The U.S. government can continue enforcing a law designed to curb online sales of unlawful acts with sex trafficking victims after a federal court in Washington found that it’s neither overly broad nor unduly vague.
The federal Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, known as FOSTA, doesn’t violate the First Amendment because it doesn’t discriminate against speech based on its content or viewpoint, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said. And the law gives sufficient notice of the type of conduct it prohibits to survive a Fifth Amendment void-for-vagueness challenge, it said.
The court granted summary judgment for the government Tuesday.
FOSTA adds provisions to several laws to impose liability on websites that intend to “promote and facilitate prostitution” of sex trafficking victims, the court said. It clarifies that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives interactive service providers immunity for the content of speech posted on their websites, doesn’t shield the sites from FOSTA liability, it said.
Woodhull Freedom Foundation, Human Rights Watch, Internet Archive, and two individuals who operate websites that might come within FOSTA sued to invalidate it. Their primary claim is that the law is overly broad because it widely affects First Amendment protected speech, the court said.
But the plaintiffs incorrectly...
Indian-origin urologist Jitesh Patel will have to pay $14 million to settle allegations against him that he defrauded healthcare programs by performing unnecessary procedures on his patients. An e...