The fear surrounding the Preventing Rampant Online Technological Exploitation and Criminal Trafficking (PROTECT) Act centers on its potential implications for the regulation of sex work. Concerns have been raised that the broad language within the bill, particularly its definition of "coerced consent," could effectively criminalize all forms of sex work and invalidate consent within this context. While the bill primarily targets tech platforms and unauthorized online pornographic content, its language has sparked debates about its broader implications for sex workers, internet freedom, and free speech.
The PROTECT Act, sponsored by Senator Mike Lee of Utah, aims to combat online sexual exploitation by imposing stringent regulations on tech platforms. However, critics argue that its provisions could inadvertently lead to the prohibition of all existing online pornography. Under the Act, platforms failing to remove unauthorized pornographic content risk substantial fines and legal action. Compliance would necessitate obtaining explicit consent from individuals depicted in intimate or sexually explicit content, a process involving the submission of detailed forms approved by the U.S. Attorney General.
Moreover, the Act's stringent requirements could extend beyond pornography, impacting various forms of online expression. By targeting any content with "racy undertones," platforms may opt for overzealous content moderation, stifling not only sex workers' expression but also artistic and activist endeavors containing erotic imagery. The burdensome compliance procedures could deter users from sharing any content deemed remotely provocative, thus impeding free expression online.
Privacy concerns also arise from the Act's mandate for individuals to disclose their real identities when posting intimate content online. This requirement poses significant risks for sex workers and others engaging in lawful erotic expression, exposing them to potential harassment, stalking, and governmental intrusion into their personal lives. Furthermore, the Act's expansive definition of pornography raises alarming possibilities, potentially encompassing innocuous imagery and subjecting individuals to onerous consent requirements for mundane content.
Examining the Act's text reveals the extent of its regulatory reach. It imposes strict obligations on platforms to verify the age, identity, and explicit consent of individuals depicted in pornographic content. Failure to comply could result in severe penalties, including criminal charges and substantial fines. Despite purportedly preserving Section 230 of the Communications Act, which shields platforms from certain liabilities, the Act effectively holds them accountable for user-generated content through convoluted regulatory mechanisms.
Practical challenges abound under the PROTECT Act, as companies confront the monumental task of enforcing its provisions. The Act mandates exhaustive paperwork and compliance measures, creating a bureaucratic quagmire for tech platforms and content creators alike. Its vague definition of "coerced consent" raises further uncertainties, potentially invalidating consent based on subjective interpretations of individuals' circumstances.
While proponents argue that the Act aims to combat online exploitation, critics caution against its unintended consequences for protected speech and consensual activities. By imposing excessive regulatory burdens and vague consent standards, the Act risks stifling legitimate forms of expression and infringing upon individuals' privacy rights. Ultimately, the debate surrounding the PROTECT Act underscores the delicate balance between combating online exploitation and safeguarding fundamental freedoms in the digital age.