Published in The Human Trafficking Institute
By : Zach Bucanan
Today, technology enables consumers to live stream TV shows, news, and conversations with loved ones; it also makes possible live streaming abuse of child trafficking victims. Earlier this month, the question of how to stop technology-facilitated child sex trafficking rose all the way to the White House. Unfortunately, an executive order does not change what the law says or how it is used. In order to properly address the new ways traffickers are using technology to their advantage, prosecutors must be able to use the federal human trafficking law.
What is “Technology-Facilitated Child Sex Trafficking”?
One concerning way technology is intersecting with the anti-trafficking movement is through the emergence of technology-facilitated child sex trafficking.1 Particularly with the advent of live-streaming technology, the Internet is now a convenient tool for abusers, who wish to pursue the gratification they experience from child abuse from the comforts of their own home while avoiding the risk inherent in physically trafficking children.
Consider the case of Andrea, a 14-year-old girl from the Philippines.2 Andrea lived in a rural mountain village. One day, a cousin lured her away from her hometown, promising her a well-paid job as a babysitter in the city. Believing him, Andrea went to Negros Oriental, a province known for its tourism and scenic beaches.
Andrea never experienced Negros Oriental, nor did anyone in the city get to know Andrea. She arrived at a house with covered windows where a computer and camera were set up. In that house, Andrea became one of seven girls between the ages of 13 and 18 forced to satisfy sexual fantasies of men from around the world—including from the United States—who would pay $56 a minute to control sexual interactions with these underage girls via the computer, watching them through a live feed. Andrea’s uncle, the man in charge of the operation, told her if she tried to escape, the police would put her in jail.
She believed him.
The Current Prosecution of Virtual Offenders
When people in the United States purchase live-stream viewing of abuse taking place overseas, they are often able to circumvent many mechanisms investigators use to catch offenders in both trafficking and child pornography cases. They become “virtual offenders”—people active in the abuse of the children without exercising physical control over the victims.
Prosecutors usually charge virtual offenders under federal child pornography statutes, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2251 and 2252. These statutes criminalize the production and receipt, respectively, of child pornography. Section 2251, the production statute, specifically criminalizes coercing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct “for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct,” language that suggests application to virtual offenders.
Moving Towards More Effectively Addressing Technology-Facilitated Trafficking
The problem with punishing virtual offenders under the current statutory regime is their conduct is often more similar to that of traffickers than of child pornographers. Although virtual offenders direct live streams without physically trafficking children,3 they do more than receive or produce child pornography. Indeed, the “viewers” are not only viewing a video, but they are also taking an active role in deciding how the children are abused. Their active conduct stands in contrast to how courts have conceptualized child pornographers’ roles—as passive consumers viewing depictions of past abuse or as parties not directly responsible for the victims’ abuse.4 The abuse in these cases is not in the past, and the viewers are directly responsible for the abuse they stream—they pay to see it. Live streaming abuse, however, is not directly mentioned in the federal statute prohibiting sex trafficking of children, 18 U.S.C. § 1591.5 The absence of this language makes it unclear whether it is technically proper to charge virtual offenders as traffickers, even though it makes more sense.
So far, prosecutors have not charged virtual offenders under § 1591, but they should be able to, particularly because of the sentencing consequences. The disparity in sentencing outcomes between the two statutory regimes reveals why technology-facilitated trafficking should be criminalized under § 1591—using the current language, or, if that proves unfeasible, by amending the statute to include live streaming offenses. When an offender who purchases a live stream of child sex abuse is prosecuted under the child pornography statutes instead of the human trafficking statute, he can face 20–50 years.6 If this same offender is charged and convicted under the human trafficking statute, § 1591, for soliciting a minor to engage in a commercial sex act,7 his prison sentence would be set between 10 years and life, depending on the age of the victim(s) involved and whether the victim was exploited by use of force, fraud, or coercion. The wider range on both the low and high ends of the sentence would allow for more flexibility in charging and more nuanced consideration of how active a role these virtual offenders play when they direct the abuse of children from across the globe.
Andrea was ultimately rescued after three months of exploitation at the hands of her uncle and hundreds of virtual offenders around the world. Another girl in Andrea’s uncle’s house escaped and told the authorities. A trafficking case was brought against those in the Philippines who physically trafficked her. The same should have been true for the men who abused Andrea virtually.
Comment
This article spoke on the way that technology, more specifically live streams, have been used to evolve the role that “viewers” play. Now with the advance of technology they can literally type in the chat what act they want to watch the victims do. That is why the author advocates that when it comes to legal charges, in the U.S, we should adjust the wording within the law so that “viewers” can face a higher sentence than what they are currently receiving.
