House Passes Online Sex Ads Bill

May 20, 2014. The House passed HR 4225 [LOC | WW], the "Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation Act of 2014" or "SAVE Act", by a vote of 392-19. See, Roll Call No. 222.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) stated in the House that "while the growth of the Internet and smartphones has proved to be of great value in many aspects of our lives, it has also been used by criminals to facilitate the commercial exploitation of children and other victims by providing an easy way for pimps or traffickers to market minor sex trafficking victims to potential purchasers who seek to do them harm. With the click of a button, individuals can now use Web sites to advertise, schedule, and purchase sexual encounters with minors, just like they would use these services to rent a car or order a pizza."

Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO) stated that "prostitution has slowly but persistently migrated to an online marketplace. Classified services, like backpage.com and others, are the vehicles for advertising the victims of the child sex trade to the world. Pimps and traffickers blatantly advertise their victims' sexual services, with provocative photographs and unsubtle messages, complete with per-hour pricing. The traffickers pay Web sites like Backpage to display their messages. These Web sites reportedly reap enormous profits at the expense of the victims of sex trafficking. Revenue from U.S. online prostitution advertising totaled $45 million just in the year 2013."

This bill would amend 18 U.S.C. § 1591 , which currently enables prosecution of a wide range of persons for "participation in a venture" of sex trafficking. There is no dispute in the Congress regarding imposing severe criminal penalties on those engaged in core elements of trafficking for prostitution, such as coercing, transporting and selling women. The statute does not specify, however, as to just how far "participation in a venture" reaches, and how far beyond prostitution the term "sex act" reaches.

This bill would extend the reach of the prohibition to cover "advertising". Specifically, this bill would enable prosecutors to target online service providers that provide a venue for advertising.

Section 1591, as amended by this bill, would provides as follows. The amendments would add the words shown in red.

(a) Whoever knowingly---

(1) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, or maintains by any means a person; or

(2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in violation of paragraph (1),

knowing, or, except where, in an offense under paragraph (2), the act constituting the violation of paragraph (1) is advertising, in reckless disregard of the fact, that means of force, threats of force, fraud, coercion described in subsection (e)(2), or any combination of such means will be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act, or that the person has not attained the age of 18 years and will be caused to engage in a commercial sex act, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

The statute currently is awkwardly worded, and lacks clarity. This bill would add to uncertainty as to what is prohibited. This legislation does not reference, but will impact, web site operators and their contractors and employees. The bill leaves uncertainty regarding what may be the criminal liability of web site operators, and their employees and contractors, for carrying sex related ads, for hosting interactive or social networking sites in which users post sex related material, or for providing search results that list web pages that offer sex acts.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), who voted against the bill, stated that "Notably, the prohibition on advertising does not only apply to the sex trafficker who places the ad, but also applies to individuals and entities who facilitate or have a minor role in publishing the ad, such as someone who works for an Internet Web site which is involved."

Rep. Scott (at right) also objected to the mandatory minimum sentences. He stated that "there may be circumstances in which all of the employees of a communications company, including receptionists or computer maintenance workers, know that the venture publishes such advertising, but chose to look the other way. They should be held liable under the provisions of this bill, but many of them would certainly not warrant a mandatory sentence, in certain circumstances, of 15 years".

Only one Republican voted against this bill, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY). He is variously described as libertarian, conservative, and tea party. On May 22, he voted against HR 3361 [LOC | WW], the USA FREEDOM Act. See, Roll Call No. 230. He tweeted this: "WARNING - This is NOT the USA Freedom Act you think it is: It will actually Legalize #NSA bulk collection on American Citizens." On April 18, 2013, he was one of only 29 Republicans to vote against HR 624 [LOC | WW], the "Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act". See, Roll Call No. 117.

See also, stories titled "House Judiciary Committee to Mark Up Sex Ads Bill" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,648, April 28, 2014, and "House Judiciary Committee Approves Bill to Criminalize Online Sex Advertising" in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,651, May 1, 2014.

(Published in TLJ Daily E-Mail Alert No. 2,662, May 22, 2014.)