A bill that would carve a significant chunk out of Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act — decades-old regulations that function as the internet’s liability shield — has been introduced in the Senate, with six co-sponsors from across the aisle. The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 would potentially expand criminal liability for websites like Backpage, a classifieds site that allegedly hosted ads from sex traffickers alongside ads from sex workers in its adult services section.

Put in place in 1996, Section 230 provides websites with legal immunity for the posts of their users. For example, Twitter, Inc. cannot be sued if one of its users defames another user. It is generally assumed that without this liability shield, most of the web as we know it would not exist. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has called CDA 230 “one of the most valuable tools for protecting freedom of expression and innovation on the Internet.”

It is generally assumed that without this liability shield, most of the web as we know it would not exist

The immunity provided by CDA 230 is not absolute. For example, it has no effect on the notice-and-takedown regime imposed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Neither can it shield websites from federal criminal liability — most notably, federal laws regarding child pornography and exploitation.

In October 2016, the California Department of Justice raided Backpage’s offices and arrested its CEO in response to allegations that the site had facilitated sex trafficking. But a judge dismissed the charges, ruling that CDA 230 ultimately protected the company. Backpage shut down its adult services ads this past January anyway, citing overwhelming pressure from the government.

Even though Backpage’s adult services section is now defunct, legislators are still using the site’s nefarious reputation to further eviscerate CDA 230. The press release for the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 refers to the website by name six times.

The bill’s stated goals are broad: the regulation would allow victims of sex trafficking to seek recompense from website that “knowingly and recklessly” enabled their victimization; criminalize any commercial conduct that “assists, supports, or facilitates a violation of federal sex trafficking laws”; and let state law enforcement officials prosecute against companies engaged in conduct that breaks federal sex trafficking laws.

Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University, writes that “this law potentially implicates every online service that deals with user-generated content.” He suggests that the unclear wording of the bill could hit websites hard. In addition to widening liability for user-generated content, a state could piggyback off the legislation to create a new law that would impose liability for all posts promoting the sex trafficking of children unless a site prescreens content or user registrations. This could potentially empower any one state in the US to create a new regulatory regime for the entire web.

“This law potentially implicates every online service that deals with user-generated content.”

Goldman notes, however, that the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 is not nearly as bad for CDA 230 as the corresponding House bill, the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act of 2017, which currently counts a staggering 98 co-sponsors. The House bill, introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO) in April, would criminalize the publishing of information “with reckless disregard” that was “in furtherance of” a sex trafficking offense — a sweepingly vague definition that could encompass any number of services that host user-submitted content.

The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 is being introduced by Sens. Rob Portman (R-OH), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND).