Here's some statements, excerpts, documents, screenshots, and archives I've dug up of some of the anti-trafficking groups that have spoken out against FOSTA.
Reminder that even though some of these qoutes refer specifically to SESTA rather than FOSTA, SESTA was added to FOSTA as part of an amendment, so those statements will still apply in the same way.
Freedom Network USA
Freedom Network Urges Caution in Reforming the CDA
(sestahearing-freedomnetwork.pdf)
>The current legal framework encourages websites to report cases of possible trafficking to law enforcement. Responsible website administrators can, and do, provide important data and information to support criminal investigations. Reforming the CDA to include the threat of civil litigation could deter responsible website administrators from trying to identify and report trafficking.
>It is important to note that responsible website administration can make trafficking more visible—which can lead to increased identification. There are many cases of victims being identified online—and little doubt that without this platform, they would have not been identified. Internet sites provide a digital footprint that law enforcement can use to investigate trafficking into the sex trade, and to locate trafficking victims. When websites are shut down, the sex trade is pushed underground and sex trafficking victims are forced into even more dangerous circumstances. Street-based sex workers report significantly higher levels of victimization, including physical and sexual violence. This means that trafficking victims face even more violence, are less likely to be identified, with less evidence of their victimization.
Alexandra F. Levy (Proffesor at Notre Dame Law School - University of Notre Dame)
(Via a letter addressed to reps Marsha Blackburn and Mike Doyle)
(HHRG-115-IF16-20171130-SD011-U11.pdf)
>Reports of sex trafficking have increased as the Internet has grown in size. While this correlation is often marshaled as evidence that the Internet has caused a rise in sex trafficking, it actually proves nothing of the sort. It may simply be the case that the Internet makes it easier to detect the crime. There is likewise no basis for the idea that the proliferation of intermediaries that host advertisements has prompted an increase in sex trafficking, and, conversely, no reason to believe that limiting them will reduce commercial sexual exploitation. FOSTA (and similar measures) may appear to target sex trafficking, but the reality is that they seek to suppress mechanisms through which sex trafficking is readily detected and reported. This is the exact opposite of what we need.
How Section 230 Helps Sex Trafficking Victims (and SESTA Would Hurt Them) (Guest Blog Post)
http://archive.is/kjuZE#selection-373.0-407.415
>In my recent article entitled The Virtues of Unvirtuous Spaces, I wrote:
>Backpage’s usefulness to antitrafficking advocates is, in fact, fully compatible with a profit-seeking approach. This is because Backpage’s value to traffickers as a means of gaining more customers and its value to law enforcement as a means of accessing and recovering more victims rise and fall together. Put differently, traffickers and law enforcement assess the value of Backpage with reference to the same characteristics, namely, accessibility and visibility of ads.
>While more visibility invites more business, it also increases the possibility that victims will be discovered by law enforcement, or anyone else looking for them. By extension, it also makes it more likely that the trafficker himself will be apprehended: exposure to customers necessarily means exposure to law enforcement. This is true with respect to both the number and content of the posts. Any attempts to evade law enforcement will likely reduce profits; if traffickers avoid posting pictures of their victims’ faces, for example, their chances of attracting customers—who value information about the provider’s appearance—also drop.
>Section 230 doesn’t cause lawlessness. Rather, it creates a space in which many things — including lawless behavior — come to light. And it’s in that light that multitudes of organizations and people have taken proactive steps to usher victims to safety and apprehend their abusers.
>SESTA wouldn’t make Backpage more accountable for what it does — it already is subject to the same criminal laws as the rest of us, and courts have held that its civil immunity is limited to its functions as a publisher. What SESTA would do is make Backpage accountable for what it reveals. This would ultimately force Backpage to turn off the light, which, of course wouldn’t reduce trafficking; it would just shuttle it out of view. And it’s especially dangerous to confuse a problem’s disappearance with its resolution when, as here, it’s visibility that often leads to victims’ recovery.