U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

36–159 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

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 

( 

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

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts 

CORY BOOKER, New Jersey 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire 

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 

(III) 

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 

Page

IV 

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 

(1) 

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 

2 

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 

3 

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 

4 

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 

5 

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. 

6 

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 statVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
7 

ing, 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. 

8 

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 

9 

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 

10 

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 

11 

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. 

12 

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 reaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
13 

son 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 EnaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
14 

bling 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 lucraVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
15 

tive 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 

16 

1 Urban Institute, https://www.urban.org/research/publication/estimating-size-and-structureunderground-commercial-sex-economy-eight-major-us-cities 2https://www.oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-urges-congress-amendcommunications-decency-act-empower 

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

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

17 

3 National Human Trafficking Hotline, https://humantraffickinghotline.org/states 

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

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. 

18 

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 thirdparty 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. 

19 

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 thirdparty 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:] 

20 

*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. Email: egoldman@gmail.com. Website: http://www.ericgoldman.org. 

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

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. 

21 

* 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. 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. 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-posesmajor-threat-to-section-230.htm. 4For 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. 5For 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-statesand-victims-to-fight-online-sex-trafficking-act-of-2017-bill-would-be-bad-news-for-section-230.htm. 

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 *

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 § 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

* * * 

Section 230 has remained essentially unchanged since its passage,3 but that could 

change imminently—in significant and troubling ways. 

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. 

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. 

22 

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). 7For a recent example of a rescue, see People v. Jones, 2017 WL 3633962 (Cal. Ct. App. 

Aug. 24, 2017), a case involving Craigslist ads. 8 Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act § 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-vlynch.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/. 10People 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). 

(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. 

(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 antisex trafficking bills may be higher). So SESTA is far from Congress’ only antisex 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. 

(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. 

(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. 

23 

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-article1.136789. I understand that Facebook subsequently undertook additional efforts to suppress 

such advertising. * 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. 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. 

(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? 

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 *

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

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 

24 

2S. 1693 § 3(a). 

3 Id. 

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. 5See, 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). 6Gucci America v. Hall & Associates, 135 F. Supp. 2d 409 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). 

7Ford 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. 8Doe 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. 

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

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

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. 

[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 § 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] 

[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.] 

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. 

25 

10See generally Eric Goldman, Online User Account Termination and 47 U.S.C. § 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-venturesv-google.htm. 12See, 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-legallyblock-pages-without-any-explanation-sikhs-for-justice-v-facebook-forbes-cross-post.htm. 

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. 

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. 

26 

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. 

27 

[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 

28 

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 

29 

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 longlasting 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 multifaceted 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 

30 

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 

31 

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. 

32 

1Member list available at https://internetassociation.org/our-members/. 2S. 1693 (115th Congress). 

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. 

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. 

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. 

33 

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%20Creates% 

20Tech%20Solutions%20for%20Child%20Safety. 4See Thorn Technology Task Force, available at https://www.wearethorn.org/about-our-fightagainst-sexual-exploitation-of-children/. 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. 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. 

• 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 antitrafficking 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. 

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

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

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

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 

34 

7See Letter by Copia Institute, Engine, and 30+ startups on S. 1693 (2017) available at 

https://www.230matters.com/letter.html. 8 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(1) 

9 47 U.S.C. § 230(f)(3) 

10 18 U.S.C. § 1591 11P.L. 114–22. 12 ‘‘Backpage.com’s Knowing Facilitation of Online Sex Trafficking,’’ Permanent Subcommittee 

on Investigations, United States Senate (2017). 

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

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. 

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. § 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

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

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. § 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 ‘‘knowVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
35 

13 United States v. Rivera, 775 F.2d 1559, 1562 (11th Cir. 1985). 14See 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). 

ing 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. 

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. 

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. 

36 

15See 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. 16 18 U.S.C. 1595 

This includes immediate action based on the July 2017 referral of PSI’s investigation to the DOJ.15

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. 

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 

37 

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 deVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
38 

pend 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 particiVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
39 

pated 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 

40 

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 trafVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
41 

ficking, 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 

42 

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 realVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
43 

izing 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 

44 

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 

45 

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 modernday 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 standVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
46 

ard—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 

47 

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—— 

48 

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 

49 

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 dolVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
50 

lars 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. 

51 

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 

52 

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 

53 

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. 

54 

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 

55 

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. 

56 

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:] 

57 


919YOUTH1.eps

labor and Sex Trafficking 

Among Homeless Youth 

Anchorage, Alaska 

Laura T. Murphy 
58 


919YOUTH2.eps

Mission Statements 

LOYOLA 

UNIVERSITY 

NEW ORLEANS 

Loyola University New Orleans 

Loyola University New Orleans, 

a Jesuit and Catholic institution 

of higher education, welcomes 

students of diverse backgrounds 

and prepares them to lead 

meaningful lives with and for 

others; to pursue truth, wisdom, 

and virtue; and to work for a 

more just world Inspired by 

Ignatius of Loyola's vision of 

find ing God in all things, the 

university is grounded in the 

liberal arts and sciences, while 

also offering opportunities 

for professional studies in 

undergraduate and selected 

graduate programs_ Through 

teaching, research, creative 

activities, and service, the 

facu lty, in cooperation with 

the staff, strives to educate the 

whole student and to benefit 

the larger community 

Modern Slavery Research Project 

Loyola University's Modern 

Slavery Research Project works 

to make escape possible for 

victims of human trafficking 

in Louisiana, the US, and 

internationally through 

survivor-centered, data-driven, 

community-based research 

that better serves survivors and 

supports advocates who are on 

the front lines of identifying and 

assisting those held in modern 

slavery 
59 


919YOUTH3.eps

Covenant House 

International is the largest, 

primarily privately-funded 

charity in the Ameri cas offering 

housing, outreach, and support 

services to homeless youth Each 

year, the organization helps 

nearly 47,000 youth in 30 cities 

in six countries 

Executive 

Summary 

Human trafficking- the exploitation of a person's 

labor through force, fraud, or coercion- is a crime 

whose victims tend to be society's most vulnerable. 

People who are homeless, lack a support system, 

or are desperate for work are susceptible to the 

promises of people who would exploit them for 

labor and for sex. Recently, homeless youth providers 

in the United States and Canada have become aware 

that their clients are particularly at risk of trafficking, 

and research has begun to uncover the extent and 

contours of the problem within that community. 

Though there is increasing awareness of both sex and labor trafficking in the United States, 

research on the subject at the state and local levels is scant. In 2013, the State of Alaska 

Task Force on the Crimes of Human Trafficking, Promoting Prostitution, and Sex Trafficking 

released a report that surveyed known service providers that assist trafficking victims and 

found that eleven organizati ons had assisted at least one victim of trafficking Their study 

indicates that these organizations estimate that they serve at least one or two victims of trafficking each year, but the report concluded that this is likely under-reported because most 

organizations did not have a protocol for identifying victims and were simply determining 

victim status through law enforcement officer referrals of cl ients. The report points to the 

fact that, like most U.S. states, Alaska lacks more comprehensive studies of trafficki ng across 

the state, in the cities, and among service providers. This study is a step toward a more 

nuanced portrait of human trafficking at the local and national levels 

Between February 2014 and June 2016, researchers from Loyola University New Orleans's 

Modern Slavery Research Project (MSRP) were invited by Covenant House International and 

ten of their individual sites in the United States and Canada to serve as external experts to 

study the prevalence and nature of human trafficking among homeless youth aged 17 to 

25. MSRP researchers interviewed 641 homeless and runaway youth who access services 

through Covenant House's network of shelters, transitional living and apartment programs, 

and drop-in centers. Youth were invited to participate, on a voluntary basis, in a point-intime study about work experience. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using the 

Human Traffick ing Interview and Assessment Measure (HTIAM-1 4) to assess whether youth 

had been trafficked for sex or labor in their lifetimes. 

Exec.utiveSummary • 
60 


919YOUTH4.eps

Key Findings 

Anchorage, Alaska 

In Anchorage, we interviewed 65 youth. 46 of them 

were residents ofthe Covenant House shelter, and 19 

of them were utilizing their drop~ in services. 

- 28% of respondents were identified as victims of some form of 

human trafficking, following the legal definition outlined by the 

U.S. Victims of Traffic king and Violence Protection Act 

-20% of the total population had been trafficked for sex, 18% for 

other forced labor. (7 respondents were trafficked for both sex 

and labor.) 

Sex Trafficking 

- 27% of women interviewed were trafficked for sex; 17% of men. 

- 43% of LGBTQ youth interviewed were trafficked for sex. While 

LGBTQ youth constituted 22% of all respondents, 46% of all identified sex trafficking victims identified as LGBTQ 

-Of the people who were trafficked for sex, al l but one would automatically be considered trafficking victims by law be<ause they were 

trading sex (either individually or through a third-party controller) 

under the age of 18. Nonetheless, 3 of those youth also reported 

extreme situations of force, fraud, or coercion that compelled them 

to engage in commercial sex. so they would be considered trafficked 

regardless of their age. 

-Of the cases of sex trafficking, 8 had engaged in survival sex as 

minors They traded sex because they were unable to access basic 

necessities 

-Of the youth who were trafficked for sex, 77% were homeless at 

the time 

-Drop-in youth accounted for half of the cases of trafficking, 

though they only accounted for 29% of the interviews. This disproportionate representation is likely a circular situation: because 

these youth do not have a stable place to stay, they are more likely 

to engage in the sex trade. Because they are then engaged in the 

sex trade, they find it more difficult to remain in a stable residential 

environment 

Sex Trade and Survival Sex 

-A total of 29% of the clients we interviewed indicated that they 

had engaged in the sex trade at some point in their lives. 

- 36% of women had engaged in the sex trade, while 27% of men 

had. 43% of LGBTQ-identified youth had traded sex commercially, 

making up 43% of all those who reported trading sex 

- 68% of those who had engaged in any way in the sex trade were 

homeless or marginally housed (i.e. living in a hotel room) at the 

time. 

• Labor and Sex Trafficking Among Homeless Youth 

28o/o 

of youth mterv1ewed m Anchorage 

were 1dent1fied as v1ct1ms of 

sex or labor traffickmg 

Labor Trafficking 

- 18% of respondents were found to have been trafficked for labor 

-Of those trafficked for labor, half were male and half were female 

- Al l of labor trafficking cases involved forced drug deal ing or 

forced criminal activity such as working as muscle or a thief for a 

gang These young people were forced to sell or deliver drugs or 

to engage in other illicit activities without their consent by family 

members and friends 

- 7 of the victims of labor trafficking had engaged in the sex trade 

when they were minors and therefore are considered both sex and 

labor trafficking victims 

Ten-City Study Findings 

Homeless youth are vulnerable to both sex and labor trafficking 

because they tend to experience a higher rate of the primary risk 

factors to trafficking: poverty, unemployment, a history of sexual 

abuse, and a history of mental health issues. If they have famil ies 

who are involved in the commercial sex trade or gangs, their risk is 

even higher. Homeless youth indicated that they struggled to find 

paid work, affordable housing, and support systems that would help 

them access basic necessities. They had experienced discrimination in 

their jobs and in housing. A confluence of factors made the homeless 

youth we interviewed vulnerable to both sex and labor traffickers who 

preyed on their need It also made them more likely to turn to the sex 

trade for survival 
61 


919YOUTH5.eps

Economics: For the vast majority of youth, economic factors made 

them most vulnerable to traffickers and unwanted engagement in 

the sex trade_ They reported that they often found themselves desperate for work and that people took advantage of their need. Ninety-one percent (91 %) of respondents reported being approached by 

strangers or acquaintances who offered lucrative work opportunities 

that turned out to be fraudu lent work situations, scams, pandering, 

or sex trafficking. While some were resilient and walked away from 

these offers, many of the youth who were trafficked for sex and 

labor were recruited in this way. Others felt forced to turn to trading 

sex because they could not find legitimate work Eighty-four percent 

(84%) of youth who reported engaging in the sex trade without a 

third-party controller did so because of economic need 

Housing: Youth reported that their fear of sleeping on the streets 

left them vulnerable to sex and labor traffickers and to survival sex 

Securing housing was a primary concern for the vast maJority of the 

youth we interviewed. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of the youth who 

had either been trafficked or engaged in survival sex or commercial 

sex had done so while homeless. Nineteen percent (19%) of all 

youth interviewed had engaged in survival sex solely so that they 

could access housing or food_ This problem is even starker among 

those who are not sheltered_ The incidence of trafficking among 

drop-in youth-sometimes called "street youth"-was high relative 

to the sheltered cohort: 24% were trafficked for sex, 13% for labor. 

Forty-one percent (41 %) of interviewed drop-in youth had engaged 

in the sex trade in some way at some point in their lives. One-third 

(33%) of them had engaged in survival sex as either adults or 

minors. Many of the trafficked youth who were accessing Covenant 

House's shelter programs said they saw the shelters as safe havens 

from their traffickers 

Work: The youth we interviewed indicated that they encountered 

people who took advantage of them when they were searching for 

work. A lack of job opportunities converged with a lack of computer 

literacy and job skills to lead to vu lnerabi li ty. Many youth pursued 

job advertisements that turned out to be fraudulent. They sought 

tra ining on how to identify a safe JOb and additional job skills training programs to help them avoid labor traffickers, sex traffickers, 

and other exploitative labor situations 

Gender: One in five of all cisgender women and one in ten of al l 

cisgender men had experienced a situation that was considered sex 

trafficking_ While cisgender women were more likely to be trafficked 

and to engage in the sex trade, cisgender men were more likely to 

be trafficked than many people might expect. Eleven percent (11 %) 

of cisgender men had been trafficked, and a total of 24% of them 

had engaged in at least one commercial sexual exchange at some 

91% of youth across 10 cities 

reported being offered lucrative 

work opportunities that turned 

out to be fraudulent, scams, or 

sex trafficking. 

point in their lives. Nearly one in ten men who identified as heterosexual had been trafficked, while more than one in five (21 °/o) 

LGBTQ men had been trafficked. Despite this, heterosexual cisgender male youth reported that they typically had not been asked 

about engaging in the sex trade when interacting with soc ial service 

providers and were not typically offered services for trafficking or 

sexual exploitation 

Sexuality: LGBTQ youth were disproportionately affected by sex 

trafficking and significantly more reported engaging in the sex 

trade. Though LGBTQ youth accounted for 19% of the respon -

dents interviewed, they accounted for 36% of the sex trafficking 

victims and 36% of those who engaged in the sex trade. Half of the 

LGBTQ youth had engaged in the sex trade in some way during their 

lifetimes_ LGBTQ youth were significantly more likely to be sex-trafficked than their straight counterparts. 

Aging Out: Aging out of the foster care system made youth vulnerable to traffickers and to engagement in the sex trade. The median 

age of entry into trading sex for the youth we interviewed was 18 

years old, and for those who were sex trafficked it was 16. Youth 

reported becoming homeless as a result of leaving foster care, and 

they indicated that homelessness resu lted in vulnerability to the sex 

trade and sex trafficking. Though they constituted 21% (137) of the 

sample, youth who had a history of involvement in the foster system 

accounted for 29% (25) of al l sex trafficking victims, 27% (49) of 

al l youth engaged in the sex trade, and 26% (13) of all youth who 

were labor trafficked. Youth between the ages of 17 and 19 need 

special attention because of their unique vulnerabilities 

Exec.utiveSummary • 
62 


919YOUTH6.eps

Recommendations 

For Practice 

Runaway and homeless youth shelters and programs should be 

equipped to meet the needs of trafficked youth because they are 

able to address the root economic and societal problems that make 

youth vulnerable to exploitation. With programs directly responsive to 

the heightened needs of trafficking victims, runaway and homeless 

youth shelters can effectively help trafficking survivors and prevent 

other homeless youth from being exploited. We recommend a fourpronged approach that includes prevention, outreach, confidential 

and inclusive identification, and specialized interventions 

Prevention efforts that focus on JOb search and job skills programs. 

housing opportunities, and healthy sexuality/relationships will 

increase youth resilience to traffickers and exploitation 

Outreach programs and advertising for services should ta rget 

locations where youth are being approached by those who would 

exploit them: on social media and on li ne job sites, at bus stops and 

transportation stations, and at government assistance offices 

Confidential and inclusive identification strategies should 

be employed by all youth-serving organizations to increase the 

likelihood that youth will disclose a situation of trafficking and, 

therefore. provide greater access to special ized services and care . 

Including men, LGBTQ, and foster care-related vulnerabi lit ies in 

screening protocols should be standard practice 

Specialized Interventions might include anti-trafficking 

orientation and drop-in programs, trauma-informed counseli ng, 

harm reduction training, and victim relocation networks 

• Labor and Sex Trafficking Among Homeless Youth 

68o/o 

Across 10 Cities, 68% of 

the youth who had been 

trafficked or engaged 

m surv1val sex or 

commercial sex had done 

so wh1le homeless 

For Policy 

Social service providers cannot protect young people from labor 

trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation or effectively help 

them overcome related traumas without significant support 

Legislators must play a role in ensuring that our youth are protected 

from trafficking. The following legislative changes could assist us in 

identifying and helping more traffick ing survivors 

At the national level: 

U.S. Congress should pass the Runaway and Homeless Youth and 

Trafficking Prevention Act, wh ich provides much-needed funding 

for services to prevent and address trafficking among homeless 

and runaway youth populations 

- Dedicated funding should be al located for additional shelters and 

shelter beds equipped w ith wraparound and specialized services 

to serve survivors of trafficking and exploitation in both the United 

States and Canada 

-Criminal justice reform in the United States and Canada should 

take into account the context in which youth engage in the drug 

trade and exclude victims of forced labor from prosecution 
63 


919YOUTH7.eps

At the state level: 

Relevant Victim Protection laws: 

Code Statute Descnpt10n 

§ 1166 100(d) Prostitution 

All U.S. States should: 

-pass comprehensive "Safe Harbor" laws that allow young 

traffic king survivors to be treated as victims of a crime rather 

than as criminals 

- require special ized human trafficking training for law 

enforcement should be requ ired and funded in every state and 

province and should include tra ining on appropriate interview 

techniques as well as the variety of forms trafficking takes 

-address the housing and security crisis experienced by youth aging 

out of foster care. 

-raise the age for aging out of foster care to 21 

Alaska has very few laws regarding trafficking and few 

protections for victims. Alaska might consider some 

of the following legislation in order to better protect 

victims of trafficking: 

-clearly define forced labor as a form of traffi cki ng and provide 

penalties and remedies for the crime of labor trafficking 

-create "Safe Harbor" protections that explicitly immunize minors 

from prosecution for engaging in commercial sex acts, regardless of 

the use of force, fraud, or coercion. 

For quest ions about t he content of For questions about Covenant 

this report. please contact Dr. Laura House International's work, 

Murphy, lVIodern Slavery Research please contact David Howard at 

Project. Loyola University New 

Orleans. at lm1Jmhl!@!oyoo ed11 

dhoward@coyenaothouse om 

Names as "trafficking" the inducement 

of a person to engage in prostitution, 

inc luding minors 

- allow vacatur of convictions for those found guilty of crimes com -

mitted as a direct resu lt of being traffic ked 

-create alternatives to detention that provide specialized services 

for victims of human trafficking 

- require training for law enforcement to identify labor and 

sex trafficking victims and on how to use trauma-informed 

techniques to interview potential victims 

- require that law enforcement refer JUVeniles who are detained 

for engaging in commercial sex or other forced ill icit behavior to 

child protective services agencies. 

- remove the defense that a trafficker did not know the age of a 

minor victim of trafficking at the time of the exchange 

- remove the defense that a juvenile consented to a commercial 

sexual exchange. 

-allow for civil damages to be sought by trafficking victims 

For questions about Covenant 

House Alaska's Programs. contact 

carlette M ack at 

CMack@CDyf:Oi!O!hoi iSffik om 

or (907) 272-1255 

Layout and Design by: 

Creative Source, Inc. 

Copyright ltl 2016 Loyola University 
64 


919YOUTH8.eps

Labor and Sex Trafficking Among Homeless Youth 

Anchorage, Alaska 
65 


919LABOR1.eps

labor and Sex Trafficking 

Among Homeless Youth 

A Ten-City Study 

Executive Summary 

Laura T. Murphy 
66 


919LABOR2.eps

labor and Sex Trafficking 

Among Homeless Youth 

A Ten-City Study 

Executive Summary 

Laura T. Murphy 
67 


919LABOR3.eps

Covenant House 

International is the largest, 

primarily privately-funded 

charity in the Americas offering 

housing, outreach, and support 

services to homeless youth Each 

year, the organization helps 

nearly 47,000 youth in 30 cities 

in six countries 

Executive 

Summary 

Human trafficking- the exploitation of a person's 

labor through force, fraud, or coercion- is a crime 

whose victims tend to be society's most vulnerable. 

People who are homeless, lack a support system, 

or are desperate for work are susceptible to the 

promises of people who would exploit them for 

labor and for sex. Recently, homeless youth providers 

in the United States and Canada have become aware 

that their clients are particularly at risk of trafficking, 

and research has begun to uncover the extent and 

contours of the problem within that community. 

Between February 2014 and June 2016, researchers from Loyola University New Orleans's 

Modern Slavery Research ProJect (MSRP) were invited by Covenant House International and 

ten of their individual sites in the United States and Canada to serve as external experts to 

study the prevalence and nature of human trafficking among homeless youth aged 17 to 

25. MSRP researchers interviewed 641 homeless and runaway youth who access services 

through Covenant House's network of shelters, transitional living and apartment programs, 

and drop-in centers_ Youth were invited to participate, on a voluntary basis, in a point-intime study about work experience. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using the 

Human Traffick ing Interview and Assessment Measure (HTIAM-14) to assess whether youth 

had been trafficked for sex or labor in their lifetimes. 

Youth were interviewed in the following cities: 

Anchorage, Alaska 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Detroit, Michigan 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 

Los Angeles, California 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

Oakland, California 

St. Louis, Missouri 

Toronto, Ontario 

VancoLNer, British Columbia 

Exec.utiveSummary • 
68 


919LABOR4.eps

Key Findings 

Human Trafficking 

-Of the 641 youth we interviewed at Covenant House sites around 

the United States and Canada, nearly one in five (19% or 124) 

were identified as victims of some form of human trafficking, 

fol lowing the legal definition outlined by the U.S. Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (later renamed the Trafficking 

Victims Protection Act (TVPA)). 

-More than 14% (92) of the total population had been trafficked 

for sex, whi le 8% (52) had been trafficked for other forced labor 

3% (22) were trafficked for both sex and labor 

-Ninety-one percent (9 1 %) of the respondents reported being 

approached by someone who was offering an opportunity for 

income that was too good to be true. Th is included situations that 

turned into trafficking as well as other offers for commercial sexual 

exchanges, fraudulent comm ission-based sales, credit card scams, 

stolen phone sales, and check fraud 

Sex Trafficking and Commercial Sex 

- 14% (92) were victims of sex trafficking, applying the U.S. federal 

definition of trafficking 

Of the 92 youth who were identified as sex trafficking victims 

within the study, nearly 58% {53) were in situations of force, 

fraud, or coercion characteristic of human traffic king under the 

US. federal definition 

- 42% of youth who were identified as sex trafficking victims were 

minors involved in the sa le of commercial sex and survival sex but 

were not forced by a third party to do so 

- 20% {49) of cisgender women interviewed reported experiences 

consistent with the definition of sex trafficking, as did 11% (40) of 

cisgender men. 

- 24% (30) of LGBTQ youth were trafficked for sex, compared to 

12% of non-LGBTQ youth 

- 19% (121)of the youth we interviewed turned to survival sex at some 

difficult point in their lives 

- 30% (193) of all youth interviewed had engaged in some way 

in the sex trade at some point in their lifetimes; 24% (93) of the 

young men, 38% (93) of the young women, whether that was 

through situations of force, survival sex, or commercial sexual 

work as adults. (7 transgender youth were engaged in the sex 

trade, but the sample size was not large enough to produce 

significant find ings.) 

-The median age of entry into trad ing sex was 18, while the median 

age for those who were considered trafficked was 16 

• Labor and Sex Trafficking Among Homeless Youth 

Nearly • • • • 

1 in 5 ffff 

(19%) of interviewed youth were identified as 

victims of some form of human trafficking. 

Labor Trafficking 

- 8% of respondents were found to have been trafficked for labor. 

- Situations of forced labor included youth who were forced to 

work in factories, domestic labor situations, agriculture, international drug smuggling, sex-trade-related labor, and commission-based sa les 

-The vast majority (81%) of labor traffick ing cases reported in this 

study were instances of forced drug dealing. Nearly 7% (42) of all 

youth interviewed had been forced into working in the drug trade. 

Forced drug dealing occurred through familial and cultura l coerc ion 

as well as through the violence of suppliers and gangs 

How are homeless youth affected? 

Homeless youth are vulnerable to both sex and labor trafficking 

because they tend to experience a higher rate of the primary risk 

factors to trafficking : poverty, unemployment, a history of sexual 

abuse, and a history of mental health issues. If they have famil ies 

who are involved in the commercial sex trade or gangs, their risk is 

even higher. Homeless youth indicated that they struggled to find 

paid work, affordable housing, and support systems that would 

help them access basic necessities. They had experienced discrimination in their jobs and in housing. A confluence of factors made 

the homeless youth we interviewed vulnerable to both sex and labor 

traffickers who preyed on their need. It also made them more likely 

to turn to the sex trade for survival 
69 


919LABOR5.eps

Participant Characteristics 

and Prevalence 

Participant Characteristics Human Trafficking Prevalence Rates 

Total Participants: 641 

.Sex Trafficking .Labor Trafficking 2% 

I 

0 All Participants(641) 

Cisgen~rMale 

e Ci$gender 

female 

eTransgender - ~· e African,Afncan 

Amerkan,orBiack 

Young Women (243) eArnericanlndian. 

Native Canadian. or 

NativeAiask.-n 

-

0 Young Men (383) 

e LGBTQ 

" 

Fo~ter Care History 

LGBTQ Youth (123) 

.,. 

20earolds 

-

Youth w ith Foster Care History (137) 

117 

85 

58 

0"' 25 

Any Trafficking 

14% 

8% 

19% 

20% 

7% 

24% 

11% 

9% 

16% 

24% 

8% 

29% 

18% 

10% 

23% 

Executive Summary • 
70 


919LABOR6.eps

Economics: For the vast majority of youth, economic factors made 

them most vulnerable to traffickers and unwanted engagement in 

the sex trade_ They reported that they often found themselves desperate for work and that people took advantage of their need. Ninety-one percent (91 %) of respondents reported being approached by 

strangers or acquaintances who offered lucrative work opportunities 

that turned out to be fraudu lent work situations, scams, pandering, 

or sex trafficking. While some were resilient and walked away from 

these offers, many of the youth who were trafficked for sex and 

labor were recruited in this way. Others felt forced to turn to trading 

sex because they could not find legitimate work Eighty-four percent 

(84%) of youth who reported engaging in the sex trade without a 

third-party controller did so because of economic need 

Housing: Youth reported that their fear of sleeping on the streets 

left them vulnerable to sex and labor traffickers and to survival sex 

Securing housing was a primary concern for the vast maJority of the 

youth we interviewed. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of the youth who 

had either been trafficked or engaged in survival sex or commercial 

sex had done so while homeless. Nineteen percent (19%) of all 

youth interviewed had engaged in survival sex solely so that they 

could access housing or food_ This problem is even starker among 

those who are not sheltered_ The incidence of trafficking among 

drop-in youth-sometimes called "street youth"-was high relative 

to the sheltered cohort: 24% were trafficked for sex, 13% for labor. 

Forty-one percent (41 %) of interviewed drop-in youth had engaged 

in the sex trade in some way at some point in their lives. One-third 

(33%) of them had engaged in survival sex as either adults or 

minors. Many of the trafficked youth who were accessing Covenant 

House's shelter programs said they saw the shelters as safe havens 

from their traffickers 

Work: The youth we interviewed indicated that they encountered 

people who took advantage of them when they were searching for 

work. A lack of job opportunities converged with a lack of computer 

literacy and job skills to lead to vu lnerabi li ty. Many youth pursued 

job advertisements that turned out to be fraudulent. They sought 

tra ining on how to identify a safe JOb and additional job skills training programs to help them avoid labor traffickers, sex traffickers, 

and other exploitative labor situations 

Gender: One in five of all cisgender women and one in ten of al l 

cisgender men had experienced a situation that was considered sex 

trafficking_ While cisgender women were more likely to be trafficked 

and to engage in the sex trade, cisgender men were more likely to 

• Labor and Sex Trafficking Among Homeless Youth 

68% of the youth who had 

either been trafficked or 

engaged in survival sex or 

commercial sex had done so 

while homeless. 

be trafficked than many people might expect. Eleven percent (11 %) 

of cisgender men had been trafficked, and a total of 24% of them 

had engaged in at least one commercia l sexual exchange at some 

point in their lives Nearly one in ten men who identified as heterosexual had been trafficked, while more than one in five (21 %) 

LGBTQ men had been trafficked. Despite this, heterosexual cisgender male youth reported that they typically had not been asked 

about engaging in the sex trade when interacting with soc ial service 

providers and were not typically offered services for trafficking or 

sexual exploitation 

Sexuality: LGBTQ youth were disproportionately affected by sex 

trafficking and significantly more reported engaging in the sex 

trade_ Though LGBTQ youth accounted for 19% of the respondents interviewed, they accounted for 36% of the sex trafficking 

victims and 36% of those who engaged in the sex trade. Half of the 

LGBTQ youth had engaged in the sex trade in some way during their 

lifetimes. LGBTQ youth were significantly more likely to be sex-trafficked than their straight counterparts. 

Aging Out: Aging out of the foster care system made youth vulnerable to traffickers and to engagement in the sex trade. The median 

age of entry into trading sex for the youth we interviewed was 18 

yea rs old, and for those who were sex trafficked it was 16_ Youth 

reported becoming homeless as a result of leaving foster care, and 

they indicated that homelessness resu lted in vulnerability to the sex 

trade and sex trafficking. Though they constituted 21% (137) of the 

sample, youth who had a history of involvement in the foster system 

accounted for 29% (25) of al l sex trafficking victims, 27% (49) of 

al l youth engaged in the sex trade, and 26% (13) of all youth who 

were labor trafficked. Youth between the ages of 17 and 19 need 

special attention because of their unique vulnerabilities 
71 


919LABOR7.eps

Recommendations 

For Practice 

Runaway and homeless youth shelters and programs should be 

equ ipped to meet the needs of trafficked youth because they 

are able to address the root economic and societal problems 

that make youth vulnerable to exploitation. With programs 

directly responsive to the heightened needs of trafficking 

victims. runaway and homeless youth shelters can effectively 

help trafficking survivors and prevent other homeless youth 

from being exploited. We recommend a four-pronged approach 

that includes prevent ion, outreach, confidential and inclusive 

identification, and special ized interventions 

Prevention efforts that focus on JOb search and job skills programs, 

housing opportunities, and healthy sexuality/relationships will 

increase youth resilience to traffickers and exploitation 

Outreach programs and advertising for services should target 

locations where youth are being approached by those who would 

exploit them: on social media and online job sites, at bus stops and 

transportation stations, and at government assistance offices 

Confidential and inclusive identification strategies should 

be employed by all youth-serving organizations to increase the 

li kelihood that youth will disclose a situation of trafficking and, 

therefore. provide greater access to special ized services and care 

Including men, LGBTQ, and foster care-related vulnerabi lities in 

screening protocols should be standard practice 

Specialized Interventions might include anti-trafficking 

orientation and drop-in programs, trauma-informed counseli ng, 

harm reduction training, and victim relocation networks 

For questions about the content of For questions about Covenant 

this report. please contact Dr. Laura House International's work, 

Murphy, l'vlodern Slavery Research please contact David Howard at 

Project. Loyola University New 

Orleans. at lmiJmhl!@loyno ed11 

dhowgrd@coyengothouse om 

91o/o 

of youth reported being 

offered lucrative work 

opportumt1es that turned 

out to be fraudulent. scams. 

or sex traffickmg 

For Policy 

Social seNice providers cannot protect young people from labor 

trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation or effectively help them 

overcome related traumas without significant support legislators must 

play a role in ensuring that our youth are protected from trafficking 

The following legislative changes could assist us in identifying and 

helping more trafficking suNivors 

- U.S. Congress should pass the Runaway and Homeless Youth and 

Trafficking Prevention Act, which provides much-needed funding 

for services to prevent and address trafficking among homeless and 

runaway youth populations 

Dedicated funding should be al located for additional shelters and 

shelter beds equipped with wraparound and specialized services 

to serve survivors of trafficking and exploitation in both the United 

States and Canada 

-Al l U.S. states should pass comprehensive NSafe HarborN laws that 

al low young trafficking suNivors to be treated as victims of a crime 

rather than as criminals. 

- Criminal justice reform in the United States and Canada should 

ta ke into account the context in which youth engage in the drug 

trade and exclude victims of forced labor from prosecution 

-Special ized human traffick ing training for law enforcement should 

be required and funded in every state and province and should 

include training on appropriate interview techniques as well as the 

variety of forms trafficking takes 

- Leg islators need to address the housing and security crisis 

experienced by youth aging out of foster care 

- Every U.S. state should raise the age for aging out of foster care to 21 

Layout and Design by: 

Creative Source, Inc. 

Copyright ltl 2016 Loyola University 
72 


919LABOR8.eps

Labor and Sex Trafficking Among Homeless Youth 

A Ten-City Study 
73 

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—— 

74 

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 

75 

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.] 

(77) 

1We use the pseudonym Natalie to protect our daughter’s privacy. 

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. 

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 

78 

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 CommunicaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
79 

tions 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. 

80 

1 I AM JANE DOE (SO Eggs Films 2017). 

2 141Cong. Rec. 51953 (daily ed. Feb. 1, 1995) (statement of Sen. Exon). 

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

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

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 

81 

1Tom Jackman and Jonathan O’Connell, Backpage has always claimed it doesn’t control sexrelated ads. New Documents show otherwise, Washington Post, July 11, 2017, available at 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/backpage-has-always-claimed-it-doesntcontrol-sex-related-ads-new-documents-show-otherwise/2017/07/10/b3158ef6-553c-11e7-b38e35fd8e0c288f_story.html (last visited July 12, 2017). 2See, 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). 3While 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:// 

Continued 

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, 

Chairman, 

Senate Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, Innovation and the Internet, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation. 

Hon. BRIAN SCHATZ, 

Ranking Member, 

Senate Subcommittee on Communications, 

Technology, Innovation and the Internet, 

Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation. 

Hon. MARSHA BLACKBURN, 

Chairman, 

House of Representatives Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

Hon. MICHAEL DOYLE, 

Ranking Member, 

House of Representative Subcommittee on 

Communications and Technology, 

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. 

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 countVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
82 

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). 4Sarah 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-countyhuman-trafficking/9588063 (last visited June 29, 2017). 5Feds 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). 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-pregnantteen-for-sex/539101607 (last visited June 29, 2017). 7Tonya 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-femalepimp-arrest-20170601-story.html (last visited June 29, 2017). 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.’’). 

less instances of child sex trafficking—and its online promotion—that occur every 

day in the United States include the following: 

• 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

• 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

• Police in Georgia recently arrested three people who used Backpage.com to 

pimp a pregnant 17-year-old girl.6

• Police in Florida recently arrested a woman who used Backpage.com to prostitute a missing 16-year-old girl throughout Broward County.7

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. 

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. § 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 

83 

citizens and children throughout the entire country, in all courts. We thank you for 

your attention to this vital matter. 

Respectfully, 

Karl A. Racine 

District of Columbia Attorney General 

Pamela Jo Bondi 

Florida Attorney General 

Steve Marshall 

Alabama Attorney General 

Jahna Lindemuth 

Alaska Attorney General 

Mark Brnovich 

Arizona Attorney General 

Leslie Rutledge 

Arkansas Attorney General 

Xavier Becerra 

California Attorney General 

Cynthia H. Coffman 

Colorado Attorney General 

Matthew Denn 

Delaware Attorney General 

Chris Carr 

Georgia Attorney General 

Douglas S. Chin 

Hawaii Attorney General 

Lawrence Wasden 

Idaho Attorney General 

Lisa Madigan 

Illinois Attorney General 

Curtis T. Hill Jr. 

Indiana Attorney General 

Tom Miller 

Iowa Attorney General 

Derek Schmidt 

Kansas Attorney General 

Andy Beshear 

Kentucky Attorney General 

Jeff Landry 

Louisiana Attorney General 

Janet T. Mills 

Maine Attorney General 

Brian Frosh 

Maryland Attorney General 

Bill Schuette 

Michigan Attorney General 

Lori Swanson 

Minnesota Attorney General 

Jim Hood 

Mississippi Attorney General 

Josh Hawley 

Missouri Attorney General 

Tim Fox 

Montana Attorney General 

Douglas Peterson 

Nebraska Attorney General 

Adam Paul Laxalt 

Nevada Attorney General 

Gordon MacDonald 

New Hampshire Attorney General 

Christopher S. Porrino 

New Jersey Attorney General 

Hector Balderas 

New Mexico Attorney General 

Eric T. Schneiderman 

New York Attorney General 

Josh Stein 

North Carolina Attorney General 

Wayne Stenehjem 

North Dakota Attorney General 

Mike DeWine 

Ohio Attorney General 

Mike Hunter 

Oklahoma Attorney General 

Ellen F. Rosenblum 

Oregon Attorney General 

Josh Shapiro 

Pennsylvania Attorney General 

Wanda Va ́zquez Garced 

Puerto Rico Attorney General 

Peter Kilmartin 

Rhode Island Attorney General 

Alan Wilson 

South Carolina Attorney General 

Marty J. Jackley 

South Dakota Attorney General 

Herbert H. Slatery, III 

Tennessee Attorney General 

Ken Paxton 

Texas Attorney General 

Sean Reyes 

Utah Attorney General 

T.J. Donovan 

Vermont Attorney General 

Mark R. Herring 

Virginia Attorney General 

Robert W. Ferguson 

Washington Attorney General 

Patrick Morrisey 

West Virginia Attorney General 

Brad Schimel 

Wisconsin Attorney General 

Peter K. Michael 

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 

84 

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 acVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
85 

tion 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 pediatricfocused 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 

86 

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 compaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:08 May 01, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\36159.TXT JACKIE
87 

nies 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. 

88 

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. 

89 

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 

90 

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 

SEY and Youth Outreach Specialist 

Minneapolis, MN 

2. Nikolaos Al-Khadra 

Survivor Leader, National Survivor Network 

(NSN) 

Los Angeles, CA 

3. Kimmi Alona 

Rebecca Bender Initiative 

Denver, CO 

4. Jason Alva* Advocate 

San Diego, CA 

5. Barbara Amaya, PhD 

Author, Advocate, and Senior Technical 

Advisor, EPIC (Education Prevention and 

Intervention Center) 

Arlington, VA 

6. Brooke Axtell 

Founder/Director, She is Rising 

Austin, Texas 

7. Ann Marie Babb 

VP Business Operations, WCWT Center 

Middletown, OH 

8. Heidi Balogh 

Milwaukie, OR 

9. Trisha Baptie 

Community Engagement Coordinator, EVE 

Vancouver, BC 

10. Jewell Mikaela Baraka 

Kansas City, MO 

11. Cathy Bauer 

Phoenix, AZ 

12. Alyssa Beck 

Advocacy Specialist, Delores Barr Weaver Policy Center 

Jacksonville, FL 

13. Nicole Bell 

Executive Director, Living In Freedom 

Together Inc. 

Worcester, MA 

14. Rebecca Bender 

CEO & Founder, Rebecca Bender Initiative 

Grants Pass, OR 

15. Alisa Bernard 

Survivor Advocacy Coordinator, The 

Organization for Prostitution Survivors (OPS) 

Seattle, WA 

16. Wendy Berry 

Survivor/Advocate 

Fruitland, ID 

17. Tammy Bitanga 

Peer Support Specialist/Community Outreach 

manager, Ho’ola Na Pua 

Honolulu, HI 

18. Ellen Blair 

Knoxville, TN 

19. Jennifer Brooks-Hardy 

Peer Support Coordinator, Healing Action 

St. Louis, MO 

20. Kathy Bryan 

Director of Elevate Academy, National Trainer, Author, Mentor, Rebecca Bender Initiative 

Heber Springs, AR 

21. Autumn Burris 

Founding Director, Survivors for Solutions 

Denver, CO 

22. Kathleen Campbell 

Puxico, MO 

23. Vednita Carter 

Founder, Breaking Free and Vednita Carter 

Ministries 

St. Paul, MN 

24. Christine Cesa 

Survivor Leader/Advocate 

Los Angeles, CA 

25. Maui Chacon 

Survivor Advocate 

Anaheim, CA 

26. Penny Christopoulos 

Norfolk, VA 

27. Angie Conn 

Survivor Leader 

Buffalo, WV 

28. Amber Copeland 

Morgantown, WV 

29. Laurin Crosson 

Founder/Director, Rockstarr.org 

Salt Lake City, UT 

30. Jeanine Daley 

Worcester, MA 

91 

31. Ne’cole Daniels 

Founding Co-Chair, World Without 

Exploitation 

Olympia, WA 

32. Delores Day 

Executive Director, Restore Innocence Ranch 

Waukesha, WI 

33. Emily Dickson 

Empowerment Advocate, Family Assistance 

Program 

San Bernardino, CA 

34. Kelly Dore 

Executive Director, Colorado Human Trafficking Survivor Coalition 

Denver, CO 

35. Eva Eakins 

Hesperia, CA 

36. Jerome Elam 

President and CEO, Trafficking in America 

Task Force 

Gainesville, FL 

37. Amy Engle 

Marriage and Family Therapist, Phoenix 

Dream Center 

Phoenix, AZ 

38. Telisia Espinosa 

Be A Voice 

Tampa, FL 

39. Natasha Falle 

Co-founder/Director, Sex Trade 101 

Toronto, ON 

40. Hazel Fasthorse 

Case Manager/Advocate, Beloved Atlanta 

Atlanta, GA 

41. Kailee Favaro 

East Nassau, NY 

42. Danielle Trinity Foreman 

Attleboro, MA 

43. Allison Franklin 

Houston, TX 

44. Freitag 

LADC, Director of Action169 

Fairmont, MN 

45. Jessika Fuhrmaneck 

Writer/Speaker/Advocate, Treasures Ministry 

Nashville, TN 

46. Noel Gomez 

Advocate, The Organization for Prostitution 

Survivors (OPS) 

Seattle, WA 

47. Danielle Goodwin 

Survivor Leader 

Seattle, WA 

48. Jessica Groghan 

Fort Collins, CO 

49. Jennifer H. 

Group Facilitator, Prevent Child Abuse NJ 

New Brunswick, NJ 

50. Athena Haddon 

Port Huron, MI 

51. Kathi Hardy 

Freedom From Exploitation 

San Diego, CA 

52. Denise Harris 

HSTSI Facilitator And Survivor Advocate, 

Convergence Resource Center 

Milwaukee WI 

53. Marian Hatcher 

Senior Project Manager/Human Trafficking 

Coordinator, Cook County Sheriffs Office 

Chicago, IL 

54. Keisha Head 

Lead Case Manager, Salvation Army 

Conyers, GA 

55. Hollerbach 

Monroe, WA 

56. Jolene Hollis 

Mentor, Trainer, Case Manager 

Long Beach, CA 

57. Margaret Howard 

LCSW 

Saint Louis, MO 

58. Corina Hernandez 

Hemet, CA 

59. Jeanet T. Ingalls 

Survivor Advocate, Shout Out Loud 

Productions, Inc. 

Lenox, MA 

60. Beth Jacobs 

Field Instructor, Truckers Against Trafficking 

St. Cloud, MN 

61. Cherie Jimenez 

Director, EVA Center 

Boston, MA 

62. Jeri Jimenez** 

Co-founder, Survivor 2 Survivor 

Portland, OR 

63. Ann Marie Jones 

Peer Mentor, Dawns Place 

Philadelphia, PA 

64. Judith 

Beverly Hills, CA 

65. Kristine 

Tacoma, WA 

66. Kathleen Kruger 

Mount Olive Lutheran Church 

Minneapolis, MN 

92 

67. Jessica Lamb 

Founder and Director, Atlanta Redemption 

Ink, Inc. 

Atlanta, GA 

68. Judith Latner* 

Buckeye, AZ 

69. Maryann Lennon 

Survivor, Rebecca Bender Initiative 

Palm Bay, FL 

70. Marcela Loaiza 

Survivor and Writer, Marcela Loaiza Foundation 

Las Vegas, NV 

71. Jacquelynn Loos 

Peer Support Specialist, REST 

Seattle, WA 

72. Shawnee Love HHD, PhD** 

Doctor/Advocate/Survivor/Warrior/Movements 

Maker, Purple Hearts Missions Possible & 

Healthy Horizons; Native American Warriors 

Task Force 

The Americas 

73. Megan Lundstrom 

Executive Director, Free Our Girls 

Greeley, CO 

74. Marti MacGibbon 

Speaker, Author, Survivor Leader 

Sacramento, CA 

75. Jasmine Grace 

Marino Director, Bags of Hope 

Boston, MA 

76. Emily Martin 

Mission 21 

Rochester, MN 

77. Jennifer Martin 

Social Media and Events Coordinator, 

Rethreaded 

Jacksonville, FL 

78. Courtney Mattinson 

Marietta, GA 

79. McKinley 

Austin, TX 

80. Manon Michaud 

Activist 

Montre ́al, QC 

81. Robin Miller 

Vancouver, BC 

82. Kathleen Mitchell 

Founder, DIGNITY Programs 

Phoenix, AZ 

83. Jeri Moomaw 

Executive Director, Innovations HTC 

Olympia, WA 

84. Audrey Morrissey 

Associate Director, My Life My Choice 

Boston, MA 

85. Emmy Myers 

CEO & Founder, Lacey’s Hope Project 

Slinger, WI 

86. Darlene Pawlik 

Speaker, The Darling Princess 

Raymond, NH 

87. Alexandra (Sandi) Pierce 

President, Othayonih Research 

Saint Paul, MN 

88. John Price 

Reverend 

Kansas City, MO 

89. Sharon Robbins 

Jubilee Havens 

Ocean Springs, MS 

90. Dr. Katariina Rosenblatt, PhD 

Founder, There Is Hope For Me, Inc. 

Orlando, FL 

91. Rosseland 

Survivor Mentor, Delores Barr Weaver Policy 

Center 

Jacksonville, FL 

92. Marjorie Saylor 

Founder/Executive Director, The Well Path 

Escondido, CA 

93. Andrea Shields 

Marceline, MO 

94. Carrie Smals 

Supervisor of a non-profit organization for survivors of human trafficking 

Jacksonville, FL 

95. Tina Smithee 

Caseworker, Catholic Charities 

Macon, GA 

96. Elle Snow 

Founder & Board President/Public Speaker, 

Game Over 

Eureka, CA 

97. Joli Sparkman 

RIA house 

Millis, MA 

98. Lorena Spencer 

Owosso, MI 

99. Jen Spry 

RN, Being A Voice LLC 

Douglassville, PA 

100. Cassandra Strom 

Public Relations Director, New Life Refuge 

Ministries 

Trophy Club, TX 

101. Brittani Stugart 

Los Angeles, CA 

102. Carolyn Sunseri 

McKinleyville, CA 

93 

103. Shelley Sylvester 

Madison Heights, MI 

104. Kristen Tebow 

CEO, Founder, Youth Trust Project 

Lawrence, KS 

105. Melanie Thompson 

Survivor Advocate 

Queens, NY 

106. Tori Thompson 

Free Our Girls 

Greeley, CO 

107. Rosalyn Vasquez 

Survivor Advocate 

Seattle, WA 

108. Jeanette Westbrook, MSSW 

Speaker and Advocate, SPACE International 

Louisville, KY 

109. Pamela A. White 

Shared Hope International 

Washington, DC 

110. Pamela Willisaa 

Survivor Leader/Expert 

Atlanta, GA 

111. Shandra Woworuntu 

Director, Mentari 

New York, NY 

112. Erin Wright 

Carson City, NV 

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 § 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. § 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 

94 

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. 

95 

1People v. Ferrer, 16FE024013 (Cal. Superior Ct. Aug. 23, 2017) 

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

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. § 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. 

96 

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. § 2333(a); Child Pornography 

Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. § 2252A; Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(1)). 

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. § 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 

97 

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. 

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. 

Æ