Washington D.C., Apr 12, 2018 / 01:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- A new law aims to make it easier to prosecute websites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking, such as Backpage.com.
President Donald Trump signed the “Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017” into law April 11.
Under the new law, the government will be able to prosecute the owners or operators of websites which knowingly assist, support, or facilitate “the prostitution of another person,” or who act with reckless disregard for the fact that their conduct contributed to sex trafficking. Users and victims will be able to sue those sites.
The new law clarifies that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which previously protected the operators of websites from legal liability for content posted by third parties, cannot be used as a defense to shield sites that knowingly promote sex trafficking and prostitution.
“[Section 230] was never intended to provide legal protection to websites that unlawfully promote and facilitate prostitution and websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims,” the law reads.
Before the bill became law, federal authorities on April 6 seized Backpage, a massive classified ad site used largely for selling sex, which hosted ads depicting the prostitution of children. Ads posted on the site, which took in an estimated $135 million in annual revenue in 2014, were reportedly responsible for nearly three quarters of all cases submitted to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The site was the subject of an extensive Senate report into its practices of promoting prostitution and the trafficking of minors, which was released in January 2017.
The Department of Justice on April 9 announced the charging of seven individuals, including Backpage’s founder Michael Lacey, in a 93-count federal indictment which detailed the site’s reported practices of facilitating prostitution and money laundering. The indictment alleges that the defendants knew that the majority of the website’s “adult” ads involved prostitution, and that the site would “sanitize” the ads by removing “terms and pictures that were particularly indicative of prostitution” but continuing to run the ads.
Backpage also allegedly had a policy for several years that involved deleting words in an ad denoting a child’s age, and publish the revised version, which created a “veneer of deniability” for those trafficking the children.
“This website will no longer serve as a platform for human traffickers to thrive, and those who were complicit in its use to exploit human beings for monetary gain will be held accountable for
their heinous actions,” said FBI Director Christopher Wray in a release from the DOJ. “Whether on the street or on the Internet, sex trafficking will not be tolerated.”
Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO) introduced the bill, and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) added language to expand the scope of the bill to include advertisements for all forms of prostitution. In areas of the country where prostitution is legal, that fact can be taken into account in court as an affirmative defense.
Prostitution is currently illegal in all of the United States except in a few rural Nevada counties, but some estimates suggest there are over half a million people in the country in prostitution.
After the bill passed the Senate 97-2 with bipartisan support on March 21, a number of websites began to take down explicit content and online communities that promote pornography or prostitution. Craigslist shut down their Personals page on March 23, and Reddit removed several fora that users previously used to seek and advertise escort services and casual sexual encounters.
Critics of the law, including deputy Attorney General Stephen A. Boyd, voiced concern that some of its language – which would allow punishment for conduct that occurred before it was enacted – may be unconstitutional. Others have argued that it could have a chilling effect on free speech on the internet.
Santa Clara University Law Professor Eric Goldman said, in testimony to Congress in November 2017, that an amendment to Section 230 could lead to sites self-censoring any and all content that could be construed as sex trafficking, or, alternatively, dial down moderation so that they could less reasonably be accused of “knowing” that sex trafficking content existed on their site.
“If failing to moderate content perfectly leads to liability, some online services will abandon their efforts to moderate user content or even shut down,” Goldman said during the hearing.
“I really do fear the chilling effects,” said Mary-Rose Papandrea, a University of North Carolina Law Professor, during a symposium on April 6. “Because imagine you run a platform, and imagine now you are exposed to liability for everything a third-party posts on your website as soon as you’re told about it. What are you going to do? You’re going to take it down.”
“I worry this isn’t the end,” she continued. “We can carve out sex trafficking, and we can debate that…but my concern is what’s next.”
However, Mary G. Leary, law professor at The Catholic University of America, rejected this idea. She told CNA in an interview that the amendment to Section 230 is narrow enough that it only removes a website’s immunity if they knowingly enter into a venture with human traffickers, or if they intentionally promote prostitution.
“That is a very narrowly tailored, common sense bill. I think that any argument it will impair speech is just alarmist and misplaced,” she said.
Leary emphasized that criminal acts, such as prostitution and human trafficking, are not considered speech and have “never been protected by the First Amendment.”
“The Supreme Court has been quite clear that offers to engage in illegal activities are not protected speech,” she said.
Leary said testimony given to the Senate during the creation of the law singled out sites that are clearly “bad actors,” like Backpage, as opposed to the majority of websites that are “law abiding, good corporate citizens who want to end sex trafficking.” She said it is unlikely that most companies will simply look away and choose not to moderate content that promotes sex trafficking.
“That argument has not been proven by history,” she says. “There are many industries that, sadly, are places where sex trafficking takes place…hotels, travel and tourism, shopping areas, foster care facilities…these are places that have never had immunity. We have not seen them as an industry look the other way or pretend it doesn’t happen.”
In fact, she said, groups like the hotel industry have put together best practices to deal with illegal activities that take place on their premises. The new law does not require websites to police all content, but rather clarifies the purpose of Section 230, she said. There will be little effect for law abiding companies, because the law sets a high bar for prosecutors to prove that the company was knowingly and intentionally facilitating sex trafficking.
“What we will see are no longer companies out in the open, allowing and partnering with sex traffickers to sell women and children, with not only impunity but with absolute protection,” Leary said.
Some online groups, such as the Women’s March, claim that the shuttering of sites that are used by people who are not being trafficked will drive the already shady business of prostitution even further underground, and make conditions worse for people who choose to sell sex for a living. Advocates in favor of prostitution have already created several new websites that are hosted overseas, in countries like Austria, to avoid the alleged self-censorship of American-hosted sites.
Critics, however, challenged the idea that prostitution is a profession of choice for women.
“Nobody says when they’re a little girl, ‘I want to grow up to be a prostitute,’” said Dr. Grazie Christie, Policy Advisor for The Catholic Association, speaking on EWTN’s Morning Glory.
The National Center on Sexual Exploitation, a Washington D.C.-based group that supports the new legislation, has compiled a site detailing resources available to current workers in the sex industry to provide “housing, food, referrals, and other short-term emergency assistance.”
“We are also concerned for those who turned to prostitution out of despair, lacking any other financial resources, and who now do not know where to turn,” said Dawn Hawkins, executive director of NCOSE, in a statement. “We encourage the public to share these resources widely so that survivors of commercial sexual exploitation can seek healing and support.”
[…]
Connell makes a powerful argument. Civil lawful reasoning doesn’t remove the principle of absolute privacy in confessing sins to a priest. The transaction is between man and God and falls under divine jurisdiction.
If the seal were permitted to be removed, under any circumstance [once removed the seal is no longer inviolable in any instance] the penitent would in effect be making his confession to the world. That impedes the freedom for the penitent to confess and avoid scandal or reprisal. State would have the legal right to investigate and obtain access to all confessions.
Do you mean Listecki? Connell is the one advocating for violation of the Seal.
No. What I’m saying is that Connell, a former canon lawyer makes a strong civil law argument for breaking the seal, which I follow up with reasons why it would be detrimental to justice and the sacrament of penance – which is why Archbishop Listecki justly censured him.
I grew near the city where the horrific case of a young girl who was raped and murdered on her way to school in March of 1964 occurred.
In the spring of 2022, a young man with a forensic genealogy business that began as a hobby, solved the case by use of DNA with almost perfect certainty (the chance of an error was something like one in seven trillion) and the perpetrator, 23 in 1964 escaped civil justice by dying suddenly at the age of 38 in 1980.
He had another charge brought against him by an adult woman which he received a rather lenient sentence (some records were lost) included testimony from the victim that during the course of the assault, she thought he might kill her.
I cite this for multiple reasons.
First, I am familiar with such a situation where the perpetrator may have confessed. It is possible, as he was provided a Catholic burial according to newspaper obituaries. As much as it upended the community; it seems the gravest of injustices that he was not brought to temporal justice to offer her family that small and inadequate consolation, so I can understand the desire for apprehension by any means possible. We are reminded the ends do not justify the means.
Second, this case actually involves a worse crime than abuse-murder. As bad as taking a child’s innocence is-taking his or her life is even worse. Surely, if one demands the violation of the seal, so does the other. If anybody is stupid enough to think that Connell’s position is anything more than a prelude to compelling (not allowing) priests to be state agents for all manner of sins that involve “compelling state interest”, I hope that they cease driving immediately.
However, I would suggest to you that Connell is NOT making a “strong case”, because one cannot be made. Furthermore, his vow was to the Church and its mission to save souls, not to the state and its mission to apprehend, try and sentence the guilty.
And then there’s the effect of such a thing. Once the seal is broken, confession will become self-incrimination and the sacrament will be discarded to an even greater degree than it is now-it won’t stop abuse, but it will prevent absolution of what must be among the gravest of sins, even though I doubt such criminals avail themselves of confessional candor with any regularity.
“The transaction is between man and God and falls under divine jurisdiction.”
And the GOD that I serve – Father, Son & Holy Spirit – would instruct the one confessing to criminal molestation of a child or vulnerable adult:
“First go and inform the police so as to enable this offense to be dealt with under legal jurisdiction – I will accompany you to make it easier for you – after that I will give you absolution, for the sake of your soul.”
Unwillingness to face the horrendous personal & social consequences of their actions indicates a lack of true sorrow and contrition, justifying the withholding of absolution until they have a genuinely Catholic change of heart.
Attempting to absolve one who is manifestly not contrite is:
(1) ineffective for the sinner’s soul, and it contaminates the confessor’s soul;
(2) an encouragement to the sinner to engage in repeated criminal offending.
Matthew 5:24 – “. . go and be reconciled with your brother or sister first, only then come and present your offering to GOD.”
Ever seeking to hear & lovingly obey King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
Connell is advocating for something truly evil, under the guise of helping those who were abused. Plus, he’s causing confusion and division among Delaware’s Catholics. He should just be completely defrocked. His compelling argument is a danger to the faith.
Justice, the protection of children, and the veil of confession can all coexist. Outside the confessional in the courtroom, Pope St. Peter was feared by the people.
Acts of the Apostles 5 Ananias and Sapphira.
A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. He retained for himself, with his wife’s knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him…
The Blessed Mother told the Fatima seer children that Archangel Michael will bring with him a transparency of actions on earth. In Acts of the Apostles, we see Ananias and his wife trying to lie to St. Peter in the courtroom. By the end of their testimony, St. Peter, all his flock, and we the readers, have a clear and transparent view of Ananias and Sapphira’s true actions.
Matthew 18 outlines Jesus Will to His Catholic Leaders on the use of Catholic Anathema to protect the innocent, when personal, civil and Church litigation does not work.
Matthew 18:17 Fraternal Correction
“If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ “If he ignores them, refer it to the church . If he ignores even the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. I assure you, whatever you declare bound on earth shall be held bound in heaven, and whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be held loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 18:5
“Whoever welcomes one such child for my sake welcomes me. On the other hand, it would be better for anyone who leads astray one of these little ones who believes in me, to be drown by a millstone around his neck, in the depths of the sea. What terrible things will come on the world through scandal! It is inevitable that scandal should occur. Nonetheless, woe to that man through whom scandal comes! If your hand or foot is your undoing, cut it off and throw it from you! Better to enter life maimed or crippled than be thrown with two hands or feet into endless fire. If your eye is your downfall, gouge it out and cast it from you! Better to enter life with one eye than be thrown with both into fiery Gehenna.
What I hear, Jesus in Matthew 18 and the Holy Spirit in Acts 5, telling us, is that Pope Francis has to pull out Jesus’ sword of Catholic anathema to protect our children in our present child molester scandal. Pope Francis has to auto-anathematize all child molesters, and those clergy who aid and abet them, until they confess their crimes against children to civil prosecutors, judges and juries.
Bravo to Archbishop Listecki! Finally, a high churchman with a spine. If a priest cannot commit to such a basic church principal as the sacredness of the seal of confession, he should be removed from the priesthood. Nobody approves of the abuse of children. However this is not an excuse to destroy the principle of the seal of confession. To do so would be to destroy one of the basic founding pillars of the church. Would that all of our high churchmen could act so decisively.
Connell did far worse than the men who Pope Francis excommunicated or removed from office.
Connell should lose all his faculties and his pension. Since his first loyalty is to the state; let him become their dependent.
Absolution should be contingent upon penance. The penance for such outrageous crimes should require another ‘confession’ to legal authorities.
Shawn: Should this apply for all sins where a civil law has been violated?