before, on, or after such date of enactment." This is what's known as an ex post facto law, and it's explicitly forbidden by the U. Rather, it's imposing serious burdens while at best doing nothing for trafficking victims and quite likely making their lives worse.
For one thing, it incentivizes law enforcement to go after third parties rather than stop traffickers or rescue victims.
I remember pouring over the ads with friends, amazed at the sheer variety of sexual and romantic asks and desires out there, the strange and tantalizing mix of anonymity and eros and possibility.
It's probably too late, or at least would be if legislators get their way. "You're heading in the wrong direction if you [pass a bill] that would raise the burden of proof in cases against sex traffickers," said Oregon Sen. Wyden—who co-authored Section 230—was the only Democrat to vote against the bill, and Kentucky Sen. An amendment to FOSTA proposed by Wyden would have clarified that websites can try to filter out illegal content without increasing their liability, but it was overwhelmingly defeated.
FOSTA "shall apply regardless of whether the conduct alleged occurred… Wyden stressed that FOSTA is not a matter of substituting some free-speech rights for a better ability to stop sex trafficking.
This failure to distinguish between ads for prostitution and any discussion of prostitution is part of what has sex workers (and free-speech advocates) so worried.
Sex worker blogs could be shut down, and they could find their social-media accounts suspended simply for being honest about their work.