State criminal and civil law relating to sexual exploitation of children or sex trafficking of children, including through the availability of a civil remedy for victims of sex trafficking of children”

You forgot to sign your comment with #MAGA

Kathleen, I don’t know why your prior comment disappeared. I didn’t remove or moderate it. Eric.

Interesting how my response magically disappeared from this site yesterday???

Here’s a Recap:
I said that the documentary, “I am Jane Doe” confirmed my comments in my earlier post about, “Backpage continuing to post pictures of underage children on their Website after they were made aware the pictures posted to their site was of an underage girl being sex trafficked & Backpage did provide a layout to pimps on what not to say on the website to avoid arrest,” because THAT confirmation came from “attorneys, attorney generals, parents of the victims human trafficked, Senators, a former employee of Backpage and the actual victims trafficked on Backpage.” I provided you with one of the cases to show arguments. YES I read the case.

Your argument for proof is to believe what you say because you’re an attorney? Ha, ha, you’re an attorney that I have never heard of before, let alone trying any case, including Backpage. Well I choose to side with the people previously mentioned from the documentary for reasons already stated versus your (alleged) legal opinion. Corrupt people get away with crimes everyday because of loopholes in the law. Backpage is no different.

You appear to be just some Backpage advocate on here to convince anyone that Backpage isn’t disgusting, greedy, corrupt or the scum of the earth. Guess what? They are all that and then some!

I will celebrate and have a glass of wine the day rule 230 is sent to the graveyard.

Last, you said in a post 6 months ago, “”For people like Rep. Wagner, the solution is NOT to arrest prostitutes/pimps for violating existing laws against pimping and prostitution”…I stopped there because WE are talking about human trafficking (child sex trafficking)…Children are NOT prostitutes! But a child can be prostituted by a pimp! You don’t even understand and fail to comprehend human trafficking.

So, I am ending this communication because I don’t respect or believe anything you have to say. The only way I will come back is if I see my post is deleted again.

Kathleen,

I don’t know if you are a lawyer (I am), but here’s the thing — if you are going to condemn a website (or anyone else), you need to get your facts straight BEFORE you condemn them. It is totally unacceptable to decide that Backpage is evil FIRST, and then go looking for facts to support that conclusion.

Here’s the problem. You said this: “During the Jane Doe case it was stated that Backpage developed criteria for words and money to assist pimps in evading law enforcement … .” You then indicated that support for those allegations could be found in the First Circuit’s decision in Doe v. Backpage. I don’t know if you have actually read this case, but a copy is available here: http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1724P-01A.pdf

If you read this decision, you will see that it is (in many ways) directly contrary to what you have claimed. For example, you specifically suggested that Backpage “developed criteria for words … to assist pimps in evading law enforcement”. But what exactly does that mean?

If you read the case, you will see the answer — what actually happened is that Backpage created a filter that BLOCKED certain words/phrases from appearing in ads. For example, Backpage BLOCKED ads that used terms like “barely legal” and “high school”.

I understand you think this somehow “assisted” pimps in evading law enforcement, but actually doesn’t it also show that Backpage was trying to STOP people from running illegal ads in the first place? Maybe reasonable minds may differ, but if Backpage refused to allow ads that used the word “cocaine”, I would view that as proof that Backpage was trying to stop people from placing ads for illegal stuff like cocaine on their site. I mean, I guess you could argue that by blocking the word “cocaine”, that just made drug dealers use different slang terms for the same thing such as “Pepsi” rather than “cocaine”.

Still, either way you look at it, I don’t see how you can argue that it is a BAD thing for Backpage to block ads using terms like “barely legal” and “high school”. Seriously — isn’t that exactly what we WANT Backpage to be doing?

And as far as your “money for pimps” claim, I think you have that backwards. The Doe case says that Backpage charged a fee for certain adult ads (whereas most other ads were free). Again, you can argue this is both a bad thing and a good thing. On the one hand, it’s bad because it means Backpage was making money from these ads, but on the other hand, it shows that Backpage was trying to make it HARDER for pimps/criminals to place adult ads anonymously (requiring users to pay with a credit card seems like a great way to STOP people from posting illegal ads – because the credit card will leave a paper trail directly to the person responsible for the ad).

Anyway, at least based on the Doe case, I think you are very confused about the facts. But if I am missing something, I am happy to stand corrected. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/82efae36d21082fe6e7121d2ff896b0c553a7e111b6d9e2d72466688414b6947.png

Please by all means watch the documentary, “I am Jane Doe” where this was addressed by attorneys and they displayed laws, Senate Bill, etc., you can easily obtain to review firsthand. Additionally, you can read case,” US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Case No. 15-1724, Jane Doe No. 1 ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, vs. Backpage. com, PLC ET AL., Defendants, Appellees. Appeal from the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts.” Watch the documentary, read the cases. Help yourself.

If what you said is true, then your position is likely correct. I have never seen the “evidence” you are referring to, but my guess is that it is nothing like how you characterize it.

For instance, my guess is the “criteria for words” you mention is probably just a policy that said people posting ads were NOT allowed to use certain words….you know, like “hooker”, “prostitute”, etc. My guess is that Backpage established rules which expressly prohibited ads for sex, and of course they would have policies that limit what ads can say.

Isn’t that a good thing? If you see it differently, that’s fine but I’d really like to see the evidence you are talking about rather than your conclusions about what the evidence does or doesn’t show.

That is not true. During the Jane Doe case it was stated that Backpage developed criteria for words and money to assist pimps in evading law enforcement to prevent proof of purchase for sex and cover-up the age of children being sold for prostitution on their Website. Based on that, once a pimp is caught, arrested for sex trafficking a child through nude or hardly any clothes on Backpage, and Backpage continues to keep the child porn on their site (even after they are asked to remove it), then Backpage is knowingly participating in a crime & using 230 to get immunity. These websites had a decade to do the lawful moral thing and consciously chose the later. No use in crying over spilled milk now.

I did not mean to say shut down a whole company rather I was referring to these ads.

Which backpage has done however another backpage will come along that actively helps these ads. That was the point I was trying to make.

I also believe that backpage should be held accountable for their role in these ads. They are not as a passive forum that is ignotrant of third party posts like a facebook post. No one reads every facebook post before it is live. Nor does facebook receive money for each post.

Backpage specifically wrote articles telling people how to make their ads evade law enforcement algorithms. They have moderators who view every ad that they accept and therefore not only know their content but sent out memos encouraging moderators to look the other way on questionable ads.

When a company such as this is complicit in sex trafficking ads there need to be a way that victims and law enforcement can hold them accountable.

Section 230 as it stands is a blanket get out of jail free card and needs to be adjusted. That is all I am saying.

As for my response to you it was in order to give you more information on the state of our law enforcement. I believe you have an oversimplified view of the struggles our law enforcement agencies have. This website does not allow them “to shoot fish in a barrel.” If you need more information on the underfunding of our law enforcement I recommend talking to anyone in law enforcement or my former employer the FBI.