Tin, thanks for raising the issue's potential.
We (figurative we) have already traveled this road a bit, and I think some of the cases trailing into a few Supreme Court decisions: mainly pornography and human sexuality (consenting adults) activity might show what could happen if feds/states attempt (yes,
attempt) to hold websites accountable for what others may post on them.
viz., on-line "prostitution" ads on backpage, craigslist, etc., et. al:
Some well known (or it should be) background:
-- States' attorney generals threats to Craigs List over "prostitution" ads
-- Ditto - backpage.com
-- The bust(s) of BigDoggie and TER, etc. (Albuquerque N.M., aside, different issues at base)
After separating all issues of P4P (prostitution) from trafficking, and note that the P4P transaction$ are not processed by the website itself, one can then consider the existing Federal Communications Decency Act and its related case law.
Essentially the statute (and case law) provides that web sites are not responsible for unlawful material
posted by users.
= = = = =
Caution, ck1942 is not a lawyer nor an attorney, so what follows is practical business-related counsel:
None of the above can or will prevent the feds, the states, or subdivision LEOs from attempting to compromise any website or any of a website's users.
Threats of lawsuits, and actual warrants/indictments/arrests have happened and will continue to happen as law enforcement authorities try to show constituents (and media) that they are taking action to curb trafficking and/or "what amounts to open prostitution." Goal of such efforts, of course, is both to impress the public, and, worse, to harass websites (and their owners, operators and users) with both real and prospective financial costs, if not outright arrests.
So, for example, if LE mounts backpage stings, enticing johns, or janes, into successful arrest situation and, if LE succeeds in making those stings stick, and if LE trumpets loud enough those successes, well, continued paid advertising likely may diminish.
No doubt LE could also mount such attacks on national or local sites, too.
= = = = =
All that said, very unlikely much successful LE action will happen on the P4P sites in terms of trying to control the P4P activity. But my bottom line guesstimate is that certain sites and definitely certain
users of those sites (think pimps, agencies, spas)
will be targeted by LE.
Mounting (grin!) **occasional stings** on backpage is relatively easy.
Definitely media attention getting, which is what LE really wants, in the end.
But that's just my humble opinion.
= = = = =
jmho also that **occasional stings** of on-line sites are just that, occasional, since vice LEOs have other areas on which they must concentrate, such as drugs, underage alcohol, kiddie porn, street prostitution, etc. And, vice must also crank up certain activities to address vocal community concerns, and, also election campaign seasons.
= = = = =
The Communications Decency Act is what tries to criminalize the sending of porn to persons under 18.
Section 230 of the Act (quoting now from wikipedia)
immunizes both ISPs and Internet users from liability for torts committed by others using their website or online forum, even if the provider fails to take action after receiving actual notice of the harmful or offensive content.
and
also protects ISPs from liability for restricting access to certain material or giving others the technical means to restrict access to that material.
Attorneys general asked Congress to remove those provisions and the ACLU objected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Decency_Act
= = = = =
Some states (Oklahoma for example) have criminalized certain internet (and use of computers, cell phones, etc.) behavior (quoting below from an OK attorney's website)
"The Oklahoma Legislature has created specific provisions pursuant to the “Oklahoma Computer Crimes Act” to combat individuals who use the internet to violate Oklahoma law:
"No person shall communicate with, store data in, or retrieve data from a computer system or computer network for the purpose of using such access to violate any of the provisions of the Oklahoma Statutes.
"Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary for a term of not more than five (5) years, or by a fine of not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or by both such imprisonment and fine.
"Furthermore, the Oklahoma Statutes have expanded criminal liability to the use of “computer devices” such as cell phones and other forms of digital communication. As such, the majority of internet sex crimes in Oklahoma are those sex crimes which are accomplished by solicitation."
Some states have enforced these types of statutes, and while I am confident that solicitation conviction, for example, could be successfully appealed in federal court (CDA coverage), most if not all defendants probably lack the financial ability to do so.
My Bio Page - Texas - Dallas
and I was wanting to learn about the topic, reason why I was asking ...