Long prior to its passage last month, sex workers predicted SESTA would have a negative impact on their ability to work – and they weren’t wrong.

For sex workers, watching government action shutter websites serving as their main source of accessing work is nothing new. The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) makes previous efforts to these ends look mild though.

SESTA is a controversial piece of legislation that broadly expands prosecutorial power over tech companies and platforms often used by sex workers for business purposes. The bill amends Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act such that websites and social media platforms are now accountable for third-party activity related to sex trafficking or prostitution. Sex trafficking or prostitution, thus conflating consensual sex work with criminal acts.

Shortly after SESTA passed through Congress, Craigslist shut down its personals section and Reddit removed several sex work-related subreddits. There have also been reports of content disappearing from cloud drives and language restrictions being places on chat platforms.

“SESTA is very bad because, in my opinion, the government has overstepped, and a law is being pushed through that that is unconstitutional on multiple grounds and does little to actually help or protect sex workers,” said attorney Corey D. Silverstein of Silverstein Legal.

“I take no satisfaction in the fact that this is exactly what I predicted years ago,” Silverstein added.“To the contrary, I am deeply disappointed that 97 U.S. Senators did not have the courage to vote down laws which are so blatantly unconstitutional.”

Silverstein suggested all entities in the sex industry pay close attention to SESTA.

“All companies need to take a close hard look at their business practices and who they are doing business with,” Silverstein said. “Simply taking down a ‘personal ads’ section may not be enough. Business practices includes traffic sources and cross-promotions. “

In sum, Silverstein asserted “Unfortunately, only time will tell how the government intends to use its new weapon, but I do believe that a court battle over the constitutionality of the new laws is inevitable.”