Source: http://www.childrenslegalrightsjournal.com/childrenslegalrightsjournal/volume_34_issue_1?pg=51
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:18:27+00:00

Document:
remove an ad when a third party flagged a violation, then the ISP will be fined $10,000 for the first violation, with the penalty increasing to $25,000 for each subsequent violation. If the ISP fails to exercise E-Verify or an alternative mechanism and a human trafficking victim is identified as the subject of an unverified ad, the ISP will also face a charge of criminal negligence.
requirements, and an ad was then posted and was later determined to contain a trafficked victim.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld regulatory offenses that bear a charge of criminal negligence. In Staples v. United States, the Court stated that these regulatory offenses “involve statutes that regulate potentially harmful or injurious items”207 that “involved statutes that provided for only light penalties such as fines or short jail sentences, not imprisonment in the state penitentiary.”208 As applied to the online trafficking context, the criminal penalty for this proposal is linked to the ISP’s failure to follow a regulatory procedure, rather than a finding that the ISP had specific knowledge a child has been posted on its site for the purpose of trafficking. Under a criminal negligence standard, the government need only prove that a reasonable person would have been aware of the risk of harm.209 A number of federal statutes already operate under a criminal negligence standard.210 Similar to these federal statutes, under IPACT, an ISP’s failure to follow the required E-Verify or alternative procedure, if it results in a child trafficking incident or other illegal activity such as prostitution, would allow the government to pursue a charge of criminal negligence.
207 CONG. RESEARCH SERV., MEMORANDUM - CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE AND LIABILITY OF ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS FOR ACTS OF THIRD PARTIES 3 (Nov. 14, 2012) (citing Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 607 (1994)).
208 Id. (citing Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 616 (1994)).
209 Id.; see e.g., United States. v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943) (upholding a charge of criminal negligence under the Food and Drug Act with no requirement of proof of knowledge of misbranded drugs); United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250 (1922) (upholding a criminal negligence charge under the Federal Narcotic Act with no requirement of proof of knowledge of illegal substance).
210 “Officer Permitting Escape,” and “Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information.” See 33 U.S.C.A. § 1319(c) (West 2013) (providing violations for any person who negligently violates the Clean Water Act); 18 U.S.C.A. § 793(f) (West 2013) (providing criminal liability for gross negligence in the gathering, transmitting, or losing of defense information).
211 See infra text accompanying notes 234-239 for discussion of narrow tailoring.
212 What Is E-Verify?, supra note 190.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1319
 § 793