The Bullshit Charges Against Backpage Execs
Backpage is a classifieds ad page where you can get a couch or a hooker, basically. More hookers than couches, actually, which is not a problem for me -- since it's none of the government's business what you do with your body and/or whether you get money for for it.
The founders and CEO of Backpage, two out of three of whom I know and respect, were thrown in jail over it -- out of self-interest by California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who'll apparently violate the law (section 230 of federal law) if she thinks it'll get her re-elected.
They were also denied bail -- a disgusting turn of events, considering they're a danger only to Kamala Harris's re-election chances.
As I was writing this post up (at around 4:47 Thursday evening), I learned (from @kristendiangelo) that they're getting released on bail.
More on that from Cheryl Miller at The Recorder:
Berkeley defense attorney Cristina Arguedas told a Sacramento County Superior Court judge that the charges are "flatly barred" by the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides broad protection to content providers over information that appears on websites. A hearing on the challenge has been scheduled for Nov. 16.Arguedas and her law firm partner Ted Cassman represent Backpage shareholders Michael Lacey and James Larkin, who are facing one count each of conspiring to pimp. Backpage CEO Carl Ferrer, represented by Sacramento attorney Clyde Blackmon, has been charged with 10 counts, including pimping, pimping a minor and conspiracy.
Clad in orange jail jumpsuits, the three men on Wednesday made their first appearances in court since Ferrer was arrested last week. Lacey and Larkin surrendered to authorities on Monday. All three are being held without bail; a hearing on their bail status has been scheduled for Thursday. None of the defendants entered pleas.
California authorities accuse Ferrer, Lacey and Larkin of operating Backpage.com as an "online brothel," one that has led to the prostituting of several underage girls. It's an accusation that has dogged Ferrer and the company for several years.
In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit handed Backpage a victory when it upheld the dismissal of a suit brought by three women who alleged the company violated federal and state anti-trafficking laws.
The appeals court said the Communications Decency Act gave the company, as an online service provider, broad liability protections for third-party content. Ropes & Gray, representing the victims, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling.
Here's Elizabeth Nolan Brown at Reason on what a bullshit charge this is:
Here's the paperwork filed by California Department of Justice Special Agent Brian Fichtner in support of Ferrer's arrest. The government asserts that Ferrer and Backpage intentionally profited off of child sex-trafficking.Their "evidence"? It's... insane. I don't know how else to describe it other than that. Throughout the complaint, Fichtner uses instances of Backpage cooperating with law-enforcement and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in identifying and finding potential victims as evidence that Backpage profits off of exploitation. Backpage is literally rejecting--and turning over to the government--ads that may promote sex trafficking, and the government says, see! proof that sex traffickers love Backpage! Shut it down! It's like a building owner reporting predatory activity out front and the cops arresting him and tearing up the street corner instead of tracking down the predator.
It also gives lie to the idea that this crusade against Backpage is about stopping the sexual exploitation of children and not eradicating online ads for sexual-services entirely. First, officials went after the "adult services" section on Craigslist. Then they took down sex-ad forum MyRedbook.com, the gay prostitution site Rentboy.com, and escort review forum The Review Board. Next up: Backpage. It's simply the latest target in the U.S. government's quixotic and cruel aim to make sex-work as hidden (and dangerous) as possible.
This woman, Kristen DiAngelo, really gets it right.
Darrell Smith writes for the Sac Bee:
The charges against the men are the result of a three-year joint investigation by Texas and California attorneys general official.Sex Workers Outreach Project of Sacramento, a sex workers' advocacy group says the arrests fail to address the root causes of sexual exploitation and set a "dangerous precedent for free speech."
Group member Kimberlee Cline said online sites like Backpage.com provide a safer, more independent outlet for those working in the sex industry. Cline, who attended Wednesday's hearing, said shutting down the website and its online advertising would put sex workers at greater risk, sending them back to the streets to ply their trade.
"I don't think this is relevant to helping the people who are struggling. If Backpage closes down, they'll look for less safe avenues of work," Cline said outside the courtroom. "Nothing is happening in that courtroom that's going to help people. It's going to make people a lot less safe."
A commenter at the Sac Bee sees right through Harris's disgusting tactic:
Segue Fischlin
Not sure if one human rights violation can justify another one. This is a classic case of 'shooting the messenger,' but one that has dire consequences for all of us. If a media publication or website is liable for every action taken by any individual that publishes any content on their site, free speech is dead in America. In addition, corporate protections are erased when the 'faceman' of a complex organization is now responsible for every action taken or policy made by that corporation. If Kamala Harris and her ilk cared one bit for 'sex slaves,' they would leave Backpage intact and have the police scanning the site daily for postings by potential traffickers. Erasing the forum pushes the activity underground where it is harder to monitor. Note the 'made for television' cage with the CEO in it. This looks more like a sick publicity stunt than an action to help children in need.
He's talking about the photo and video at the site.
And this is good from Eric Goldman:
The Broader Implications. From a business community standpoint, prosecuting Backpage's executives as individuals is a nuclear option. Entrepreneurship inherently involves great risks to your capital; but prosecutions like this raise entrepreneurs' fears that they are also risking their liberty. We've seen how this dynamic chills entrepreneurship in Europe, when German prosecutors went after Compuserve executive for the availability of child porn on the network and Italian prosecutors went after Google executives because of a mean video on YouTube. In light of those prosecutions, what entrepreneur thinks it's a good to start up a user-generated content website? Unfortunately, the California and Texas AGs are sending the same messages to entrepreneurs in California, the world's start-up capital and the economic engine driving the entire US economy. Whoa.For more on the troubling implications of unleashing state and local prosecutors from Section 230, see my 2013 article, The Implications of Excluding State Crimes from 47 U.S.C. §230's Immunity.
While the individual executives are now fighting for their lives, the stakes are also high for Backpage. I think the odds of Backpage successfully surviving the prosecution are low. Companies rarely recover from such a crushing development to their leadership, even if the executives eventually defeat the prosecution. So this prosecution may finally succeed in driving Backpage out of the market, irrespective of its legal merits. Still, anyone who thinks Backpage's demise, or the conviction of its executives, will make any difference in the quantity of online prostitution ads is delusional. The ads will scatter to various corners of the Internet, and Backpage's disappearance will not cause prostitution ads to simply disappear.
Goldman via @TimCushing
Stolen from Twitter:
Sixclaws at October 14, 2016 6:06 AM
Sixclaws,
The story above this one is about Victorians "protecting the chastity" of young ladies. Except its not about 150 years ago it about male bashing in Victoria, Australia. Strange times indeed.
Shtetl G at October 14, 2016 7:00 AM
The Victorians would view today's sex moralists as prudes. Feminism has always have an anti-heterosexual-sex component, but in postmodern feminism, it has veto power over the agenda. In today's world, "sex-positive feminist" is a contradiction in terms, unless she's talking about lesbianism. (And the sex-negatives are actually not all that happy about that either, but they don't yet have the political power to take it on.)
And wait, what. The fact that Backpage cooperated with law enforcement is being used against them? Today, do not make the mistake of thinking that cops and prosecutors are your friends. They view you as either an enemy or an easy mark. Plan your actions accordingly.
Yes, this prosecution totally violates the Communications Decency Act's safe-harbor provisions. It would be like if you set up an appointment with a prostitute on your phone, and the government prosecuted phone company employees because their system carried the call. The CDA has a lot of stupid stuff in it, but one good thing it did is give these Web sites "common carrier" status similar to what the phone companies have, so that it doesn't bear direct responsibility for the content of messages that it carries. Not only is California violating the First Amendment, it's also pre-empting federal law. Didn't we fight a war over that sort of thing once?
As for what happens next: Yes, this will probably put Backpage out of business. But I'll bet you can guess what happens next: the Web sites will simply move offshore, and start accepting Bitcoin as payment. They'll be completely out of reach of U.S. law enforcement, and will give their middle finger to demands for cooperation. Child prostitution and sex trafficking -- the real kind, not the "sex = sex trafficking" kind that hysterical American feminists scream about -- will flourish, and there won't be a thing that American authorities can do about it. Heckofa job there, Kammie.
(Yes, that last was intended to be deameaning. But I don't demean her because she's a woman. I demean her because she's a pretentious idiot.)
Cousin Dave at October 14, 2016 7:17 AM
They told me that if I voted for Mitt Romney, we'd get government back in our bedrooms. And they were right!!
Of course, this isn't Kamala's first time bending the rules:
http://observer.com/2015/03/california-prosecutor-falsifies-transcript-of-confession/
I R A Darth Aggie at October 14, 2016 7:19 AM
And oh by the way: Kamala Harris has been heavily involved in efforts to prosecute global warming skeptics. In Kamala Harris' Amerika, freedom of speech has you!
Cousin Dave at October 14, 2016 7:21 AM
https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/
NicoleK at October 14, 2016 7:39 AM
Via Sommers
https://mobile.twitter.com/WilcoxNMP/status/787006947438592000
Crid at October 14, 2016 12:45 PM
Not a surprise. Assorted agencies made sure a guy named Pierson was put in jail for posting pictures like this (click-through is SAFE for work, shows a girl in a bathing suit) and making money at it. Yes, he had consent forms. Yes, the people who signed the consent forms denied they knew what he was doing when the FBI said their kids could be taken away.
And the girl in that picture is on YouTube explaining how she and her friends were never mistreated.
Profit went to a DA's office.
Radwaste at October 14, 2016 2:57 PM
The biggest challenge to Ms. Harris' re-election as CA A.G. is her Senate campaign to replace Barbara Boxer. Think what a talking point this is for her. Even if it gets thrown out, it will be after the election. Yes, she is that rotten already. And she's still young enough to "serve" four Senate terms - 24 goddamn years.
Canvasback at October 14, 2016 5:14 PM
Leave a comment