The Sex-Ad Law FOSTA Was a Mistake. Some Lawmakers Want to Fix It.
The SAFE SEX Workers Study Act would look at the impact of FOSTA and the seizure of sites like Backpage and Rentboy.

There's an abundance of evidence that a 2018 law aimed at sex advertising has been bad for sex workers, bad for victims of exploitation, and bad for free speech online. To top that off, it's also been unnecessary for fighting crime; the Government Accountability Office even admitted as much last year. Nonetheless, some lawmakers and activists keep blithely insisting—without a shred of evidence—that the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) did good. Others like to pretend FOSTA doesn't exist as they continue to use the same excuse (protecting children) to push the same solution (amending the internet liability law known as Section 230).
But a few members of Congress are bucking this trend. They're at least willing to consider the possibility that they messed up in passing FOSTA.
To this end, they're backing legislation that would further study the effects of FOSTA and of the Justice Department's shutdown of websites—like Backpage and Rentboy—popular for sex worker advertising.
First introduced in 2019, these measures promptly flopped. Now, their sponsors—Ro Khanna (D–Pa.)and Barbara Lee (D–Calif.) in the House; Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) in the Senate—are trying again.
The SAFE SEX Workers Study Act of 2022 would order the Department of Health and Human Services "to conduct a study to assess the unintended impacts on the health and safety of people engaged in transactional sex, in connection with the enactment of [FOSTA] and the loss of interactive computer services that host information related to sexual exchange." It would also require the U.S. Attorney General to "report on human trafficking investigations and prosecutions in connection with the same."
In the findings section of the bill, the lawmakers explain (with a shocking lack of moral panic) how the government's war on sex work advertising has caused a number of reported harms, and how FOSTA—intended to stop sexual violence and exploitation—may have actually increased it.
Upon FOSTA's passage in early 2018, "websites preemptively shut down, some directly citing the law's passage as the rationale for closure," it notes. And after FOSTA passed (but before it was signed into law), the Department of Justice seized the classified ad site Backpage.com and arrested its founders, similar to what it had done with Rentboy.com a few years before. Yet "while these websites and individual accounts have been closing down, there has been no national investigation rigorously examining the impact of losing access to these platforms on the health and safety of people in consensual, transactional sex work."
"Regional and anecdotal information from health and safety service providers and sex workers has pointed to significant impacts on the health and safety of people who engage in consensual, transactional sex," the lawmakers notes. These include reports of increased homelessness of sex workers, reduced ability to take safety precautions such as screening potential clients, and more reports of violence against sex workers.
"Many sex workers have turned to street-based work, which has historically involved higher rates of violence than other forms of transactional sex," they point out. "With this new level of precarity, isolation, and vulnerability, there is substantial anecdotal evidence that members of the sex work community are more frequently being contacted by third parties seeking to engage in management activities."
"These consequences weren't anticipated by many of the people who voted for the bill," Khanna—one of just 25 House members and two senators who voted against FOSTA—told me last time this legislation was introduced. But whatever their intentions, the actual result "was draconian. It did not just go after bad actors; it went after sex workers' livelihood and safety."
While getting enough votes to repeal right away was unlikely, he hoped getting more data on FOSTA's effects would be unobjectionable—and useful for eventual repeal. "Just like in the war against drugs, that we were able to push back—particularly on marijuana convictions—based on many studies and data, the hope here is that once we have this data, it will convince people that FOSTA/SESTA was an overreach and then we will have a consensus to repeal it," Khanna said in 2019.
Unfortunately, even that proved too much a few years ago. Will this time be different?
Techdirt editor Mike Masnick, who has written frequently about FOSTA, is skeptical. When it comes to sex trafficking, Congress just "wants to pretend to care about these issues so it can get headlines and go on TV to look serious about how it's 'solving' these problems. Whether or not they actually solve any problems is very much besides the point," writes Masnick. "Hopefully this cynical take is proven wrong," but "I'm not holding my breath."
So far, the SAFE SEX Workers Study Act—introduced in the House on March 3—has seven co-sponsors aside from Khanna and Lee, all Democrats. The Senate version (also introduced March 3) has just two sponsors aside from Warren and Wyden: Sens. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.), and Cory Booker (D–N.J.). Meanwhile, the FOSTA-esque EARN IT Act has 21 co-sponsors in the Senate, albeit just six co-sponsors in the House.
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
Single issue much?
Yeah, that's the deal at Reason it seems. I'm waiting for Fiona to write her next article about how much we need more immigration.
ENB is for open immigration too...into body orifices, with charge for admission, of course.
Meanwhile...
https://twitter.com/rumblevideo/status/1501647278154600452?t=T0WeZlh-M1vLhGjk9AFVlA&s=19
BREAKING NEWS: YouTube removed @TheOliverStone's documentary, "Ukraine on Fire." We believe the public should decide what it sees, not Google execs. We're proud to announce the producers uploaded the film to Rumble, enabling anyone who wishes to view it
[Link]
Good documentary.
One sided, but it's the side you're not otherwise allowed to see.
Best to have both sides of a story and come to your own conclusions.
Trust the experts.
Reported.
"it's also been unnecessary for fighting crime"
So what?
It is absolutely necessary for bolstering the egos of various politicians and DAs, and cops across the land.
Why did you select that photo to illustrate buying/selling sex?
For exactly the same reason the photographer took the photo.
'Cause buying and selling is done online too! Please try to keep up. 😉
Now, their sponsors—Ro Khanna (D–Pa.)and Barbara Lee (D–Calif.) in the House; Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D–Ore.) in the Senate—are trying again.
What about the other 96 whores in the Senate?
98 whores.
99 - I still count Kamala.
"Hail, RoKhanna!" 😉
It also forced libertarians to try to get real girlfriends. Hence the backlash.
Your mom says, "Hi".
Sweet stuff.
Us Pans practice Pleasure Redundancy and Resiliency. When one source goes out, Pans have auxillaries!
>"others like to pretend FOSTA doesn't exist as they continue to use the same excuse (protecting children) to push the same solution "
At this point I just automatically assume that any politician or pundit who talks about needing to protect children is evil. It's always a cover for some sinister intent.
The adverse unintended consequences of the law are not important. To stop any and all unmarried sex and grind sex workers into the ground is what is important, so how can you call the law a failure? (sarc)
Love the pic. More please.
+1
Would wood.
"Rentboooy! I got'a get a'runnin' now!
Rentboooy! Keep muh bloody ballgag in now!
Rentboooy! Carry the bloody bondage gear up the stairs!
Rentboooy! Always nipping at someone's heeeeeel!"
It's hard to say the negative outcomes were unintentional when plenty of experts were trying to warn them that the exact outcomes that happened were inevitable.
The intent was never to fight sex trafficking, the intent was to *appear* to be fighting sex trafficking. 'This is a bad thing, look how tough we are on it!'... and 'tough'='good'... like drugs and crime, whether 'tough' measures actually reduce harms are secondary to the fact that the punishment is the point. People want to punish the bad guys, if that doesn't help or makes things worse, punishing harder will fix it, even when you start making the punishment life in prison or death.
"Who would pay for sex?"
If it was the girl depicted at the top of the article, I'd be tempted.