases, they're looking at 230,
    and the courts are interpreting that State law is preempted by
    Federal law, and we don't have this ability.
        Now, there is so much sex trafficking going on, and let me
    just tell you, this is a crime that is so prevalent, and thank
    you, Ms. Ambrose, for being a voice, because it is not an easy
    thing for you to get up here and tell your daughter's story.
    And your story is one that I've heard too many times in my
    state as attorney general. And this is an issue that we have to
    stop. We have to stop it. And it is not just for Federal law
    enforcement to stop it, it is for all law enforcement, for
    state, local, to take action. And that's all we're asking, is
    that state law enforcement have that ability because it is so
    prevalent.
        And so the goal we're trying to do is limit it to sex
    trafficking only so that there isn't the concern I hear in some
    unintended consequences that may occur with some of the
    agencies that I've talked to with respect to the websites.
        So, Mr. Goldman, I've only got about a minute 26 left. I
    understand you have concerns with states having that authority.
    I ask, ``Why?''
        Mr. Goldman. Correct. Thank you. So the question is, Why do
    I have reservations about state attorneys general enforcing the
    law? There are two different issues in the bill. One is the
    bill would authorize state crimes to be newly enforced in
    addition to the Federal crimes. There is some overlap between
    the two. But now we open up the door to a whole bunch of new
    laws that have not been previously enforced against the
    Internet community. And those laws haven't been approved by the
    rest of the Internet. They've been approved by that state--
    those states' voters, and the attorney general has been
    approved by that state's voters. So the effort to impose these
    other crimes on the rest of the Internet creates the
    possibility that the state itself, the people who aren't in
    that state are having the laws of a state applied against them
    in ways that they may not have had a chance to vote on.
        Senator Cortez Masto. So if we were limiting it
    specifically that the state could pursue an action for sex
    trafficking pursuant to 1591, that's going to limit what they
    can do and the action that they can take, and so this would--
    would that satisfy your concerns?
        Mr. Goldman. That would certainly help make sure that we're
    now applying a single Federal standard as opposed to a much
    more heterogeneous set of laws.
        Senator Cortez Masto. I appreciate that. Thank you. I
    understand my time is up.
        Mr. Chairman, let me just say thank you. This is such an
    important topic. I have worked as attorney general with my
    colleagues, and now General Becerra, trying to change this, and
    many advocates in this room, Mrs. McCain and NCMEC and so many
    others. I think it's such an important topic and I so
    appreciate you having the hearing today.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto. I appreciate
    your good questions.
        And next up is Senator Cantwell. I felt like I was skipping
    over you.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, that's OK.
    Thank you. I appreciate my colleague from Nevada's questioning
    and the issues.
        And I wanted to ask you, Attorney General Becerra, about
    what else we need to be doing to address this problem. I have
    worked in the past with both tech companies and INTERPOL on
    trying to create better tools to use the Web as an
    investigation for a crime scene so that law enforcement know
    what to be looking for, the challenges they face. But what else
    do we need to do?
        As someone who comes from a state where I know that there
    is trafficking, the I-5 corridor, the central part of our
    state, from sporting events to Vegas activity. Tell me what
    else that we need to do to give the tools to law enforcement
    beyond what we're talking about here today?
        Mr. Becerra. Certainly trying to provide the services and
    help that Ms. Souras and some of the other phenomenal advocacy
    organizations have been doing. They're doing it on a shoestring
    budget. They are saving lives. They are rehabilitating kids.
    The more we do for them, the greater the chance that someone
    with all this trauma will survive.
        Second, remember how tough it is to file a lawsuit, a civil
    lawsuit. It is not easy to be a company that's making millions
    of dollars on the Internet. When you're an average person who
    knows your child was taken advantage of and exploited through
    sex trafficking, it's going to be really tough to manage a case
    against a large company with lots of lawyers.
        But, third, if we can't even prosecute--you could give the
    Federal Department of Justice a much larger budget so they
    wouldn't have to pass on trying to prosecute all the various
    cases throughout the 50 states and all the territories, but
    they can't go after everybody. That's why you've got 50 state
    attorneys general, the District of Columbia's attorney general.
    That's why we've got in California 58 district attorneys in our
    58 counties. We can do some of that, but we can't unless we
    have the authority to do it under the Communications Decency
    Act.
        And so probably the best thing to do if we want to sort of
    break the logjam here is give us the authority to descend on
    some of these folks because if we can prosecute--remember it's
    always better to prosecute criminally someone than try to go
    after them civilly and try to see if you can get monetary
    damages.
        Senator Cantwell. No, I'll--well, I'm not opposed to that,
    that's not what I was referring to, because I'm pretty sure
    this problem has existed sans this vehicle, and we want to make
    sure that we're fighting on every opportunity. And one thing
    that we want to do is enhance the communication so that law
    enforcement has the tools. As I said, we've been involved in
    other things where Interpol and tech companies were working
    together----
        Mr. Becerra. Yes. Yes.
        Senator Cantwell.--to try to help disseminate information
    so that we were stopping these--so that we were actually
    following the trail to actually find these people and stop
    them. But I'm also interested in the non-Internet side, too,
    because it's such a pervasive problem in very rural parts of
    our state, and I want to make sure that we're giving law
    enforcement all the tools necessary. So we don't always get you
    here to ask that question. So thank you for that.
        Mr. Becerra. Thank you.
        Senator Cantwell. And so on the identification side, are
    there things that we can be doing in the local communities to
    identify individuals and networks?
        Mr. Becerra. A lot is being done. I will tell you I'm
    amazed at the amount of work that's done. It's mostly because
    you've got very concerned parents who find out that their child
    was involved, and they're starting to work with organizations.
    I think there are a great number of individuals and companies
    within the tech community that have stepped to the plate to try
    to be supportive to help people understand how to do this. And
    a lot of local governments have formed task forces to work in a
    collaborative manner with every stakeholder.
        So a lot is being done, but if you hit the roadblock every
    time of trying to prosecute or get civil taken, it's
    impossible.
        Senator Cantwell. Yes. No, I get your point there. I just
    want to make sure we're--now that we have this forum, I want to
    build all the opportunities that we have. That's the point.
        Mr. Becerra. Absolutely.
        Senator Cantwell. And you're mentioning this information
    flow. We've had former colleagues who have taken a pretty big
    role in this in my state, and we want to make sure that the
    work that's being done to help elevate the discussion is there.
    So if you think that there is something on like a help network
    line to identify more of these things so we can go in and--that
    would be helpful. So thank you.
        Mr. Becerra. Thank you.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        Another vote has been called. I have Senators Blumenthal,
    Young, and Udall, and I think if we try, we can probably wrap
    things up and get everybody there in time for the vote.
        So, Senator Blumenthal, you're up first.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And in order
    to give my colleagues perhaps more of a chance to question, I'm
    not going to make any further remarks. I think I've said why I
    so strongly support this legislation, which I have helped to
    craft, and we've tried to do it carefully, and we tried to
    listen to the industry. We've tried to listen really closely to
    some of the concerns that have been raised this morning by Mr.
    Goldman, for example, the idea that this legislation will cause
    sex trafficking to--I'm using your word--proliferate. Hard to
    believe.
        Mr. Becerra, what do you think? And will this measure cause
    sex trafficking to proliferate?
        Mr. Becerra. I can't agree with what Professor Goldman has
    said. I think it's just the opposite. If we have a standard in
    place, then I believe the stakeholders within the Internet
    community will come forward in ways that we've seen before, but
    even more vigorously because they'll understand what the
    standard is, and I think that's so very important to make it
    clear for folks.
        The most important thing, Senator, I think Senator Booker
    sort of pointed this out, is we need to get the opponents of
    this measure to explain in detail what they would propose in
    place. Otherwise, it's always a moving target. It's Whack-A-
    Mole. Someone needs to give us what a better bill looks like.
        Senator Blumenthal. And we have urged and welcomed their
    participation, and only recently have they begun making
    suggestions. In one proposal, they would, in effect, either
    drastically curtail or eliminate the role of state attorneys
    general or other state law enforcement. I know what I think, as
    an attorney general who served for 20 years, maybe I can ask
    you on behalf of attorneys general, at least on behalf of
    yourself, why you think it's important for attorneys general to
    continue in the role that they have along with state law
    enforcement generally?
        Mr. Becerra. That's our responsibility, is to protect the
    people of our states, and as you know, as a former attorney
    general, it is not easy to get 50 attorneys general to sign
    onto the same letter, and that's how powerful this is, because
    we've seen how many lives are being impacted by not being able
    to move forward.
        Senator Blumenthal. And you've been very eloquent and
    powerful in your testimony today. Senator Harris, your
    predecessor, has been very helpful in clarifying some of the
    issues on this bill. You know, I'm going to be very blunt,
    there are times when the United States Department of Justice
    fails to be as aggressive as it should be either because it
    doubts the legal merits of a potential prosecution or a civil
    claim, or it simply lacks the leadership to do so, and that's
    where state attorneys general are so very important. That's why
    we have a Federal system, because states have a responsibility
    to protect their people and enforce the law. And in this
    instance, as in the anti-trust area and other areas, the
    coordinated approach I think is tremendously important. But we
    do welcome suggestions from the industry.
        And let me ask, Mr. Goldman, do you really believe that
    this law would cause sex trafficking to proliferate?
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to
    clarify that. Indeed, my concern is that we already see a
    number of efforts on the part of legitimate players to reduce
    the sex trafficking promotion. And to the extent that any of
    those companies decide, ``I am better off turning off my
    efforts across the board to try to reduce the knowledge that I
    have,'' then actually it creates a larger number of zones where
    the sites will not be taking the legitimate efforts that we
    want them to take. It creates an environment where there are
    more places for that activity to occur.
        Senator Blumenthal. You know, I have a higher opinion of
    the industry than you do. I really believe that this law will
    raise the bar, will increase consciousness, and that far from
    trying to evade or, in effect, deny themselves knowledge so as
    to avoid any accountability, they will be more energetic. I
    absolutely really believe that most of these companies want to
    do the right thing, and that this law will give them an
    increased impetus and incentive to do so.
        Mr. Goldman. There's no doubt that the legitimate players
    will do everything they can to not only work with the law
    enforcement and other advocates to address sex trafficking, but
    will probably do even more than they do today. At the same
    time, the industry is not just the big players; it's a large
    number of smaller players who don't have the same kind of
    infrastructure, and for them, they have to make the choice, Can
    I afford to do the work that you are hoping they'll do?
        Senator Blumenthal. And I believe those outliers--and they
    are outliers--will be successfully prosecuted civilly or
    criminally under this law.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Young.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

        Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman, for this important
    hearing.
        And thanks so much to our panelists and the other
    stakeholders who are working so hard to help us find some
    common ground here.
        I was touched and I was moved, as I think everyone was, by
    Ms. Ambrose's testimony, and it's clear we have to do
    everything possible to mitigate, end ultimately, human
    trafficking and sex trafficking. This hits home, as it does for
    all of my colleagues, but in the State of Indiana, tips to our
    human trafficking line went up fourfold from 2014 to 2016, and
    law enforcement specifically cites one website, Backpage.com,
    as fueling some of that growth. So I feel an imperative for us
    to act, and I share the goals that those who put this
    legislation together have.
        Details are really important. And so I have confidence that
    parties can come together, and if we're open on one hand to a
    careful reassessment of Section 230, that might provide greater
    power to our state AGs to go after the Backpage.com's of the
    world. But on the other hand, we have to be open to a careful
    reassessment of SESTA to take into account legitimate concerns,
    I think, that were expressed by Professor Goldman and Ms.
    Slater here today. Can we bridge that divide? I think we're
    pretty close here.
        So I'm going to ask a question about this, what strikes me
    as a new standard, ``knowing conduct,'' within SESTA. It's a
    new standard to the definition of participating in a venture in
    the Federal law.
        I want to better understand the implications created by
    this ``knowing conduct'' standard. I spent a couple years
    practicing law. We have intent on one end, we have strict
    liability on the other end. You have gross negligence and
    negligence and recklessness. And so help me understand. Is this
    ``knowing conduct'' standard somewhere in between intent and
    negligence, Mr. Goldman?
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you for that question because I am, too,
    not clear what the ``knowing conduct'' standard refers to and
    where it would fit on that spectrum between intent and strict
    liability. To me, reading it on its face, it would only modify
    the conduct, not whether understanding that conduct caused any
    legal violation. So I don't know that I would call it strict
    liability, but in a sense, as long as you know the conduct
    you're taking, the consequence of that conduct may be unknown
    to you and still have great liability.
        Senator Young. Mr. Becerra.
        Mr. Becerra. Senator, because my focus has been on criminal
    prosecutions, for me, the standard will always have a clear
    sense of knowing. I can't prosecute someone and get a
    conviction unless they knew what they were doing. And so for
    me, the bar is as high as it gets, having to prove beyond a
    reasonable doubt. That's why I believe, in this particular
    case, we can make an amendment to SESTA and not damage those
    who are truly trying to grow and innovate based on that
    protection they get from lawsuits.
        Senator Young. Mr. Goldman, you invoke the possibility that
    a sort of constructive knowledge could be imputed to those who
    put up a website. ``Constructive knowledge,'' I looked up the
    definition on the Web, a person is presumed by law--and that
    can always be dangerous--a person is presumed by law to have
    this knowledge, since the knowledge is obtainable by the
    exercise of reasonable care. Reasonable care is the sort of
    care that--and a person would ordinarily exercise if they were
    a prudent and rational person under similar circumstances.
        This gets--it's pretty abstruse stuff after a period of
    time, but is there--do you believe is there a way to bridge
    this divide between the concerns of what I'll characterize as
    your side and those who are pushing for a more aggressive
    approach?
        Mr. Goldman. I actually think we're all talking about the
    same thing, but I'm not sure that we agree what language will
    get there. If we are talking about knowing that there is a sex
    trafficking violation taking place, that knowledge to me would
    be something that would be consistent with Attorney General
    Becerra's standard, but would also, I think, be a much clearer
    standard for the services to act under.
        Senator Young. OK. My time is winding down. Count me in as
    someone who wants to constructively work toward a conclusion
    here and find that sweet spot so that we can protect our young
    men and women in this country and prevent this horrible
    predation that continues to grow in the State of Indiana and
    beyond.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Young.
        Before I turn to Senator Markey, he has already voted, I'm
    going to have to go vote here. I think Senator Sullivan is
    coming back and also wants to ask questions, so I may have him
    take this out.
        But I wanted to ask Ms. Slater, because I know this issue
    of civil liability has been discussed at some length. But could
    you provide some more clarity about what such an amendment
    would have to look like to receive your organization's support?
        Ms. Slater. Certainly, Senator. Thank you. So currently,
    under existing law--and I'll be specific here, it's 18 U.S.C.
    1595--victims of sex trafficking can seek civil penalties
    against the perpetrators of the crimes against them. There is a
    carve-out for that, for Section 230, and we support an
    amendment to Section 230 that would make that path possible for
    victims.
        The Chairman. Well, let me just say in kind of closing this
    out, that this has been really--I think the hearing has been
    very helpful, a lot of good testimony, and I would encourage
    you and the companies that you represent to continue to be at
    the table and to figure out if there's a way we can resolve the
    what some have acknowledged are perhaps unintended consequences
    in the current draft of the bill, but get to a place where we
    can move forward because I think everybody agrees this is an
    area in which we have to--we need to provide clarity.
        It's up to us to clarify the issues that are constantly
    involved in litigation. And I happen to think there's a path
    forward to be able to do that based on what I've heard today,
    but I want to encourage you and your companies to be able to
    sit down with the sponsors of this bill and for us to be able
    to work with our colleagues to see if we can get to a result.
        But I thank you all for being here. And I think this has
    been a great, like I said, a great hearing with very valuable
    input, and we'll look forward to taking all of it into
    consideration as we move forward.
        And I'll flip it now to Senator Markey.
        And then, Senator Sullivan, I think you can probably wrap
    it up.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

        Senator Markey. Thank you, Chairman Thune, very much. Thank
    you for having this very important hearing.
        There is a Dickensian quality to the Internet. It can
    simultaneously enable and ennoble or degrade and debase.
    Obviously, sex trafficking is at the top of the list of
    degrading and debasing activity which occurs on the Web. And
    historically, what has happened is that there has been an
    incentive for companies to take voluntary action to deal with
    these issues, to be empowered to be able to deal with the
    issues, and that self-incentivization is something that clearly
    is now being called into question. And the issue is, How do we
    now construct a balance that allows us to deal with this issue
    and to potentially give authority to attorneys general to be
    able to act?
        So it's good to see you, Attorney General Becerra, my good
    friend. Can you talk a little bit about what that power is
    succinctly, that we can understand, and why it's necessary to
    put that on top of the already existing powers?
        Mr. Becerra. As has been stated earlier, Federal
    prosecutors have the authority right now to criminally
    prosecute those who violate Section 230, the Communications
    Decency Act, who go above and beyond and engage in criminal
    activity with regard to sex trafficking of children. The
    difficulty is Federal prosecutors have proven they're not going
    to go everywhere and do every case. That's why you've got the
    50 state attorneys general, the District of Columbia's attorney
    general, and the other territories. You've got in California 58
    district attorneys in our 58 counties. We're prepared to do
    that because there is no reason to let a case drop if the
    evidence is strong that you have criminals who are preying on
    our children.
        And we would just simply like to have the authority that I
    believe we already have under the statute, but based on
    interpretations by various courts, they don't agree.
        Senator Markey. OK. Ms. Slater, what's wrong with what the
    attorney general said?
        Ms. Slater. In terms of goals, we absolutely share the
    goals.
        Senator Markey. Right.
        Ms. Slater. Perpetrators like Backpage.com should be
    brought to justice. However, I would note that there is
    currently in Phoenix a grand jury convened to do just that, and
    it's supported by evidence from the Senate's own PSI report,
    which issued earlier this year, which contained, I believe,
    over a million pages of documents from Backpage that outlined
    and documented and evidenced its criminal conduct in
    facilitating sex trafficking.
        Senator Markey. OK. Ms. Souras, what's wrong with what Ms.
    Slater just said?
        Ms. Souras. We certainly applaud the efforts of the Federal
    Government and the grand jury investigation, and then we will
    be following that closely, but as Attorney General Becerra
    noted, the problem is simply too large. These are large
    complicated cases. There is not one website. We know this at
    NCMEC. We talk about Backpage. There are dozens of websites.
    There will be dozens more in the future. These are complicated
    cases to put together. The victims do not come forward easily.
    They have lengthy periods of recovery. These are some of the
    issues that we've highlighted throughout this hearing.
        The volume is simply too high. Perhaps in 1996, it was
    reasonable to assume that the activity on the Internet was, you
    know, much, much less, and of course, the criminal activity was
    much less significant. That simply isn't the case anymore. More
    criminal law enforcement resources are needed.
        Senator Markey. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Goldman, you're going to disagree with Ms. Souras.
    So where is your disagreement with her?
        Mr. Goldman. Thank you. The only thing I would add to what
    Ms. Slater said is that the DOJ has already gone after two
    other sites that have been promoting online prostitution, the
    Rentboy and MyRedBook sites, and successfully was able to shut
    down both under existing Federal law, no issues with Section
    230. So I think we have to note that the DOJ is paying
    attention to this area and is taking action.
        Senator Markey. OK. And you, coming back to you again,
    you're saying, Attorney General Becerra, it's just not
    adequate.
        Mr. Becerra. Senator, they're going to--that mole is going
    to pop in another hole, and we're going to whack it, and then
    it's going to pop up in another hole, and it's just Whack-A-
    Mole.
        Senator Markey. So we need more hammers to be hitting those
    holes.
        Mr. Becerra. There's too much money. They're not going to
    stop. There's just too much money.
        Senator Markey. OK. So we thank all of you. This is an
    issue we have to resolve, and we have to just find a way
    through it. You've all presented very compelling testimony here
    today. And I think you're giving us, I think, a good education
    on the problem and on where the potential avenues can be
    created in order to work together on a bipartisan basis.
        And I want to thank the Chairman. And I offer my
    cooperation to the Chairman and to Senator Blumenthal to try to
    work this thing through so we can find a consensus resolution
    of it. So we thank each and every one of you for your
    compelling testimony today.
        I yield back to the Chairman.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        Senator Sullivan [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
        And I want to thank the witnesses. I will be your last
    questioner today. You've done a great job on this panel on a
    really important issue. You know, all of us deal with this
    heinous issue in different ways. In my State of Alaska, some of
    you may have seen this recent report sponsored by Covenant
    House that looked at 10 different cities for homeless youth.
    Almost one-third homeless youth in different cities across
    America have been trafficked. And it's an astounding statistic.
        So I'm going to ask without objection that this report be
    placed in the record. And I believe that Covenant House is
    going to be submitting testimony for this hearing as well.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Sullivan. Attorney General Becerra, I want to get
    back to this question, and I think it's a really important one
    that Senator Markey was talking about that's in the bill. I'm a
    cosponsor of the bill, so I'll put my cards on the table here.
        On the issue of resources and prosecution, you know, in my
    experience as a former AG in Alaska, we had a couple cases with
    regard to sex trafficking relating to the Mann Act, and that's
    the Federal law that prevents or makes it a crime to conduct
    sex trafficking across state lines. And it was a frustration
    for me as the AG because we had cases where there was evidence,
    very clear evidence. The state prosecutors and the state
    investigators were ready to go, and for whatever reason, the
    Feds weren't.
        So one of the first bills that I actually introduced in the
    Senate last Congress, and it got passed into law, signed by
    President Obama as part of the broader human trafficking bill
    that we got, was called the Mann Act Cooperation Act, and what
    it essentially said was that if there is evidence that a state
    AG brings to the Feds to be cross-designated to pursue a Mann
    Act violation, that the Attorney General of the United States
    shall cross-designate, for example, you for Mann Act
    violations. I'm trying to get the word out to AGs, so please
    help spread the word because that's a new power that you have.
        Mr. Becerra. Yes.
        Senator Sullivan. And the Attorney General of the United
    States can only say no to that cross-designation if it would,
    quote, ``undermine the administration of justice,'' and then
    the Attorney General would have to send you, if you were
    requesting that, a detailed explanation of that within 60 days.
    So it's an enormous power on sex trafficking for our AGs, which
    is why I think very strongly your point and the others here on
    this issue of allowing state officials to bring these
    prosecutions.
        In my experience, particularly in Mann Act cases, there is
    so much of that going on, and the Feds only have so many
    resources. So I would again just welcome any of you to talk
    about that, whether it's Mann Act or that provision in this
    law, but I think it's absolutely essential. And it's not trying
    to usurp the Feds' power or to create a patchwork, it's trying
    to bring more resources to an enormously big problem in our
    country. And I think AGs like you who are motivated on this can
    do that. You can do it on the Mann Act right now. Please go use
    that new law. But you can do it here, and I think it's
    important.
        So, again, I'd like to open this up to all the witnesses
    just on this question, the pros and cons of that provision in
    this bill. You see why I think it's important, and I'd love to
    hear from either side on this, why you think it's important or
    why you think it would be a problem.
        Attorney General, why don't we begin with you, sir?
        Mr. Becerra. Senator, first if I can just say thank you for
    your service to the people of Alaska and to this country, both
    as the attorney general and now as a Senator, and for the good
    effort to try to help those of us who would like to have that
    authority to go out there and prosecute these cases.
        Senator Sullivan. You have it on the Mann Act now, so----
        Mr. Becerra. Amen. We'll spread the word. We'll spread the
    word.
        I will simply say what I've been saying. It's we're not
    interested in trying to--especially not in California, of
    trying to slow down just the innovative explosion that you see
    going on in the Internet. We want that to go on. California
    benefits from it. But we've got to do something to help our
    kids and people like Ms. Ambrose. And so simply allowing us to
    do what sometimes the Federal Government doesn't have the
    resources to do would be just plain smart.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes.
        Mr. Becerra. And we're not trying to take a case from the
    Federal Government. If they want to go at it, great. But if
    they can't, we're ready to step in.
        Senator Sullivan. Great.
        Professor Goldman, try to rebut the--this is a resource
    issue, and if you think that we have the prosecutors that we
    need to go after all these crimes, I think the facts would
    dictate otherwise. So what's your rebuttal on that if, indeed,
    you have a rebuttal? Maybe you agree with that position.
        Mr. Goldman. Yes, thank you. I think that the Federal
    standard helps clear up some of the confusion about the
    existing bill. So right away, you've, I think, asked a
    different question than the bill has asked us. And so I think
    that's a helpful question to ask.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, you like--you're OK with state
    prosecutor under a Federal standard? Are you OK with that?
        Mr. Goldman. That helps. That helps.
        Senator Sullivan. That's what this Mann Act provision is.
        Mr. Goldman. Yes. And so--and I think that's a helpful
    direction to take the conversation because it cleans up one of
    the ambiguities that's in the bill.
        We still have the question about what the legal standard is
    that the state AGs will be prosecuting, and to what extent they
    will be able--it will be clear enough to them that we are only
    targeting the, quote, ``Backpages of the world,'' or are we
    targeting a larger universe? and what that larger universe
    looks like. So----
        Senator Sullivan. But the standard is going to be dictated
    by the law, right?
        Mr. Goldman. As long as the standard is dictated by the
    law, and if we have a requisite showing of the knowledge that
    we've discussed earlier in this hearing, that will help
    restrict the ability of people to interpret that in different
    ways, but unless that's clear, there is different
    interpretations that could be possible.
        I just want to come back to the idea that though the DOJ is
    strapped for resources, they have been putting resources on
    this topic. And so I just want to make sure that we haven't
    lost sight of the good work that they are doing. And that then
    leads to the question, Are they doing enough? And I think
    that's a question that I'd like to know more about.
        Senator Sullivan. OK. Ms. Souras.
        Ms. Souras. Senator, I would just very quickly cite back to
    the case numbers that we see at the National Center. This year
    so far, 9,700 reports of suspected child sex trafficking. That
    is a tremendous volume of children. They need the assistance
    and the support of the state attorney generals in addition to
    the Federal Government.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
        Ms. Slater, do you have a view on that one?
        Ms. Slater. I think that NCMEC should get all the resources
    it needs to do the good work that it does. It currently gets a
    lot of resources from our companies, whether that's through
    engineering talent, through financial resources, developing
    technology, that help track down perpetrators of sex
    trafficking and locate victims.
        And if I may add a personal note, I spent 10 years doing
    investigations and litigation on behalf of the Federal
    Government, and I do firmly believe if there's one thing the
    Federal Government does very well, it's litigation. And so I
    would like to see more resources go to DOJ so they can
    prosecute these cases.
        Senator Sullivan. Well, look, I think more resources is a
    common theme probably with every Senator here and all the
    witnesses. But this problem is growing, and it's so significant
    that more resources can mean not just Federal resources, but
    the good offices of state AGs. It's a very powerful resource
    and I think it's a key component of this bill. If the standard
    remains the same, which it does under this legislation, then I
    think having more prosecutors is actually quite an important
    development here.
        Well, listen, you've done a very good job on a tough topic
    here. We appreciate you taking all the time.
        The hearing record will remain open for two weeks. During
    this time, Senators are asked to submit any additional follow
    up questions for the record. Upon receipt, we would
    respectfully ask the witnesses to submit their written answers
    to the Committee as soon as possible. Thank you again for
    testifying today.
        This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:51 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

      Prepared Statement of Nacole S., Mother of a Child Sex Trafficking
                             Victim on Backpage.com
        Good morning Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of
    the Committee,

        My name is Nacole S., and I want to thank you for the opportunity
    to have my letter read today before you. I hope I can be a voice for
    the countless other families who are not present today, whose lives
    have been forever changed by websites that make their living hiding in
    the shadows of the law.
        In 2010, we were a close, loving family. We were all realizing our
    American dream. We had built something for ourselves more valuable than
    money, more important to us than a big new house or better cars in the
    driveway. We had built 3 lives, our great kids, ready to come into
    their own and take on the world. Passionate about our children, we
    wanted and expected the best. I remember a conversation with a school
    guidance counselor who was chastising us on how we were going about our
    son's college applications. The counselor was convinced that our son, a
    first-generation college student, would be best served applying to only
    local schools. We, ever-reaching, were convinced that he was better
    than that. It felt like our stubborn optimism and belief was rewarded
    when our son was accepted into a prestigious private engineering school
    in New York. We weren't surprised at all. We were so proud of all 3 of
    our children, each national honor roll students, and at the top of
    their games. Little did we understand how dramatically our lives were
    about to change. In just a few months, our American dream would be
    exchanged for a third-world nightmare, and would lead us to question
    everything.
        Our youngest, our baby Natalie \1\, was something special. She was
    always the most energetic of our 3 children, so full of life and
    promise. She participated in varsity soccer and wrestling, and played
    violin in the high school orchestra--all in her freshman year. That was
    Natalie, she tried to experience everything. She was taking high school
    by storm, in her light-hearted way. She was one of those kids. (Only a
    family with one of those kids knows what that means. Natalie wanted to
    do everything at once, with high energy, and nothing could contain her
    zest for life). Challenging as she was, she was exceeding every
    possible expectation a parent could have. It was amazing to be part of.
    None of us could've predicted that her innocent, care-free attitude was
    about to take her down a path what would shake our family to its very
    core. At the time, our family dynamic had changed as our son was off to
    college and our oldest daughter was distracted by her own concerns.
    Natalie was struggling to find her place in her new world.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ We use the pseudonym Natalie to protect our daughter's privacy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Looking back, we understand that our daughter was burning the
    candle at both ends, struggling with all the sudden, but inevitable,
    changes that were occurring. While they were all good things to us;
    they were confusing and difficult to Natalie. All we saw was an
    exceptional young lady, doing exceptional things. But Natalie, in her
    own way, was sending out signals. It's easy to see now, because of all
    the painful retrospection that comes with a tragedy, but it was
    impossible to see then.
        She made the implausible decision to leave the safety of her home.
    She wrote a letter, five pages long, telling us how wonderful her
    family is and how much she loved us. ``Finding herself'' was the gist
    of the letter, and of course not to worry. Not certain of her choice,
    Natalie had shared the letter with friends and like a sick game of
    telephone it circulated the school. Now it wasn't just a letter, but a
    dare. It was her reputation at stake. So, backed into a corner, she
    left.
        Making her way to Seattle she found herself at a teen homeless
    shelter. A woman there, 22 and posing as a teen, must've immediately
    noticed Natalie as an easy target. As smart as Natalie was, she had no
    idea of the danger she was in. As a parent, it's hard to talk about
    what happened next. I can't imagine her fear and bewilderment at what
    was happening to her as she was repeatedly raped and beaten and
    threatened, and treated like a sexual object every single day. All
    while being posted on a Backpage online ad. I honestly try not to think
    about it. I can only tell you that when we finally got Natalie back for
    good, months later, the young girl we found wasn't the same Natalie who
    left our home months earlier. I literally didn't recognize her at
    first; her appearance had changed so much. Her hair was dyed and cut
    and she was wearing different clothes. She didn't even sound like
    Natalie. Everything she was saying was incomprehensible to me. Our
    Natalie's light was gone. That was the beginning of our 6-year odyssey
    to get here, to our new American dream.
        Our new dream is simple: to live in an America that doesn't stand
    aside while little girls like our daughter, Natalie at age 15, are sold
    online like a commodity. This critical legislation would correct a
    legal loophole in the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that shields
    websites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking.
        A law originally drafted in 1996, the CDA simply cannot address the
    reality of violent crime on the Internet today. Every day, thousands of
    women and children are marketed online where buyers purchase them with
    ease, anonymity, and impunity. As survivors of sex trafficking and
    commercial sexual exploitation, we know the deep and profound harm
    caused by this crime. Many of us are survivor leaders of organizations
    working to provide safety and healing to others, including American
    children who were bought and sold online. For years, we have tried
    unsuccessfully to hold these websites accountable, but court after
    court has made it clear: Congress must correct the blanket immunity
    provided by CDA.
        This legislation is vital. Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of
    2017 represents an incredible bipartisan effort to seek justice for
    countless survivors who are sold on websites that shamelessly profit
    from our exploitation. As survivors of sexual exploitation and
    trafficking, we ask you to please prioritize the safety and rights of
    our Nation's most vulnerable women and children and pass SESTA to at
    long last, provide us a pathway to justice. As the father of a child
    sex trafficking survivor perfectly stated: ``Children are not
    acceptable collateral damage. They are our hope, our future, America's
    conscience.''
                                     ______

                              Statement of Love146
        Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the
    committee: thank you for the opportunity to present this written
    statement on behalf of our organization and the many children we work
    with.
        Love146 is an international anti-trafficking organization,
    headquartered in New Haven, CT, with survivor care and prevention
    education programs in the United States, the United Kingdom and the
    Philippines. As an organization that has spent 15 years working
    exclusively on the issue of child trafficking and exploitation, we have
    seen first-hand the increasing role that the Internet is playing in
    abetting child sex traffickers. Many of the children in our care today,
    from the Philippines to the United States, have been bought and sold
    through various Internet platforms.
        When platforms, such as Backpage.com knowingly advertise children--
    as if they are commodities--they are facilitating the exploitation and
    rape of our children. We have worked with many children whose
    traffickers have required them to pose for photos--images that would in
    many cases be considered child pornography--so that they could be
    bought and sold online. Sometimes these children were unaware that the
    photos they were taking were later going to be used to advertise their
    bodies for sale--sometimes these children thought they were exchanging
    photos with a romantic partner, sometimes they believed they were
    involved in a modeling project. In other cases, children were required
    to take ``selfies'' and coached through the process, how to look, what
    to wear, what parts of their bodies to display. If their initial photos
    did not elicit enough interest from ``buyers'' responding to their
    ``advertisement'' they were required to take more explicit photos.
        Being bought and sold online, next to classifieds for used clothes,
    bikes, appliances, and cars can have a devastating impact on how these
    children perceive themselves and can forever change how they view their
    relationship with their body. Their bodies now hold a specific and
    public price tag. In addition to the rapes and the horrific sexual
    acts, we have now created a situation in which we have placed a
    monetary value on our children. This commodification tells them, this
    is what you are worth. It is completely contrary to the message we want
    to send to children: that they are precious, that they are invaluable,
    that they are our future.
        The fact that sex with children can be openly advertised is
    something that we would expect no human being to find acceptable. The
    courts have been clear: there needs to be a legislative solution to the
    protections afforded to websites like Backpage.com through the original
    construction of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In 2016,
    in the State of California v. Carl Ferrer et al, the court so clearly
    articulated this stating, ``the Court understands the importance and
    urgency in waging war against sexual exploitation. Regardless of the
    grave potential for harm that may result in the exercise of this
    article of faith, Congress has precluded liability for online
    publishers for the action of publishing third party speech and thus
    provided for both a foreclosure from prosecution and an affirmative
    defense at trial. Congress has spoken on this matter and it is for
    Congress, not this Court, to revisit.''
        This is exactly what S. 1693, The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act
    of 2017, is attempting to rectify. Since the early days of the
    Internet, Congress has found appropriate and effective means to limit
    copyright and privacy infringement on the Internet. S. 1693 is narrowly
    focused, targeting only those digital publishers who ``knowingly''
    allow offending material to be published. Only those who ``knowingly''
    allow children to be bought and sold on their website can be found
    liable for this content. If passed, S. 1693 has the potential to
    greatly reduce the use of the Internet as a marketplace for the buying
    and selling of children. It will be a powerful tool with which
    organizations like ours, and law enforcement, will be able to help
    protect our children from exploiters and predators.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide you and the Committee with
    our perspective on this important piece of legislation. We look forward
    to continuing to work with you, the Committee and other Members of
    Congress on ways to safeguard children from child trafficking and
    exploitation.
                                     ______

             National Association of Police Organizations, Inc.
                                                          July 27, 2017

    Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Senator Blumenthal:

        On behalf of the National Association of Police Organizations
    (NAPO), I am writing to you to express our full support for the Stop
    Enabling Sex Traffickers Act.
        NAPO is a coalition of police units and associations from across
    the United States that serves to advance the interests of America's law
    enforcement through legislative and legal advocacy, political action,
    and education. Founded in 1978, NAPO now represents more than 1,000
    police units and associations, 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers,
    and more than 100,000 citizens who share a common dedication to fair
    and effective crime control and law enforcement.
        Since its inception in 1998, the National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children's (NCMEC) CyberTipline has received more than 16.5
    million reports of suspected child sexual exploitation. In 2016 alone,
    the CyberTipLine received 8.2 million reports of apparent child sexual
    abuse images, suspected ``sextortion'', child sex trafficking and child
    sexual molestation. An increasing number of these victims are
    trafficked online. Unfortunately, due to numerous court rulings,
    survivors of online trafficking cannot sue their advertisers due to
    Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which
    inadvertently gives broad criminal immunity to websites that facilitate
    sex trafficking. This significantly hampers law enforcement's ability
    to enforce state trafficking laws against such websites.
        The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act addresses this issue and
    narrowly amends Section 230 to allow states and victims to bring cases
    against bad actors that facilitate sex trafficking, while safeguarding
    the freedom of the internet. Therefore, NAPO stands ready to support
    with any efforts necessary to pass this important legislation. If you
    have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please feel
    free to contact me at: (703) 549-0775.
                Sincerely,
                                       William J. Johnson, Esq.
                                                    Executive Director.
                                     ______

                                                         August 1, 2017

    Senator Portman,
    Russell Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC.
    Senator Blumenthal,
    Hart Senate Office Building,
    Washington, DC.

    Letter of Support for the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017

    Dear Senator Portman and Senator Blumenthal,

        A couple of decades ago sex traffickers and buyers conducted their
    illegal transactions in dark alleys and back streets. Today these
    criminal transactions have moved online. Although the location has
    changed, the crime remains the same and so must our response to those
    who facilitate and enable it.
        In recognition of the tragic nature of online facilitation of sex
    trafficking, we thank you-and the broad, bi-partisan group of co-
    sponsors committed to protecting those who are bartered and sold for
    sex online--for introducing the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of
    2017. The undersigned organizations believe this legislation is
    necessary to dose a legal loophole in the Communications Decency Act
    (CDA) that allows websites to escape liability for knowingly
    facilitating sex trafficking.
        The CDA was enacted in 1996 to govern the nascent Internet industry
    while promoting an open forum for commerce online. Section 230 of the
    CDA established immunity for ``interactive computer service providers''
    (ICSPs) from civil and state criminal liability for third-party content
    in order to promote self-regulation by these online entities. However,
    over the past twenty years Section 230 has been broadly misinterpreted
    by Federal courts as extending blanket immunity to websites that host
    ads where trafficked individuals are bought and sold.
        Websites that profit from creating marketplaces for the sale and
    purchase of trafficking victims enjoy a lucrative business model--one
    with high profits and low risk. When states and victims have tried to
    hold these companies accountable in the courts, the CDA has blocked
    their efforts. In 2014, child sex trafficking victims asserted civil
    claims under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) against
    Backpage.com--the most extensive online marketplace for sex trafficking
    victims and the platform where the young plaintiffs had been advertised
    for sex--but their claims were denied based on CDA immunity. At the
    same time, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was
    engaged in a two-year inquiry into Backpage's business practices,
    culminating in a report on January 19, 2017 detailing how Backpage had
    knowingly facilitated child sex trafficking. Backpage has also avoided
    state criminal liability by attacking state laws in court and barring
    them from taking effect, also based on CDA immunity. Meanwhile,
    Backpage.com's profits continued to rise from $71 million in 2012 to
    over $120 million in 2015.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ I AM JANE DOE (SO Eggs Films 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This is wholly inconsistent with the purpose and protections
    intended when the CDA was enacted in 1996. As the Communications
    Decency Act began to make its way through the Senate, Senator Exon
    stated upon introduction of the bill on February 1, 1995 that the
    purpose of the bill was indeed to protect children:

            Mr. President, the information superhighway should not become a
            red light district. This legislation will keep that from
            happening and extend the standards of decency which have
            protected telephone users to new telecommunications devices.
            Once passed, our children and families will be better protected
            from those who would electronically cruise the digital world to
            engage children in inappropriate communications and
            introductions.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ 141Cong. Rec. 51953 (daily ed. Feb. 1, 1995) (statement of Sen.
    Exon).

        The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act o/2017 clarifies that Section
    230 was never meant to automatically shield websites that engage in the
    crime of human trafficking from a civil lawsuit or state criminal
    penalties. This bill targets the business model of companies like
    Backpage.com, by opening the door to civil liability and allowing
    states to enforce their trafficking laws when online entities choose to
    profit from the exploitation of sex trafficking victims.
        Enacting this legislation is critical to restoring the promise of
    justice for victims and holding offending websites culpable for their
    crimes. As sex trafficking explodes on the internet, accountability for
    online entities that facilitate this exploitation is an essential tool
    in the international fight against sex trafficking. We, the undersigned
    organizations, support this critical legislation and urge Congress to
    restore the human rights protections of the Trafficking Victims
    Protection Act that have been eclipsed by this misinterpreted immunity
    for entities that value profits over the protection of vulnerable
    people.
                Sincerely,

    Shared Hope International
    PROTECT
    Rights4Girls
    National Children's Alliance
    50 Eggs Films
    Exodus Cry
    Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW)
                                     ______

                      National Association of Attorneys General
                                       Washington, DC., August 16, 2017

    Hon. Roger Wicker,                   Hon. Brian Schatz,
    Chairman,                            Ranking Member,
    Senate Subcommittee on               Senate Subcommittee on
     Communications, Technology,          Communications, Technology,
     Innovation and the Internet,         Innovation and the Internet,
    Committee on Commerce, Science, and  Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation.                      Transportation.

    Hon. Marsha Blackburn,               Hon. Michael Doyle,
    Chairman,                            Ranking Member,
    House of Representatives             House of Representative
     Subcommittee on Communications and   Subcommittee on Communications and
     Technology,                          Technology,
    Committee on Energy and Commerce.    Committee on Energy and Commerce.

    RE: Amendment of Communications Decency Act

    Dear Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz, Chairman Blackburn, and
                Ranking Member Doyle:

        In 2013, Attorneys General from 49 states and territories wrote to
    Congress, informing it that some courts have interpreted the
    Communications Decency Act of 1996 (``CDA'') to render state and local
    authorities unable to take action against companies that actively
    profit from the promotion and facilitation of sex trafficking and
    crimes against children. Unfortunately, nearly four years later, this
    problem persists and these criminal profiteers often continue to
    operate with impunity. The recent news highlighting the potential
    complicity of online classified-ad company Backpage.com in soliciting
    sex traffickers' ads for its website once again underscores the need to
    expand, not limit, the ability of all law-enforcement agencies to fight
    sex trafficking.\1\ The undersigned Attorneys General once again
    respectfully request that the United States Congress amend the CDA to
    affirm that state, territorial, and local authorities retain their
    traditional jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute those who
    facilitate illicit acts and endanger our most vulnerable citizens.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Tom Jackman and Jonathan O'Connell, Backpage has always claimed
    it doesn't control sex-related ads. New Documents show otherwise,
    Washington Post, July 11, 2017, available at https://
    www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/backpage-has-always-claimed-
    it-doesnt-control-sex-related-ads-new-documents-show-otherwise/2017/07/
    10/b3158ef6-553c-11e7-b38e-35fd8e0c288f_story.html (last visited July
    12, 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As noted in the 2013 letter, certain Federal courts have broadly
    interpreted the CDA.\2\ One high-profile result is that some state and
    local law enforcement agencies have been left powerless to act against
    online classified ad services, such as Backpage.com, which have
    constructed their business models around advertising income gained from
    participants in the sex trade.\3\ Just a few examples of the countless
    instances of child sex trafficking--and its online promotion--that
    occur every day in the United States include the following:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See, e.g., Senate Permanent Subcommittee v. Ferrer, 199 F.
    Supp. 3d 125, 136 (D.D.C. 2016), vacated as moot, 856 F.3d 1080 (D.C.
    Cir. 2017); Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1262, 1275
    (W.D. Wash. 2012); M.A. v. Village Voice Media Holdings, LLC, 809 F.
    Supp. 2d 1041, 1048-56 (E.D. Mo. 2011); Dart v. Craigslist, 665 F.
    Supp. 2d 961, 965 & n.6 (N.D. Ill. 2009); Doe v. Bates, 2006 WL
    3813758, at **3-5 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 27, 2006); see also Google, Inc. v.
    Hood, 96 F. Supp. 3d 584, 596-98 (S.D. Miss. 2015), vacated & remanded
    on other grounds, 822 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2016).
        \3\ While Backpage.com claims to have shut down its prostitution/
    escort ads after a U.S. Senate hearing in January, there are reports of
    the ads merely moving to different sections. See Brian Rokos,
    Backpage.com Removes `Escort' Ads--Or Does It?, Press-Enterprise, Jan.
    11, 2017, available at http://www.pe.com/articles/backpage-822842-ads-
    subcommittee.html/ (last visited July 6, 2017); Kevin Litten, New
    Orleans Backpage Prostitution Ads Now Listed as Dating Ads, Human
    Trafficking Experts Say, Times-Picayne, Jan. 17, 2017, available at
    http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/01/
    backpage_prostitution_new_orle.html (last visited July 6, 2017);
    Stephen Koff, Backpage.com Still Appears to Be Running Ads for
    Prostitutes, Sexual Services, Cleveland.com, Jan. 12, 2017, available
    at http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/01/
    backpagecom_might_not_have_act.html (last visited July 6, 2017).

       Police in Stockton, California recently arrested more than
            20 people in a human trafficking and prostitution ring. Eight
            girls between the ages of 14 and 17 were being trafficked for
            sex using advertisements on Backpage.com.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Sarah Heise, 23 Arrested for Human Trafficking, Prostitution in
    San Joaquin County, KCRA 3, May 5, 2017, available at http://
    www.kcra.com/article/23-arrested-in-san-joaquin-county-human-
    trafficking/9588063 (last visited June 29, 2017).

       Federal and state law enforcement recently arrested a
            Chicago man accused of pimping a 16-year-old girl via
            Backpage.com, leading to her murder. The man ``shopped [the
            girl] around on Backpage.com,'' delivered her to a customer,
            and then fell asleep in his car outside a parking garage. When
            he awoke, he discovered the girl's body in the garage, ``her
            throat slit and her body badly beaten.'' \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Feds Charge Man for Prostituting 16-Year-Old Girl Before Her
    Murder, ABC 7 Eyewitness News, June 21, 2017, available at http://
    abc7chicago.com/news/feds-charge-man-for-prostituting-16-year-old-girl-
    before-her-murder/2128793/ (last visited June 29, 2017).

       Police in Georgia recently arrested three people who used
            Backpage.com to pimp a pregnant 17-year-old girl.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Ross Cavitt, Trio Accused of Pimping Pregnant Teen for Sex,
    WSB-TV 2, June 23, 2017, available at http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/
    cobb-county/trio-accused-of-pimping-pregnant-teen-for-sex/539101607
    (last visited June 29, 2017).

       Police in Florida recently arrested a woman who used
            Backpage.com to prostitute a missing 16-year-old girl
            throughout Broward County.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Tonya Alanez, Girl, 19, Accused of Pimping Out Missing 16-Year-
    Old, Sun Sentinel, June 2, 2017, available at http://www.sun-
    sentinel.com/local/broward/plantation/fl-teen-female-pimp-arrest-
    20170601-story.html (last visited June 29, 2017).

        Clearly, in these instances, Backpage.com is facilitating--and
    profiting from--these illegal activities. However, certain
    interpretations of the CDA have resulted in companies like Backpage.com
    remaining outside the reach of state and local law enforcement in these
    kinds of cases. We do not believe that was Congress's intent in passing
    the CDA, and we do not believe that is Congress's intent now. It is
    both ironic and tragic that the CDA, which was intended to protect
    children from indecent material on the internet,\8\ is now used as a
    shield by those who profit from prostitution and crimes against
    children.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ 104 Cong. Rec. S2308-01 (daily ed. June 14, 1995) (statement of
    Sen. Coats) (``Mr. President, all you have to do is pick up the
    telephone and call the FBI, ask their child exploitation task force
    about the volume of over--the-Internet attempts to seduce, abuse, and
    lure children into pornography and sexual exploitation.''); 104 Cong.
    Rec. H8470 (daily ed. Aug. 4, 1995) (statement of Rep. Cox) (``We want
    to encourage people like Prodigy, like CompuServ, like America Online,
    like the new Microsoft network, to do everything possible for us, the
    customer, to help us control, at the portals of our computers, at the
    front door of our house, what comes in and what our children see.'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Federal enforcement alone has proved insufficient to stem the
    growth in online promotion of child sex trafficking. Those on the front
    lines of the battle against the sexual exploitation of children--state
    and local law enforcement--must have the clear authority to investigate
    and prosecute facilitators of these and other horrible crimes. Thus, we
    recommend that 47 U.S.C. Sec. 230(e)(1) be amended to the following
    (added language in bold):

            Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the
            enforcement of section 223 or 231 of this title, chapter 71
            (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to sexual exploitation
            of children) of title 18, or any other Federal, State, or
            Territorial criminal statute.

        We are aware of efforts in Congress to preserve state criminal
    statutes that prohibit certain kinds of sexual exploitation and sex
    trafficking, and to preserve Federal and state statutes that provide
    causes of action, restitution, or other civil remedies to victims. We
    ask that, in addition to these efforts, Congress consider enacting our
    proposed change. We believe the CDA should be clear in preserving both
    state and territorial law to the same extent that it preserves Federal
    law--i.e., the CDA should be clear that it preserves all state and
    territorial criminal statutes, just as it preserves all federal
    criminal statutes. The simple addition this letter proposes would do
    just that and will help to ensure that we are able to effectively
    protect citizens and children throughout the entire country, in all
    courts. We thank you for your attention to this vital matter.
                Respectfully,

    Karl A. Racine                       Pamela Jo Bondi
    District of Columbia Attorney        Florida Attorney General
     General

    Steve Marshall                       Jahna Lindemuth
    Alabama Attorney General             Alaska Attorney General

    Mark Brnovich                        Leslie Rutledge
    Arizona Attorney General             Arkansas Attorney General

    Xavier Becerra                       Cynthia H. Coffman
    California Attorney General          Colorado Attorney General

    Matthew Denn                         Chris Carr
    Delaware Attorney General            Georgia Attorney General

    Douglas S. Chin                      Lawrence Wasden
    Hawaii Attorney General              Idaho Attorney General

    Lisa Madigan                         Curtis T. Hill Jr.
    Illinois Attorney General            Indiana Attorney General

    Tom Miller                           Derek Schmidt
    Iowa Attorney General                Kansas Attorney General

    Andy Beshear                         Jeff Landry
    Kentucky Attorney General            Louisiana Attorney General

    Janet T. Mills                       Brian Frosh
    Maine Attorney General               Maryland Attorney General

    Bill Schuette                        Lori Swanson
    Michigan Attorney General            Minnesota Attorney General

    Jim Hood                             Josh Hawley
    Mississippi Attorney General         Missouri Attorney General

    Tim Fox                              Douglas Peterson
    Montana Attorney General             Nebraska Attorney General

    Adam Paul Laxalt                     Gordon MacDonald
    Nevada Attorney General              New Hampshire Attorney General

    Christopher S. Porrino               Hector Balderas
    New Jersey Attorney General          New Mexico Attorney General

    Eric T. Schneiderman                 Josh Stein
    New York Attorney General            North Carolina Attorney General

    Wayne Stenehjem                      Mike DeWine
    North Dakota Attorney General        Ohio Attorney General

    Mike Hunter                          Ellen F. Rosenblum
    Oklahoma Attorney General            Oregon Attorney General

    Josh Shapiro                         Wanda Vazquez Garced
    Pennsylvania Attorney General        Puerto Rico Attorney General

    Peter Kilmartin                      Alan Wilson
    Rhode Island Attorney General        South Carolina Attorney General

    Marty J. Jackley                     Herbert H. Slatery, III
    South Dakota Attorney General        Tennessee Attorney General

    Ken Paxton                           Sean Reyes
    Texas Attorney General               Utah Attorney General

    T.J. Donovan                         Mark R. Herring
    Vermont Attorney General             Virginia Attorney General

    Robert W. Ferguson                   Patrick Morrisey
    Washington Attorney General          West Virginia Attorney General

    Brad Schimel                         Peter K. Michael
    Wisconsin Attorney General           Wyoming Attorney General

    Copy: The Honorable John Thune, Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce,
      Science, and Transportation; The Honorable Bill Nelson, Ranking
      Member, Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; The
      Honorable Greg Walden, Chairman, House of Representatives Committee on
      Energy and Commerce; The Honorable Frank Pallone, Ranking Member,
      House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce

                                     ______

                                                   CoStar Group
                                        Washington, DC, August 30, 2017
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Senators Portman, Blumenthal, and McCaskill:

        CoStar Group, Inc., one of the leading real estate technology
    companies in the United States, is writing today to express our support
    for the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 (``SESTA''). We
    understand that many other technology companies and lobby groups are
    currently opposed to this legislation, but policing online content is
    important to us. We operate websites, including Apartments.com, that
    draw tens of millions of monthly users, and so are already attuned to
    the issue of online safety. Nevertheless, the issues addressed in SESTA
    have come into sharper focus for us as a company over the past few
    months.
        It began in early spring this year when one of our senior
    executives was reviewing evidence we obtained pursuant to a court-
    ordered search and seizure warrant that had been issued by a
    Philippines court. We found ourselves in the Philippine courts because
    of another huge problem facing technology companies located in the
    U.S.-mass offshore theft of intellectual property. Specifically, our
    investigation of the theft of CoStar's intellectual property by
    Xceligent, Inc., a company based in Missouri, led us to Xceligent's
    offshore agent located in a remote town in the Philippines.
        When we began reviewing the evidence seized from the Philippines,
    we expected to find evidence of infringement of our copyrighted
    commercial real estate photos and theft of CoStar content from our
    websites (and we did); but what we did not expect to find was what we
    believed to be child pornography and sex trafficking ads mixed in with
    that evidence. We called the FBI immediately, thinking we had uncovered
    a Filipino sex ring. The FBI advised us that we needed to segregate any
    image that could be child pornography. We then discovered the name
    ``Backpage'' occurring at a very high rate in the data, but we had no
    idea who or what Backpage was. When we Googled the company, up popped I
    AM JANE DOE and the U.S. Senate Investigation into online trafficking.
    We learned this was not a Filipino sex ring, but instead a U.S.
    company, Backpage, that was also using the same offshore agent in the
    Philippines as Xceligent.
        We were subpoenaed by attorneys representing victims in civil cases
    against Backpage, as well as by various states' attorneys general. We
    were glad to provide whatever assistance that we could because we could
    not forget what we had seen.
        As a technology company, we believe in, and have benefited from,
    the growth of the Internet. We understand that an unregulated Internet
    provides fertile ground for the development of important new and
    innovative business models, and we will continue to strongly defend
    that openness. But when we see those driven by greed take advantage of
    that freedom by facilitating underage sex trafficking, we cannot be
    silent.
        The absolute immunity under section 230 of the CDA can no longer be
    justified at the expense of the exploitation of children. We believe
    that SESTA is a thoughtful, narrowly tailored remedy, and is long
    overdue.
        Thank you for the work you are doing and your commitment to this
    issue. We at CoStar stand with you.
                Kind regards,
                                                 Andy Florance,
                                                                   CEO,
                                                         CoStar Group, Inc.
                                     ______

                                                         Oracle
                                                      September 5, 2017

    Hon. Rob Portman,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
    U.S. Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Senators Portman and Blumenthal,

        I am writing to offer Oracle's strong endorsement of your bill, S.
    1693, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017.
        We commend your leadership on this issue. As your and other
    investigations have demonstrated, sex trafficking has exploded in large
    part due to nefarious Internet actors that knowingly facilitate and
    profit from it. We agree that congressional action is necessary to put
    an end to this tragic exploitation of human beings and hold its online
    accomplices to account.
        We appreciate that, in keeping with your respective strong track
    records of supporting the growth of the Internet and information
    technology industry, you have worked hard to craft a thoughtful bill to
    hold bad actors liable.
        The fact is that technological capabilities that are available
    today are light years away from those that existed in 1996, when the
    commercial Internet was just beginning. Back then, Internet startups
    would be launched with little to no ability to review and monitor the
    content they hosted. More importantly, sex trafficking and other
    heinous crimes had not begun to proliferate on the Internet.
    Nonetheless, we are 100 percent confident that a Portman/Blumenthal
    amendment--identical to S. 1693--offered to the Communications Decency
    Act in 1996 would have passed the Senate overwhelmingly and the
    Internet would have enjoyed the same exponential growth and innovation
    over the past twenty one years. Frankly we are stunned you must even
    have this debate.
        Today, the state of technology is far different than it was in
    1996. Any start-up has access to low cost and virtually unlimited
    computing power and to advanced analytics, artificial intelligence and
    filtering software. That capability is also offered as a service in the
    cloud. The business success of Internet and mobile computing platforms
    depends on their ability to precisely analyze, arrange and segment
    applications, data and content, to accurately target them at their most
    relevant audiences--along with advertising, of course--not to blindly
    run platforms with no control of the content.
        Your legislation does not, as suggested by the bill's opponents,
    usher the end of the Internet. If enacted, it will establish some
    measure of accountability for those that cynically sell advertising but
    are unprepared to help curtail sex trafficking.
        We look forward to working with you to advance your bill.
                Sincerely,
                                                 Kenneth Glueck
                              Senior Vice President, Office of the CEO.
                                     ______

          National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners
                                       New York, NY, September 14, 2017

    Hon. Rob Portman,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Senators Portman and Blumenthal:

        On behalf of more than 8,500 pediatric nurse practitioners and
    fellow pediatric-focused advanced practice registered nurses committed
    to providing optimal health care to children, the National Association
    of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners (NAPNAP) applauds your leadership in
    introducing the ``Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017'' (S.
    1693). NAPNAP and its members support this important legislation and
    your efforts to ensure that the websites that facilitate sex
    trafficking, particularly those targeting children, can be held liable
    for their actions under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
    and enable victims to seek justice against the website that aid the
    perpetrators of crimes against them.
        As you know, advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) who
    concentrate on children's care, including pediatric nurse practitioners
    (PNPs), are critically aware of the importance of stable, affordable
    health coverage in ensuring that families and their children receive
    the timely health care they need. Practicing in primary care,
    specialty, and acute care settings, APRNs dedicated to pediatric care
    have provided quality health care to children and families for more
    than 40 years in an extensive range of community practice settings such
    as pediatric offices, schools, and hospitals--reaching millions of
    patients each year.
        NAPNAP and its members share your concern about the critical
    problem of human trafficking, particularly of children and adolescents.
    As you are aware, human trafficking is the third largest international
    crime industry (behind illegal drugs and arms trafficking), reportedly
    generating profits of $32 billion every year, of which $15.5 billion is
    made in industrialized countries. The U.S. State Department reports
    that 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across international
    borders every year--of which 80 percent are female and half are
    children.
        NAPNAP is committed to improving provider awareness of the
    trafficking of children, and we have been directly involved in
    educating our members to recognize and provide appropriate treatment
    and referral for victims. Based on discussions with the Department of
    Health and Human Services' Office of Trafficking in Persons in the
    Administration for Children and Families, NAPNAP intends to initiate an
    online course to educate APRNs, registered nurses, physicians,
    physician assistants and other health care providers about the problem
    of child trafficking, including how to identify victims in emergency
    departments, primary care, and other practice settings. A planned
    second course will provide similar resources for a broad array of
    stakeholders including school administrators, teachers, social workers,
    law enforcement, faith-based, and transportation workers. NAPNAP will
    work in collaboration with other stakeholder groups to ensure
    comprehensive and appropriate content and consistent protocols for
    identification, response and referral. In addition, we plan to conduct
    train-the-trainer events for both the healthcare-focused course and
    multi-stakeholder course to enable NAPNAP members and other
    professionals to go back to their communities and chapters and train
    their peers.
        Your legislation will help to ensure justice for children who are
    victims of sex trafficking and clarify the remedies available to state
    Attorneys General and civil attorneys to assist victims and their
    families in holding responsible everyone who participated in their
    trafficking. As you know, there is growing evidence that traffickers
    are expanding their online operations to take advantage of existing
    gaps in statutes by knowingly creating or hosting content and actively
    engaging in conduct that makes it easier for traffickers to facilitate
    the sale of minors and adults victimized by sex trafficking. The ``Stop
    Enabling Sex Traffickers Act'' will take important steps to close those
    loopholes and support the survivors of sex trafficking.
        Again, NAPNAP is grateful to you for your leadership in taking
    action to address the critical problem of child sex trafficking and
    provide justice for children and their families who are victimized by
    sex traffickers. We are pleased to support the ``Stop Enabling Sex
    Traffickers Act of 2017'' (S. 1693) and look forward to working with
    you to see it enacted into law as quickly as possible.
                Sincerely,
                  Tresa E. Zielinski, DNP, RN, APN-NP, CPNP-PC,
                                                             President.
                                     ______

             State of Connecticut, Division of Criminal Justice
                                                     September 15, 2017

    U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal,
    Members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Senator Blumenthal and members of Congress,

        I respectfully request that you take the necessary action to amend
    Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) by
    passing the ``Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017.'' Various
    State and Federal Judicial authorities have upheld the protections
    afforded commercial advertisers under Section 230 of the Code as it
    relates to escort services, dating platforms and other locations where
    children and adults can be bought and sold for sexual purposes. The
    courts have repeatedly stated that, ``It is up to Congress to change
    the laws.'' The courts' strict Constitutional interpretation of Section
    230 squarely puts the responsibility on lawmakers to fix the antiquated
    provisions of a law designed to promote free market business with a
    newly developed technology, such as the Internet and other advanced
    marketing forums. Recognizing that certain people cloaked in a
    constitutionally protected medium, routinely use modem electronic
    technology to exploit vulnerable members of our community, requires
    Congress to act to protect children and adults alike who are subjected
    to the horrors of human sex slavery.
        I am a prosecutor with the New Haven, Connecticut State's
    Attorney's Office and the lead prosecutor with the joint Federal and
    State Human Trafficking Task Force. I coordinate joint prosecutions to
    hold offenders accountable for violations of human trafficking laws
    where groups and individuals use various websites to buy and sell
    children and adults for sexual purposes. Backpage.com is one such
    business and I have followed the legal battles involving them for a
    number of years. Inevitably the courts have upheld the protections
    afforded under Section 230 supporting Backpages's defense. My argument
    to you, members of Congress, is the following: Even if the courts were
    successful in prohibiting ONE company like Backpage.com from
    advertising, there are literally thousands of other companies already
    performing the same service. Millions of dollars have already been
    wasted on lawsuits going after the actions of one company. Piecemeal
    efforts are and will be ineffective in solving the problem of sex
    advertising. Amending the antiquated protections of the Section 230 law
    is a far better solution to tightening the loop hole these companies
    slip through to continue making record profits at the expense of an
    extremely vulnerable population.
        Human trafficking businesses have flourished under the cover of
    darkness (using the internet), whether for labor purposes or sexual
    gratification. Technology has afforded those willing to exploit other
    human beings for profit without conscience at a record pace. The data
    suggests that a trafficker can make more money selling another person
    for sex than selling illegal drug or weapons without detection from law
    enforcement groups. The greatest tool traffickers have at their
    disposal is the online advertising capability. It is time to deprive
    traffickers and those that profit from the illegal sale of people by
    eliminating the protections which are presently afforded by the
    Constitutional guarantees under Section 230.
        In closing, I genuinely thank you from a personal and professional
    perspective for taking the time to read this letter as you debate
    whether to take the courageous step in changing a law that has been in
    effect for decades. One need only see the irreparable damage to one
    human being, firsthand, to recognize that the proposed changes are far
    overdue to help children and young adults from a life of modern
    slavery. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions
    related to this request at (203) 789-7801 or via e-mail,
    brian.sibley@ct.gov.
                Respectfully submitted,
                                          Brian K. Sibley, Sr.,
                                       Senior Assistant State Attorney,
                                       New Haven State's Attorney's Office.
                                     ______

                           American Hotel & Lodging Association
                                                     September 18, 2017

    Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Senator Blumenthal,

        We write today to applaud your determined effort to fight human
    trafficking and to endorse your legislation, the Stop Enabling Sex
    Traffickers Act of 2017, which would go a long way toward cracking down
    on the use of the Internet by human traffickers to further their
    reprehensible crimes.
        The American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA) is the singular
    voice representing every segment of the hotel industry including major
    chains, independent hotels, management companies, franchisees, REIT's,
    and bed and breakfasts. Our industry recognizes the vital role that
    hotels can play in the battle against human trafficking networks and
    are committed to fulfilling this responsibility. Our focus in
    confronting trafficking has been to raise awareness within the
    industry, train hotel employees, and support non-profit organizations,
    policymakers, and law enforcement in their efforts to combat these
    terrible crimes.
        For example, AHLA funded and developed an online training program
    specifically geared toward hotel employees in partnership with ECPAT-
    USA and Polaris. The program teaches hotel workers to recognize signs
    of trafficking and report suspicious activities to law enforcement.
    AHLA also issued hotel industry principles on human trafficking to
    provide guideposts for our member companies and further raise awareness
    in the industry.
        We are continually seeking more effective ways to contribute to
    society's campaign against trafficking, whether in coordination with
    organizations like the National District Attorneys Association, or
    government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, or other
    entities within the travel and tourism sector. Your legislation is a
    crucial step forward in this campaign, and we are proud to support it.
    We cannot allow traffickers to conduct their operations on the Internet
    with impunity and your bill is an important step forward. Please let us
    know how we can be of assistance in your quest to eradicate human
    trafficking.
                Sincerely,
                                               Vanessa Sinders,
                                                 Senior Vice President.
                                     ______

              Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
                                     Washington, DC, September 18, 2017

    Hon. Rob Portman,
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Senators Portman and Blumenthal:

        We are writing on behalf of the Union of Orthodox Jewish
    Congregations of America (``Orthodox Union'')--the nation's largest
    Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization--to express support for S. 1693,
    the ``Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017.''
        Like so many Americans, we are deeply concerned about the scourge
    of human sex trafficking. We also support a justice system that
    protects the most basic human rights, including the ability of victims
    to seek justice against those who have wronged them. S. 1693 will allow
    victims of sex trafficking on the Internet to seek justice against
    those that promote and facilitate such trafficking. This legislation is
    narrowly tailored to correct the loopholes inadvertently contained in
    the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that provide a safe harbor for
    Internet traffickers.
        The Orthodox Union supports your legislation to amend the
    Communications Decency Act of 1996 to ensure that victims of human sex
    trafficking are included in this protection and able to seek the
    justice they deserve.
                Sincerely,
                                                Nathan Diament,
                                                    Executive Director.
                                                 Jerry Wolasky,
                                                    Chairman, Advocacy.
                                     ______

                                     Hewlett Packard Enterprise
                                   St. Palo Alto, CA, 18 September 2017

    Hon. Rob Portman,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Senators Portman and Blumenthal:

        On behalf of Hewlett Packard Enterprise, I am writing to express
    our support for S. 1693, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017.
    Your legislation will help bring justice to victims and their families
    and protect vulnerable women and children.
        As an industry-leading, global technology company that has long
    taken a stand against forced labor and human trafficking, and has made
    it a priority to protect and elevate vulnerable worker groups, we
    believe the technology sector has a responsibility to help policymakers
    and law enforcement combat illicit and criminal activity on the
    internet, especially sex trafficking.
        Hewlett Packard Enterprise views engagement with stakeholders and
    public advocacy as integral aspects of its overall strategy to address
    the risks of forced labor and human trafficking. We often share our
    experiences and the challenges associated with combatting these issues
    in our supply chain at conferences and other public forums. The goal is
    to raise awareness, help other companies build an internal business
    case for action on trafficking, and advance wider stakeholder dialogue
    about how we can collaborate on meaningful actions.
        To that end, please let me know how my team and I can be of
    assistance as you seek consensus to move this important legislation
    forward.
        Thank you for your leadership, and we stand ready to work with you
    and your colleagues to enact this important bill.
                Sincerely,
                                               John F. Schultz,
                             Executive Vice President, General Counsel
                                               and Corporate Secretary.
                                     ______

                                        The Walt Disney Company
                                     Washington, DC, September 18, 2017

    Hon. Rob Portman,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.
    Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Senator Portman and Senator Blumenthal:

        I am writing to express the strong support of The Walt Disney
    Company for S. 1693, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017
    (SESTA).
        Disney is a diversified entertainment company and one of the most
    prominent faces of the American content industry. We are a company
    whose business is firmly rooted in creativity, expression and
    innovation. As technology has evolved, so too has our business, with
    each of our segments invested in a significant online and interactive
    media presence. As such, we are steadfast defenders of the principles
    of freedom of speech and of the press, and we are both beneficiaries of
    and advocates for the liability protections afforded by the
    Communications Decency Act (CDA). But we also recognize that the public
    has a strong interest in an Internet that is open, secure, and
    protective of the rights of individuals. In the end, the public's
    legitimate expectation of responsible stewardship and accountability by
    those who make the Internet their business is no less appropriate in
    the online space than it is in the offline world.
        Recognizing the importance of the CDA's protection to online
    platforms, including Disney, it is hard to imagine that the Congress
    that crafted this protection intended it to operate as a shield against
    liability for the kind of horrific acts that are the target of your
    legislation. The CDA's objective to ``promote the continued development
    of the Internet and other interactive computer services and other
    interactive media'' was and remains an important one to promote
    investment and innovation in online platforms. But that objective
    cannot be so overriding as to require that we shield from liability
    those who knowingly engage in unlawful activity, particularly those who
    knowingly participate in the business of human trafficking. To the
    extent some are claiming that holding such actors accountable
    ``jeopardizes bedrock principles of a tree and open internet,'' Disney
    rejects that view.
        Thank for your efforts to pursue a sensible policy in this area--
    one that is protective of both the Internet and its continued
    development while providing redress for those who are the victims of
    unimaginably harmful and unlawful conduct. We will be happy to work
    with you as this bill moves forward to ensure the legislation meets its
    targeted objectives and becomes law.
                Sincerely,
                                              Richard M. Bates,
                            Senior Vice President Government Relations.
                                     ______

                                                     September 18, 2017
    Hon. John Thune,
    Chairman,
    U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    Washington, DC.
    Hon. Bill Nelson,
    Ranking Member,
    U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    Washington, DC.

    Dear Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the
    Committee,

        We are an alliance of survivors of sex trafficking and commercial
    sexual exploitation from all across the country writing to express our
    strong support for S.1693, Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017
    (SESTA). This critical legislation would correct a legal loophole in
    the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that shields websites that
    knowingly facilitate sex trafficking.
        A law originally drafted in 1996, the CDA simply cannot address the
    reality of violent crime on the Internet today. Every day, thousands of
    women and children are marketed online where buyers purchase them with
    ease, anonymity, and impunity. As survivors of sex trafficking and
    commercial sexual exploitation, we know the deep and profound harm
    caused by this crime. Many of us are survivor leaders of organizations
    working to provide safety and healing to others, including American
    children who were bought and sold online. For years, we have tried
    unsuccessfully to hold these websites accountable, but court after
    court has made it clear: Congress must correct the blanket immunity
    provided by CDA.
        This legislation is vital. Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of
    2017 represents an incredible bipartisan effort to seek justice for
    countless survivors who are sold on websites that shamelessly profit
    from our exploitation. As survivors of sexual exploitation and
    trafficking, we ask you to please prioritize the safety and rights of
    our Nation's most vulnerable women and children and pass SESTA to at
    long last, provide us a pathway to justice. As the father of a child
    sex trafficking survivor perfectly stated: ``Children are not
    acceptable collateral damage. They are our hope, our future, America's
    conscience.''
                Sincerely,

    1. Trudee E. Able                    2. Nikolaos Al-Khadra
    SEY and Youth Outreach Specialist    Survivor Leader, National Survivor
    Minneapolis, MN                       Network (NSN)
                                         Los Angeles, CA

    3. Kimmi Alona                       4. Jason Alva* Advocate
    Rebecca Bender Initiative            San Diego, CA
    Denver, CO

    5. Barbara Amaya, PhD                6. Brooke Axtell
    Author, Advocate, and Senior         Founder/Director, She is Rising
     Technical Advisor, EPIC (Education  Austin, Texas
     Prevention and Intervention
     Center)
    Arlington, VA

    7. Ann Marie Babb                    8. Heidi Balogh
    VP Business Operations, WCWT Center  Milwaukie, OR
    Middletown, OH

    9. Trisha Baptie                     10. Jewell Mikaela Baraka
    Community Engagement Coordinator,    Kansas City, MO
     EVE
    Vancouver, BC

    11. Cathy Bauer                      12. Alyssa Beck
    Phoenix, AZ                          Advocacy Specialist, Delores Barr
                                          Weaver Policy Center
                                         Jacksonville, FL

    13. Nicole Bell                      14. Rebecca Bender
    Executive Director, Living In        CEO & Founder, Rebecca Bender
     Freedom Together Inc.                Initiative
    Worcester, MA                        Grants Pass, OR

    15. Alisa Bernard                    16. Wendy Berry
    Survivor Advocacy Coordinator, The   Survivor/Advocate
     Organization for Prostitution       Fruitland, ID
     Survivors (OPS)
    Seattle, WA

    17. Tammy Bitanga                    18. Ellen Blair
    Peer Support Specialist/Community    Knoxville, TN
     Outreach manager, Ho'ola Na Pua
    Honolulu, HI

    19. Jennifer Brooks-Hardy            20. Kathy Bryan
    Peer Support Coordinator, Healing    Director of Elevate Academy,
     Action                               National Trainer, Author, Mentor,
    St. Louis, MO                         Rebecca Bender Initiative
                                         Heber Springs, AR

    21. Autumn Burris                    22. Kathleen Campbell
    Founding Director, Survivors for     Puxico, MO
     Solutions
    Denver, CO

    23. Vednita Carter                   24. Christine Cesa
    Founder, Breaking Free and Vednita   Survivor Leader/Advocate
     Carter Ministries                   Los Angeles, CA
    St. Paul, MN

    25. Maui Chacon                      26. Penny Christopoulos
    Survivor Advocate                    Norfolk, VA
    Anaheim, CA

    27. Angie Conn                       28. Amber Copeland
    Survivor Leader                      Morgantown, WV
    Buffalo, WV

    29. Laurin Crosson                   30. Jeanine Daley
    Founder/Director, Rockstarr.org      Worcester, MA
    Salt Lake City, UT

    31. Ne'cole Daniels                  32. Delores Day
    Founding Co-Chair, World Without     Executive Director, Restore
     Exploitation                         Innocence Ranch
    Olympia, WA                          Waukesha, WI

    33. Emily Dickson                    34. Kelly Dore
    Empowerment Advocate, Family         Executive Director, Colorado Human
     Assistance Program                   Trafficking Survivor Coalition
    San Bernardino, CA                   Denver, CO

    35. Eva Eakins                       36. Jerome Elam
    Hesperia, CA                         President and CEO, Trafficking in
                                          America Task Force
                                         Gainesville, FL

    37. Amy Engle                        38. Telisia Espinosa
    Marriage and Family Therapist,       Be A Voice
     Phoenix Dream Center                Tampa, FL
    Phoenix, AZ

    39. Natasha Falle                    40. Hazel Fasthorse
    Co-founder/Director, Sex Trade 101   Case Manager/Advocate, Beloved
    Toronto, ON                           Atlanta
                                         Atlanta, GA

    41. Kailee Favaro                    42. Danielle Trinity Foreman
    East Nassau, NY                      Attleboro, MA

    43. Allison Franklin                 44. Freitag
    Houston, TX                          LADC, Director of Action169
                                         Fairmont, MN

    45. Jessika Fuhrmaneck               46. Noel Gomez
    Writer/Speaker/Advocate, Treasures   Advocate, The Organization for
     Ministry                             Prostitution Survivors (OPS)
    Nashville, TN                        Seattle, WA

    47. Danielle Goodwin                 48. Jessica Groghan
    Survivor Leader                      Fort Collins, CO
    Seattle, WA

    49. Jennifer H.                      50. Athena Haddon
    Group Facilitator, Prevent Child     Port Huron, MI
     Abuse NJ
    New Brunswick, NJ

    51. Kathi Hardy                      52. Denise Harris
    Freedom From Exploitation            HSTSI Facilitator And Survivor
    San Diego, CA                         Advocate, Convergence Resource
                                          Center
                                         Milwaukee WI

    53. Marian Hatcher                   54. Keisha Head
    Senior Project Manager/Human         Lead Case Manager, Salvation Army
     Trafficking Coordinator, Cook       Conyers, GA
     County Sheriffs Office
    Chicago, IL

    55. Hollerbach                       56. Jolene Hollis
    Monroe, WA                           Mentor, Trainer, Case Manager
                                         Long Beach, CA

    57. Margaret Howard                  58. Corina Hernandez
    LCSW                                 Hemet, CA
    Saint Louis, MO

    59. Jeanet T. Ingalls                60. Beth Jacobs
    Survivor Advocate, Shout Out Loud    Field Instructor, Truckers Against
     Productions, Inc.                    Trafficking
    Lenox, MA                            St. Cloud, MN

    61. Cherie Jimenez                   62. Jeri Jimenez**
    Director, EVA Center                 Co-founder, Survivor 2 Survivor
    Boston, MA                           Portland, OR

    63. Ann Marie Jones                  64. Judith
    Peer Mentor, Dawns Place             Beverly Hills, CA
    Philadelphia, PA

    65. Kristine                         66. Kathleen Kruger
    Tacoma, WA                           Mount Olive Lutheran Church
                                         Minneapolis, MN

    67. Jessica Lamb                     68. Judith Latner*
    Founder and Director, Atlanta        Buckeye, AZ
     Redemption Ink, Inc.
    Atlanta, GA

    69. Maryann Lennon                   70. Marcela Loaiza
    Survivor, Rebecca Bender Initiative  Survivor and Writer, Marcela Loaiza
    Palm Bay, FL                          Foundation
                                         Las Vegas, NV

    71. Jacquelynn Loos                  72. Shawnee Love HHD, PhD**
    Peer Support Specialist, REST        Doctor/Advocate/Survivor/Warrior/
    Seattle, WA                           Movements Maker, Purple Hearts
                                          Missions Possible & Healthy
                                          Horizons; Native American Warriors
                                          Task Force
                                         The Americas

    73. Megan Lundstrom                  74. Marti MacGibbon
    Executive Director, Free Our Girls   Speaker, Author, Survivor Leader
    Greeley, CO                          Sacramento, CA

    75. Jasmine Grace                    76. Emily Martin
    Marino Director, Bags of Hope        Mission 21
    Boston, MA                           Rochester, MN

    77. Jennifer Martin                  78. Courtney Mattinson
    Social Media and Events              Marietta, GA
     Coordinator, Rethreaded
    Jacksonville, FL

    79. McKinley                         80. Manon Michaud
    Austin, TX                           Activist
                                         Montreal, QC

    81. Robin Miller                     82. Kathleen Mitchell
    Vancouver, BC                        Founder, DIGNITY Programs
                                         Phoenix, AZ

    83. Jeri Moomaw                      84. Audrey Morrissey
    Executive Director, Innovations HTC  Associate Director, My Life My
    Olympia, WA                           Choice
                                         Boston, MA

    85. Emmy Myers                       86. Darlene Pawlik
    CEO & Founder, Lacey's Hope Project  Speaker, The Darling Princess
    Slinger, WI                          Raymond, NH

    87. Alexandra (Sandi) Pierce         88. John Price
    President, Othayonih Research        Reverend
    Saint Paul, MN                       Kansas City, MO

    89. Sharon Robbins                   90. Dr. Katariina Rosenblatt, PhD
    Jubilee Havens                       Founder, There Is Hope For Me, Inc.
    Ocean Springs, MS                    Orlando, FL

    91. Rosseland                        92. Marjorie Saylor
    Survivor Mentor, Delores Barr        Founder/Executive Director, The
     Weaver Policy Center                 Well Path
    Jacksonville, FL                     Escondido, CA

    93. Andrea Shields                   94. Carrie Smals
    Marceline, MO                        Supervisor of a non-profit
                                          organization for survivors of
                                          human trafficking
                                         Jacksonville, FL

    95. Tina Smithee                     96. Elle Snow
    Caseworker, Catholic Charities       Founder & Board President/Public
    Macon, GA                             Speaker, Game Over
                                         Eureka, CA

    97. Joli Sparkman                    98. Lorena Spencer
    RIA house                            Owosso, MI
    Millis, MA

    99. Jen Spry                         100. Cassandra Strom
    RN, Being A Voice LLC                Public Relations Director, New Life
    Douglassville, PA                     Refuge Ministries
                                         Trophy Club, TX

    101. Brittani Stugart                102. Carolyn Sunseri
    Los Angeles, CA                      McKinleyville, CA

    103. Shelley Sylvester               104. Kristen Tebow
    Madison Heights, MI                  CEO, Founder, Youth Trust Project
                                         Lawrence, KS

    105. Melanie Thompson                106. Tori Thompson
    Survivor Advocate                    Free Our Girls
    Queens, NY                           Greeley, CO

    107. Rosalyn Vasquez                 108. Jeanette Westbrook, MSSW
    Survivor Advocate                    Speaker and Advocate, SPACE
    Seattle, WA                           International
                                         Louisville, KY

    109. Pamela A. White                 110. Pamela Willisaa
    Shared Hope International            Survivor Leader/Expert
    Washington, DC                       Atlanta, GA

    111. Shandra Woworuntu               112. Erin Wright
    Director, Mentari                    Carson City, NV
    New York, NY

    113. Sarah Zalonis
    Consultant, Polaris Project
    Washington, DC

    * Parent of a child sex trafficking survivor
    ** Survivor and parent of a child sex trafficking survivor

                                     ______

     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
                               to Abigail Slater
        Question. We want to be sure Internet platforms are held liable
    when they knowingly assist, support, or facilitate a human trafficking.
    Could you describe your concerns with the amended ``participating in a
    venture'' language and explain what mens rea standard you believe is
    used? How can we clarify that the knowledge standard for secondary
    liability in Section 1591 so that it applies to specific instances of
    illegal conduct?
        Answer. As currently drafted, SESTA would amend the Federal human
    trafficking laws to impose criminal liability on any entity that
    engages in knowing conduct that assists, supports, or facilitates a
    violation of a human-trafficking crime. (Section 4(2)). This standard
    does not work for Internet companies, whose very functions assist,
    support, or facilitate both good and bad activities on the Internet.
    For example, a company that provides access to the Internet knows that
    such access facilitates every activity on the Internet--whether lawful
    or not. To address this concern, SESTA should modify the criminal
    liability standard to tighten the nexus between an Internet company and
    a violation of Sec. 1591. This can be done by limiting liability to an
    entity that has actual knowledge of the conduct in question and
    materially assists in furthering such conduct.
                                     ______

     Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
                                to Eric Goldman
        Question. Do you interpret the current provisions in SESTA as
    wiping out Good Samaritan protections? If so, how can we amend the
    legislation to ensure the proposed changes to the CDA do not override
    Section 230 (c)(2)(A) protections?
        Answer. I appreciate the opportunity to explain Section 230s Good
    Samaritan mechanisms and how SESTA undermines them. The Manager's
    Amendment dated November 3, 2017 attempted to address this issue, but I
    don't think it accomplished its goal.
    How Section 230 Currently Protects Good Samaritan Efforts
        I believe Congress wants online services to voluntarily undertake
    efforts to block or remove third party promotions for sex trafficking
    and other illegal or objectionable third party content. I'll call these
    efforts ``content moderation.''
        Content moderation takes a nearly infinite variety of forms.
    Content moderation includes initial decisions to publish or not, as
    well as post-publication decisions to remove or not remove the content.
    Content moderation can be manual or automated, and post-publication
    decisions may be prompted by third party notifications (such as
    takedown requests) or the online service's own diligence or monitoring
    efforts.
        47 U.S.C. Sec. 230(c) is captioned ``Protection for `Good
    Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material.'' Both parts
    of Section 230(c) support this goal. Section 230(c)(1) provides an
    immunity for publishing third party content, including both its initial
    decision to publish and any subsequent decision not to remove content.
    I'll call these ``Publication'' decisions. Section 230(c)(2) provides a
    safe harbor for refusing to publish third party content or subsequently
    removing third party content. I'll call these ``Removal'' decisions.
    Between the two subsections, Section 230(c) currently protects the full
    range of content moderation efforts.
    How SESTA Undermines Section 230s Good Samaritan Protection
        SESTA enables online services to be sued or prosecuted for sex
    trafficking promotions that third parties publish through their
    service. Online services will be reluctant to undertake content
    moderation efforts if they face liability for any sex trafficking
    promotions that slip through, i.e., if they miss a promotion, review a
    promotion but make a mistake, or take too long to find or remove a
    promotion.
        The Manager's Amendment preserves Section 230(c)(2)'s protection
    for Removal decisions. However, this won't encourage Good Samaritan
    efforts because: (1) online services don't fear being sued or
    prosecuted for what they remove (and such risks usually can be
    ameliorated by the online service's contract with the third party
    users-publishers); (2) Section 230(c)(2)'s ``good faith'' requirement
    undercuts the safe harbor's availability, and it substantially
    increases defense costs because judges may enable wide-ranging
    discovery into defendants' ``good faith''; and (3) online services may
    abandon their content moderation efforts entirely rather than risk
    being charged with knowledge of content they didn't catch.
        Instead, SESTA effectively exposes online services to liability
    only for third party content that they publish online or don't remove
    quickly enough. This means online services principally need immunity
    for their Publication decisions, not their Removal decisions. Section
    230(c)(1)--not (c)(2)--provides the applicable immunity for content
    Publication. Thus, by curtailing Section 230(c)(1), SESTA removes the
    primary protection that online services rely upon when doing Good
    Samaritan content moderation against sex trafficking promotions (and
    all other objectionable content).
    Proposed Language to Incorporate Good Samaritan Protections into SESTA
        If Congress wants to ensure that online services continue to combat
    sex trafficking promotions, I recommend saying so explicitly. To do
    this, I propose SESTA add a new Section 230(g) to make it clear that
    Good Samaritan efforts should not be punished:

            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
            it considers objectionable shall not be considered in
            determining its liability for any material that it has not
            removed or restricted access to.

        Alternatively, with some wording changes, this language could be
    incorporated into Section 230(c)(2)(A).
                                     ______

    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
                             to Hon. Xavier Becerra
        Question 1. Mr. Goldman and Ms. Slater argue that creating these
    exemptions to the CDAs will have a chilling effect on the web platforms
    that are monitoring their websites and pulling down these ads, because
    they argue they could be held liable for knowing the content is there.
    What is your response to this and how would law enforcement respond if
    these platforms stopped monitoring their sites altogether?
        Answer. There is undoubtedly a vigorous societal interest in free
    speech. But that does not require States to turn a blind eye to
    commercial entities that intentionally and knowingly facilitate and
    profit from egregious criminal conduct. It is also important to protect
    Internet platforms, which are important both to the economy and in the
    lives of everyday Americans, from the sort of private litigation that
    Congress feared in passing the original Communications Decency Act
    (CDA). But the more expansive judicial decisions that we are concerned
    with have gone further than that, and I believe that legislation will
    help to restore the balance that Congress intended.
        As to whether Internet companies will reduce their cooperation with
    law enforcement due to such legislation, I would find it surprising if
    responsible American companies would knowingly place children at risk
    by turning a blind eye towards the sex trafficking of vulnerable
    minors. A few irresponsible companies already do so, of course--and
    that is the problem this legislation aims to give us tools to fight.
    Human trafficking cannot be the cost of doing business.

        Question 2. As a former Member of Congress and now as Attorney
    General, you have seen this issue from both sides. As we know, there
    was no way of predicting in 1996 that sites could serve at the hub for
    soliciting and facilitating human trafficking. Do you believe Congress
    intended with Section 230 to provide vast protections to those who
    knowingly facilitate human trafficking? Under what circumstances do you
    believe it is appropriate for Congress to revisit the laws it has
    passed?
        Answer. In my 24 years in Congress, there were instances where we
    revisited laws for one good reason or another--sometimes because a law
    was dated or because the underlying statute as written resulted in some
    conflict or unintended consequence. Indeed, to keep our policies
    current with the times, numerous major laws require reauthorization
    every few years.
        These admonitions are apt in this instance involving the
    Communications Decency Act. No one in Congress (and I was a member of
    the House of Representatives at the time) intended the CDA to be used
    as a shield by human traffickers, nor do I believe that Congress
    intended under the CDA to interfere with Federal or state criminal
    prosecutions of child sex trafficking.
        Nevertheless, there is now a court ruling that speaks directly to
    the conflicts/unintended consequences in the application of the CDA and
    the need for Congress to amend it to make it clear:

            ``If and until Congress sees fit to amend the immunity law, the
            broad reach of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
            even applies to those alleged to support the exploitation of
            others by human trafficking.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ People v. Ferrer, 16FE024013 (Cal. Superior Ct. Aug. 23, 2017)

        The original CDA clearly exempts any Federal criminal prosecution
    from its prohibitions. I believe the law also intended to exempt state
    criminal prosecutions, but many lower courts, unfortunately, have not
    agreed. The CDA is about protecting Internet service providers from a
    proliferation of private civil actions; it should be limited to that
    and not interfere with state or Federal criminal prosecutions.
                                     ______

    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
                               to Yiota G. Souras
        Question 1. Some of the tech companies have argued that there is
    already a Federal law, the SAVE Act, that can be used to prosecute
    pimps who post sex trafficking ads and the online platforms who host
    the ads. However, there has yet to be any Federal prosecution of
    Backpage. I understand the SAVE Act assigned the higher ``knowledge''
    standard to advertising sex trafficking. What impediments do you think
    Federal prosecutors might face in bringing these cases?
        Answer. Background to SAVE Act
        Based on NCMEC's years of experience as the Nation's clearinghouse
    on issues relating to missing and exploited children, we are aware that
    child sex trafficking is a multi-faceted issue that requires an array
    of legal tools to prevent and combat this horrible crime. The SAVE Act,
    which was enacted as part of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act
    of 2015, amended 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1591(a)(1) (the ``TVPRA'') which
    addresses sex trafficking violations and added advertising as a type of
    conduct that is criminal. Specifically, the SAVE Act criminalizes the
    knowing advertising of a person where the advertiser knew the person
    was under the age of 18 years old or force, threats of force, fraud, or
    coercion were utilized in trafficking the person.
        On December 11, 2015, almost immediately after the SAVE Act was
    enacted, Backpage.com, LLC (``Backpage'') sued the Department of
    Justice in the District Court for the District of Columbia challenging
    the constitutionality of the SAVE Act. This litigation was dismissed on
    October 24, 2016, with the court ruling that Backpage lacked standing
    and the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the case on
    its merits.
        Given that the litigation challenging the constitutionality of the
    SAVE Act was resolved just over a year ago, it is not surprising that
    there have been no Federal prosecutions of Backpage utilizing this new
    legal option to date. Complex Federal prosecutions, especially of large
    scale sex trafficking operations, take substantial time and resources
    to develop and initiate. It simply is too soon to determine whether the
    SAVE Act, as some have argued, provides a more viable means for Federal
    prosecutors to bring suit against online facilitators of sex
    trafficking, such as Backpage.
        While the SAVE Act did add advertising as a predicate act for sex
    trafficking within the confines of the TVPRA, Federal prosecutors have
    always been exempt from the barriers of the Communications Decency Act
    (``CDA'') that apply to other forms of legal actions against online
    companies such as Backpage. This fact highlights that the SAVE Act,
    while potentially providing an additional legal avenue for Federal
    prosecutors, is insufficient, standing alone, to combat online sex
    trafficking.
        Additionally, Backpage has disclosed that it faces an ongoing
    Federal investigation, and there have been various public accounts
    since then referring to this Federal investigation. Any prosecution
    that arises from this investigation may rely on the SAVE Act, but it is
    simply too early to know if, or how, Federal prosecutors will seek to
    utilize the SAVE Act against a website like Backpage.
    Potential Impediments for Federal Prosecutors Regarding the SAVE Act
        One potential impediment that Federal prosecutors face in any
    trafficking case involving the TVPRA is the ``knowing'' mens rea
    standard embedded throughout the statute. The impact of this standard
    is not unique to the SAVE Act, however it is likely a consideration for
    Federal prosecutors as they evaluate potential legal options to utilize
    against facilitators of online sex trafficking. As noted by California
    Attorney General Becerra in his testimony before the Senate Commerce
    Committee, fulfilling the ``knowing'' mens rea standard is a high
    barrier for prosecutors to establish in any trafficking case.
    SAVE Act Alone is Insufficient to Combat Online Sex Trafficking
        While the SAVE Act potentially provides another legal tool for
    Federal prosecutors to use against websites like Backpage, it does not
    address the most significant impediment they face, namely the lack of
    state criminal and civil legal support in the fight against online sex
    trafficking. The volume of websites currently facilitating sex
    trafficking requires that a wide range of legal resources, in addition
    to Federal prosecution, be used to combat this crime.
        As noted above, Federal prosecutors have always faced lower
    barriers to pursuing criminal cases against websites like Backpage
    because Federal criminal laws are specifically exempted from the CDA.
    While it might have been reasonable in 1996, when Congress passed the
    CDA, to anticipate that the Department of Justice could manage all
    crime on the Internet, that is an unrealistic expectation in today's
    world. Twenty-one years later, the volume and complexity of online
    commercial transactions (and the corresponding rise in online criminal
    activity) makes it unrealistic to assume that a single Federal agency
    can manage all prosecutions of online crimes.
        The problem, even as it relates solely to child sex trafficking, is
    simply too big to address only from a Federal criminal perspective.
    Over the past five years, NCMEC has received an average of 9,800
    reports relating to child sex trafficking annually. Of these reports,
    81 percent are related to the trafficking of a child on the Internet.
    This problem afflicts every city and state across the country. While
    these numbers are substantial, because there is no statutory
    requirement to report the trafficking of a child to NCMEC and due to
    the complexities in defining these crimes, we believe our report
    numbers are just a small representation of the number of children being
    trafficked online.
        Given the pervasive, national scope of child sex trafficking
    online, Federal prosecutors cannot be expected to combat this issue
    alone. States and civil attorneys must be part of the solution. The
    impact of online trafficking at a state and local level is well-known,
    and it is not feasible to continue to deprive state attorneys general
    of the ability to prosecute trafficking crimes affecting their
    communities simply because perpetrators are online entities. The
    joining of state prosecutorial resources from across the country to
    combatting online sex trafficking will ease one of the more substantive
    impediments that currently exists in fighting this crime.
        Additionally, the rights of trafficking survivors to work with
    civil attorneys in exercising their private right of action against
    those who trafficked them in violation of the TVPRA (18 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1595), also provides an essential tool in combatting online sex
    trafficking. In 2003, Congress took the step of providing a private
    right of action in the criminal code for sex trafficking victims to
    pursue recourse in a civil action against those who participated in
    their trafficking \2\. This private right of action is significant
    because Congress does not always provide crime victims with such a
    right as part of the criminal code. At the present time, this statutory
    private right of action has been held to be barred by the CDA by a
    recent appellate court decision, and therefore civil recourse by
    trafficking survivors is all but thwarted when their trafficker is an
    online entity. Legislative clarity regarding the ability of trafficking
    survivors to pursue their civil private right of action should enable
    civil attorneys to pursue legal actions against online traffickers,
    develop valuable factual discovery, isolate trends in websites
    facilitating online sex trafficking, and identify and support
    trafficking victims. These actions also provide valuable underlying
    support for Federal prosecutors.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ A private right of action arising from criminal violations has
    been granted by Congress in certain instances both to strengthen the
    impact of criminal laws and to provide civil recourse for victim
    compensation (e.g., the Anti-Terrorism Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2333(a);
    Child Pornography Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 2252A; Computer Fraud
    and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1836(b)(1)).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As noted above, NCMEC's experience has shown that combatting child
    sex trafficking requires the marshalling of numerous resources, legal
    tools, and avenues of recovery support for trafficking survivors.
    Recent case law has shown that courts are narrowly interpreting the CDA
    to preclude state attorneys general and civil attorneys from joining
    efforts to combat online sex trafficking. While the enactment of the
    SAVE Act provides another tool for Federal prosecutors, which may prove
    valuable in future Federal prosecutions, it does not address a crucial
    underlying impediment for Federal prosecutors, namely the preclusion of
    state criminal and civil legal remedies to provide additional resources
    to combat the volume of websites facilitating and supporting online sex
    trafficking.
        SESTA is a crucial step in the multifaceted approach needed to
    combat this horrible crime online. Not only will it provide additional
    resources to support the efforts of Federal prosecutors by enabling
    state attorneys general and civil attorneys to join this fight against
    online sex trafficking, but it also provides renewed support for
    survivors in their access to justice.

        Question 2. Much of the discussion around this issue has focused on
    one website, Backpage.com. We know there are other bad actors online
    that also knowingly facilitate sex trafficking. To what extent do you
    believe this legislation will address the universe of Internet Service
    Providers that knowingly engage and profit of these crimes?
        Answer. The investigation of Backpage, undertaken in 2015 by the
    Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (``PSI''), was the
    catalyst for the introduction of the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act
    of 2017 (``SESTA''). However, SESTA is not a ``Backpage bill,'' and it
    will have an impact, far beyond Backpage, in helping to deter, hinder,
    and enable prosecution against other websites that seek to facilitate
    the trafficking of children online.
        Backpage has been recognized as one of the largest facilitators of
    sex trafficking ads online. Based on NCMEC's experience, it also is the
    focus of activity relating to child sex trafficking ads. Of child sex
    trafficking reports submitted to NCMEC by members of the public, 73
    percent relate to ads on Backpage.
        While NCMEC handles large volumes of child sex trafficking reports
    relating to Backpage, we are aware that there are many other websites
    on which children are trafficked for sex. Because Backpage occupies
    such an outsized portion of the online market for sex trafficking, it
    is not surprising that it is the focus of discussion relating to this
    crime or that the secondary marketplace below Backpage is occupied by
    numerous smaller websites, most of which are not currently part of the
    active public dialogue around sex trafficking websites. It is
    anticipated that this will alter quickly if Backpage is removed from
    the active marketplace for online sex trafficking.
        Backpage has established that online sex trafficking is a wildly
    lucrative criminal enterprise and, thus far, legally protected. In
    other words, Backpage has shown other criminal elements online that
    facilitating online sex trafficking is a ``low risk and high profit''
    operation. Given the commercial potential of this activity, if Backpage
    is removed, children will continue to be trafficked online because
    other companies will compete to fill the void Backpage would leave
    behind.
        SESTA is designed to address these other sites that will fill the
    void after Backpage and sites that will develop in the future by
    enabling increased prosecutorial options and civil access to justice
    and strengthening existing deterrence mechanisms and barriers to entry
    into this illegal marketplace. SESTA's clarification regarding the CDA
    and the TVPRA provides prosecutors and civil attorneys with a mechanism
    to establish liability for any website that knowingly assists, supports
    or facilitates sex trafficking. SESTA may be known as a ``Backpage
    bill'' out of semantic convenience--because Backpage is the website
    that crystallized our awareness of this crime and the courts' lack of
    direction regarding how to deal with this crime--however, NCMEC is
    aware that the clarifications and structure of SESTA can be equally
    well-applied to many other websites that are facilitating the
    trafficking of children for sex online.

                                      [all]