Last Year Saw 'Furthest-Reaching Attempt to Censor Online Speech' Since the 1990s, Say FOSTA Challengers
As the lawsuit against FOSTA hits appeals court, three essays about the law that everyone should read.

The coalition behind a challenge to last year's federal ban on adult advertising isn't giving up. Today, the group—including three nonprofits (Human Rights Watch, the Internet Archive, and the Woodhull Freedom Foundation) and two individuals—filed its opening brief in an appeal to the the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. They say the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), passed and signed last year, is unconstitutional and "the furthest-reaching attempt to censor online speech since Congress first attempted to regulate the Internet through anti-indecency provisions" in the 1990s.
"FOSTA makes it easier for federal prosecutors, state law enforcement officials, and civil litigants to impose crushing liability on Internet speech using expansive but undefined terms regarding the 'promotion' or 'facilitation' of prostitution and/or the 'reckless disregard' of conduct that 'contributes to sex trafficking,'" explains the brief, adding that "FOSTA's new, content-based criminal penalties and heavy civil liability for online publishers have already led to substantial diminution of online speech."
A U.S. District Court said the group didn't have standing to bring the case because they couldn't show they had been harmed by the law's passage. But FOSTA has, "on ints face and in its reach and ambiguity," presented "a credible threat of prosecution, and thus has chilled Appellants' speech (and that of numerous non-parties)," says their appeal. It has also "led them to refrain in online speech engaged in freely pre-enactment, and deprived them of previously available online platforms." (Read the whole thing here.)
They're far from the only ones claiming harm from FOSTA's passage. One of the latest examples comes from adult-advertising platform Slixa, which recently held a FOSTA essay contest for sex workers. Slixa was "completely overwhelmed by the volume and quality of thoughtful responses we received," the company said. "It was clear that this community is already profoundly aware of the damaging nature of these laws and well informed on their potential future ramifications."
The first place winner was Lucy Kahn, with "Against FOSTA/SESTA: One Canary's Cry From Inside the Coal Mine." A taste:
Yes, I am a sex worker—and at the same time I am a daughter, a sister, a teacher, an immigrant, a partner, a pet-owner, an Internet user, a US citizen, a woman, a queer person, a, voter, and an artist. Each of us affected by this bill are multi-faceted beings leading complex and interwoven lives at the intersections of many identities and demographics. While currently the impact of FOSTA/SESTA is felt most acutely by those of us participating in the commercial sex trade, this bill affects everyone—sex workers are just the canaries in the coal mine trying to make our warning call before it's too late.
Kahn details how she started work as a dominatrix while in grad school and how online advertising made that possible, as well as enabled her to survive while pursuing a not-yet-lucrative career in art.
"Before last year, it is no exaggeration to say that Backpage single-handedly allowed me to create freedom for myself," Kahn writes in her essay. "By having financial agency through my BDSM work, I was able to dictate the terms of my own labor."
Slixa's first-place runner up essay was "The Death Of The Dabbler and The Erasure Of Sex Work From The Common Internet," by Grace Marie. She writes about how FOSTA has made it impossible for people to do erotic gigs part-time, to flit in and out of sex work as needed, to dabble. "I'm a full-on sex worker, but I started out as a dabbler, and for the first four years of my practice I was almost invisible," she writes.
Aside from a few photos on my Fetlife profile (which read like a personal profile at the time) I was a ghost. I took my sweet time -- anonymously cruising Craigslist and Fetlife. Answering anonymous ads from an anonymous email address… Figuring out creative ways to make ends-meet while juggling two other jobs, raising a kid, and going to school. It really is amazing to me that less than a decade ago all the online tools necessary for my survival in this business were free and accessible to women in every city -- and not just the big cities catered to by ad sites like The Eros Guide -- every city! Craigslist was effectively the anti- pimp: a safe space where adult sex workers from all over the world could freely advertise their offerings and screen clients from the comfort of their homes with no need of a pimp to broker the deal.
Slixa's second runner-up essay was Meghan Peterson's "Global Implications of FOSTA."
"The anti-trafficking complex is a multibillion dollar industry that uses fundamentally imperialistic narratives to advance its cause," writes Peterson, noting three pillars on which it's based:
… sex trafficking as a moral crusade against women's sexuality, anti-migrant narratives that portray traffickers as non-white foreigners intent on harming the West through "invasive" immigration, and fear of organized sex trafficking and crime networks prompted by media. These narratives are additionally often racialized to present women who are trafficked as the migrant "Other" who are stripped of their agency and must be saved. This messaging relies on mythologies surrounding sex work to perpetuate an agenda that allows organizations to receive funding to combat the "evils" of sex trafficking.
In the upcoming weeks, Slixa plans to share more of the essays. "While they may not have placed," the company said, they "were oh, so close and filled with insight and optimism that it would be a shame to leave them unpublished."
CORRECTION: This piece originally said Slixa was also a webcam platform; it's solely advertising.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"FOSTA makes it easier for federal prosecutors, state law enforcement officials, and civil litigants to impose crushing liability on Internet speech using expansive but undefined terms regarding the 'promotion' or 'facilitation' of prostitution and/or the 'reckless disregard' of conduct that 'contributes to sex trafficking,'" explains the brief, adding that "FOSTA's new, content-based criminal penalties and heavy civil liability for online publishers have already led to substantial diminution of online speech."
What if it's just someone who says something icky and is un-personed by all the private tech companies at once, within 30 minutes of each other?
If it's done by private companies, isn't it the free market in action? Libertarians shouldn't object to that.
I heard buttplug was banned for saying icky things.
I assume you support Reason's actions, as they are a private company?
lol women can't be trusted to have agency over themselves.
You jest.
They also can't be trusted to keep their stupid gossipy mouths shut.
/Ken Shultz
As libertarians we must not be tempted by an absolutist view of the First Amendment and the kind of speech (both online and offline) it protects. Of course I support the rights of sex workers. But hate speech? Russian propaganda? Those are different.
Private companies like Twitter and Google / Youtube can and should ban hateful messages like "there are only two genders" and "build the wall." And there is even a compelling argument the government itself should ban such revolting, dehumanizing speech. See Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky's Is the First Amendment too broad? The case for regulating hate speech in America.
What about hateful, sexy Russian Propaganda?
This is a pointless article. Facebook, Twitter, Google and the SJW mobs who use them are much more successful at censoring speech than prosecutors using FOSTA ever will be.
I know. I know these private outfits can't shoot you or put you in jail to shut you up and yadda yadda. But have you noticed? They don't have to.
Build your own platform, right? Oh, and build your own domain registry. And your own funds transfer system and insurance carrier (ask gun dealers and the NRA about this one).
I know these private outfits can't shoot you or put you in jail to shut you up and yadda yadda.
Going to prison and yadda yadda are pretty important...
But not necessary for pervasive and effective censorship.
Yes, but as Crusty notes, no one's going to jail because of violating Google's terms of service. Yet. Well, at least not here. At the moment.
I'm talking about effective censorship with no threat of violence or lockup. That's the interesting part.
Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details...
So I started....>>>>>>>> http://www.GeoSalary.com
Your confusion is understandable, but this blog is called The Volokh Conspiracy.