Washington Post - House committee targets online sex trafficking by amending Mann Act, puzzling advocates

Former representative Chris Cox, now a lawyer for NetChoice, which represents many Internet companies, had suggested in his testimony to the committee that the legislation merely restate the intent of the CDA rather than rewrite it and create unforeseen problems. Cox was an original author of the CDA.

READ MORE

Wired – Are Tech Companies Trying To Derail The Sex-Trafficking Bill?

Wired – Are Tech Companies Trying To Derail The Sex-Trafficking Bill?

Although the new letter does not mention the tech industry’s role, some advocates point out that the language in the amendment closely mirrors a suggestion made by Chris Cox, a former congressman and lobbyist who serves as outside counsel for NetChoice, an advocacy group funded in part by Google. NetChoice declined to say whether Google was one of its larger donors, but noted that it has two dozen members. “We don’t speak for any one member, not do we represent any members,” spokesperson Carl Szabo, the group’s vice president, told WIRED.

READ MORE

POLITICO - Sex trafficking survivors' groups attempt to delay House Judiciary bill markup

“If this comes out of House Judiciary and it passes, this is likely the end of this whole exercise,” Mazzio said in an interview, saying the survivor community feels “betrayed.” She said the amendment seems to be largely pulled from language suggested by NetChoice, a trade association whose members include Google and Facebook. “How did that left turn happen? Why was it done in secret?”

READ MORE

Don’t Surrender Free Speech in Effort to Regulate Online Political Ads

There has been much speculation about the online advertisements placed by Russian agents in last year’s presidential election. Was this a plot to swing the outcome? Or was it an effort to create chaos and divide our country?

Whatever the reason, there is one thing we can all agree on: foreign meddling in the domestic affairs of the United States cannot be tolerated and must be stopped.

READ MORE at Morning Consult

Washington Post - Internet companies drop opposition to bill targeting online sex trafficking

NetChoice, another Internet trade group that has brought lawsuits against state laws imposing sales tax mandates and privacy restrictions, used former congressman Chris Cox, who co-wrote the Communications Decency Act, to testify in the House last month that there were better ways to address the problem.

Steve DelBianco, president of NetChoice, said Monday that it was “good to see the progress made from collaborative efforts on all sides,” but that the group still favored using existing laws to go after online traffickers, as Cox advocated. “Federal prosecutors are apparently having trouble bringing sex traffickers to justice — even though they’re explicitly unhindered by Section 230″ of the Communications Decency Act, DelBianco said. “We need stronger legal remedies than just amending” the anti-sex-trafficking statute, he added.

READ MORE

Roll Call - Sex Trafficking Bill Would Narrow Protections for Internet Companies

But the narrowing has drawn opposition from NetChoice, an alliance that includes Facebook and eBay. The bill would would raise questions about why sex trafficking was given special treatment and other online crimes like terrorism were not, said former Rep. Christopher Cox, one of the authors of the 1996 law and now outside counsel for NetChoice.

“There would now be a different rule for one crime,” Cox said.

READ MORE

JD Supra - Illinois Geolocation Privacy Protection Act Vetoed By Governor Rauner

“By eliminating the disruptions and redundancies that were part of this bill, we will allow one of the state’s fastest growing industries to succeed,” said Carl Szabo, Vice President and General Counsel for NetChoice.

READ MORE

St Louis Today - Wagner's crusade against online sex trafficking gets push - and pushback - from powerful quarters

Cox, a lawyer who now represents NetChoice, a trade association of e-commerce businesses and online consumers, said that law enforcement authorities already have legal tools to go after the illegal sex and child-trafficking. Section 230, which he co-wrote, “provides no immunity whatsoever to defendants in federal criminal cases,” Cox argued.

Cox said that the best answer is not in new laws but in more vigorous prosecution under current ones. He said that federal prosecutors have not brought a single case under a 2015 law, also authored by Wagner, that criminalized the knowing distribution of advertising of sex acts outlawed under federal sex-trafficking laws.

Cox also warned that singling out sex trafficking in the Communications Decency Act will create “significant new legal ambiguities” when judges try to determine how it affects other online crimes, like murder-for-hire, or terrorism.

Cox said that Senate report, plus subsequent reporting by the Washington Post alleging that contractors have actively sought sex advertising for Backpage, should give prosecutors ample opportunity to go after the controversial site under current law.

READ MORE

NextGov - Former Lawmaker Says Anti-Sex Trafficking Bill Too Narrow, Could 'Sow Chaos'

“We need to have a solution to this problem that is consistent across more than 4,000 federal crimes and thousands more state crimes,” former Republican California congressman Christopher Cox said Tuesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act. “We don’t have enough time in our lives to fix these crimes one at a time.”

Instead, Cox said the government should do more under existing laws to bring traffickers to justice.

“Section 230 was never intended to provide legal protection to websites that commit any crime,” said Cox, who helped pen the legislation along with then-congressman Ron Wyden in 1996. “If we enforced the statute the way it’s written, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”

“Courts would have to give meaning to the fact that Congress singled out sex trafficking and no other offenses,” Cox said. “This would make it harder for them to reach the result we would all presumably want in, say, an internet terrorism case: that is, we would not want Section 230 to be a barrier to prosecution of a website that was complicit in creating web content in violation of laws against terrorism. Singling out one crime in a revised Section 230 could easily distort the results in other criminal cases.”

READ MORE