The Online Safety Bill, which is currently making its way through the House of Commons, aims to crack down on harmful content online. Since the initial introduction of the Bill, an amendment clause has been added which now includes ‘inciting or controlling prostitution for gain’ as content that tech companies must aim to eradicate. Despite the ostensibly sensible nature of the amendment, which aims to eliminate sex trafficking from the online world, it is likely to have adverse effects on the safety of consenting sex workers. This is because companies aiming to avoid fines are under immense pressure to introduce measures in line with these regulations, such as the removal of any sex work advertising, ultimately leading to the exclusion of sex workers from online platforms.
The evidence to suggest this legislative move is dangerous to sex workers is not only anecdotal; one only needs to look at the impact of FOSTA/SESTA in the US which, like the Online Safety Bill, had similar anti sex trafficking aims.
FOSTA/SESTA is a piece of legislation that combined the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) with the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA). It made it illegal to knowingly assist or facilitate sex trafficking online. It also undermined Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (which protects online services against civil liability for the actions of their users) to exclude sex trafficking laws from its immunity. According to the 485 members of Congress who supported the law, FOSTA/SESTA would make the US safer by bringing an end to the sex trafficking market.
Since FOSTA/SESTA was passed in 2018, its impacts have been subject to in-depth analysis which have highlighted its flaws A paper by The Fordham Law Review outlined the impact of the legislation on the sex trafficking market. It concluded that FOSTA/SESTA was ‘neither a necessary nor a productive step in abolishing online sex trafficking’, explaining that rather than eliminating the trafficking market, it has merely shifted location, moving away from US servers. Moreover, it has become more difficult for law enforcement to tackle and locate trafficked people, as online platforms which often collaborated with law enforcement were forced to shut down. It is worth noting that before FOSTA/SESTA was ratified, the US Department of Justice authored a letter to Congress expressing its concerns that the bill would make it more difficult to investigate trafficking cases.
Moreover, FOSTA/SESTA has forced the sex work industry away from the safety and anonymity of the internet and into more dangerous situations. There are 3 main reasons why this is the case:
The online sex market provides workers with tools to screen potential clients. Craigslist and Backpage, which existed prior to FOSTA/SESTA in the US, provided client vetting services. The UK equivalent that is still running is SAAFE, which allows sex workers to vet clients, and it also has a question space where sex workers can chat amongst themselves about dangerous clients and providing general advice to stay safe. A 2019 study from Baylor University estimated that, in the 8 years Craigslist Erotic Services was active, the female homicide rate decreased by 17% as a result (from 2002 to 2010). Unfortunately, when pushed from this space, sex workers have to find customers on the street quickly in isolated and discreet spaces, without much time or tools to assess them, out of fear of being caught by law enforcement officers. This makes them much more vulnerable to violence from their clients. According to a study in San Fransisco of one hundred and thirty street sex workers, 82% reported being physically assaulted in some way, with 55% of these assaults being committed by a client.
Sex workers are able to work independently in the safer environment that the internet facilitates rather than for a pimp who often exert control over sex workers and inflict violence. A US Department of Justice article found that the power and control pimps possess over sex workers often resembles an abusive relationship, and sex workers who work for a pimp share similar experiences to women who survive domestic violence. This includes being subject to psychological, sexual and physical violence and often being unable to leave the relationship due to financial or other forms of control. In San Francisco, crimes relating to pimping more than tripled in 2018 after the introduction of FOSTA/SESTA, with sex workers reporting that ‘former pimps have come out of the woodwork offering to ‘manage’ their business since they were now rendered unable to find client online’.
By being off the streets, the chance of police violence against sex workers decreases. In a 2022 London-based BMJ study into the effect of police enforcement on violence and mental health about sex workers, it was found that 42% of street based workers experienced violence from police, in comparison to 7% of off-street sex workers. It is worth noting that statistics around police violence against sex workers may be underreported as many sex workers hesitate to report police violence out of fear of criminal charges or further abuse.
It is for this reason that criticism against the new amendment in the Online Safety bill is justified. The increased risk it will bring to consenting sex workers, based off the evidence from the effects of similar legislation in the US, gives critics credible scope to argue for the retraction of this amendment. If in the US, FOSTA/SESTA had increased violence against sex workers but had achieved its aim in reducing sex trafficking cases then indeed, it would be up to the government to balance the tensions between the safety of sex workers and sex trafficking victims. However, this is not the case, and FOSTA/SESTA has not only led to increased risks for sex workers but has has negligible impact on reducing sex trafficking rates. The government should seriously consider repealing this amendment to the Online Safety Bill.