
The Backpage.com Case Is Testing the Limits of the First Amendment - danso
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/29/first-amendment-limits-backpage-escort-ads-219034
======
Consultant32452
The difficulty with this case is that it's very difficult to find a source
that genuinely steel-mans backpage.

I noticed one thing, for example, which I will try to describe in a steel-
manning way. It appears backpage, at least in part, was working with law
enforcement and human trafficking activists. Perhaps not to the extent that
those activists would have liked, but I suspect those activists would have
preferred them to shut down completely. In assisting authorities/activists,
certain keywords were filtered from ads, keywords which might have indicated
that someone was under-age. This act of removing those keywords is what now
has them in trouble, because the plaintiffs are arguing that backpage is now
the "author" of that material rather than just a platform. If this is true,
that seems like a dirty trick. The authorities/activists trick you into
"helping" in such a way that you actually become a criminal, and then they
come after you for it.

~~~
DanBC
> It appears backpage, at least in part, was working with law enforcement and
> human trafficking activists.

But it was not doing this. Backpage was in fact doing things that made it
harder for law enforcement to take action.

When people describe Backpage's actions as really fucking evil it's not
because no-one is steel-manning backpage. It's because Backpage genuinely was
really fucking evil.

When someone posts an ad saying something like "16 year old escort" a non-evil
company would have alerted law enforcement. Backpage didn't. Backpage returned
an error message saying "Oops! Sorry, the ad poster must be over 18 years of
age." (This is the real error message). It would then allow the poster to make
an ammendment to the ad and re-submit it. Backpage would not keep this
information.

Please read this report, because it clearly details what Backpage did. And
don't forget, this document just lists the things that Backpage have said they
did.

[https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report...](https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Backpage%20Report%202017.01.10%20FINAL.pdf)

~~~
Consultant32452
Even the link you provided suggests Backpage was working with the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The context that it mentions this
suggests that Backpage "may have manipulated" the reports, but doesn't
describe exactly what that means. Manipulated could mean something as
innocuous as erring on the side of protecting consenting adults, only
reporting more obvious cases of exploited children. We don't know though,
because in spite of the fact that this negative language "manipulation" was
used no details are given. So even in the report written by the people who are
trying to put Backpage owners in prison, written in the most negative light
possible, I was able to find redeeming information in just a few seconds of
skimming.

------
AndrewKemendo
I remember being a kid in the 80s and grabbing a free Houston Press [1]
whenever I could.

Besides the great Alt-Comics section with Life in Hell and Red Meat, they had
a sprawling "personals" section that read like a BDSM and fetish smorgasbord.
Nobody seemed to mind that.

[1][https://www.houstonpress.com/](https://www.houstonpress.com/)

------
swyea
ReplyAll has a whole episode dedicated to the subject
[https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/119-no-more-safe-
harbo...](https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/119-no-more-safe-harbor)

------
dannyw
As an Australian, it seems like a great deal of the problems with human
trafficking surface from the criminalisation of prostitution.

Pimps hold far less power when the prostitutes have legal recourse and police
on their side.

~~~
stealthmodeclan
I wonder, why governments don't make getting sex easier.

Why isn't there any app where you can just pay to have guaranteed safe sex in
a government audited establishments without any drama?

Right now, many play a game of courting a potential mate. Sometimes, feelings
are hurt due to unpredictable nature of this game. It results in manipulation,
lies and faking. It might make people who repeatedly fail to get any sex, a
criminal.

When was the last time your date showed up without makeup? This reeks
dishonesty, ambush and manipulation.

Efficiency of this market can cure many issues like sexual harassment, end
scam market of pickup artist and many other crimes of passion.

Chasing other sex should be outlawed unless they've subscribed to the app and
the application for sex goes through the government devised route.

If I've unsubscribed then no one should offer me drinks for the purpose of
getting sex. This is good for everyone's sanity.

Why not just have an app and bet sums of money there, then everyone will be
motivated to acquire more money instead of playing other games.

Blame is on society for making the act of paying for sex through sweat/blood a
stigma.

Without sex we would have gone extinct by now and yet sex is not considered as
the primary need of humans.

I know a lot tech workers who were promised sex in return of favours -
training, jobs, finanical help using signals and later got sexual harassment
charges when they successfully delivered.

Humans are seflish. They want something in return of something.

~~~
IGI-111
The most convincing argument against the commodification of sex is, in my
opinion, that such intimacy holds a special enough place in human psychology
that even an efficient sex market wouldn't make people happy.

I'm not sure if it's too linked with pair bonding to be its own thing, but
that's certainly something to consider.

Still very much in the camp of legalization myself. If only because I can't
fathom why the State gives itself the mandate to ban the exchange of this
particular service in principle.

~~~
kofejnik
> such intimacy holds a special enough place in human psychology

that's exactly what religious conservatives of all sorts say when they want to
prosecute extramarital sex

~~~
maze-le
If so, does this contradict the original statement? Just because one group is
acting overzealous, it does not imply, that the premise is false.

~~~
AstralStorm
Neither it implies the premise is true.

Is the even a country with the likes of such a "sex market"? Is it worse or
better than others?

------
makosdv
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances." \- First Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States of America (1789)

~~~
everdev
> since 1996 federal law has provided broad protections for online publishers
> of third-party content. Backpage has successfully argued that it can’t be
> held legally responsible for the criminal conduct of others—no matter how
> reprehensible.

They're not arguing that they have the right to publish ads for illegal
services. They're saying they're not liable for what 3rd parties post on their
site.

They're saying they're more like journalists, simply reporting what other
people are saying (which happens to be promoting illegal services). While it
sounds like they are pro-decriminalizing sex work, no one is arguing that it's
legal to advertise criminal behavior (selling drugs, weapons, sex, etc.).
They're just telling the courts to go after those advertisers individually
rather than Backpage.

~~~
DanBC
Backpage's case would be stronger if they hadn't set themselves up to profit
from this type of illegal advert, and if they hadn't hampered law enforcement
at every opportunity.

~~~
everdev
Yeah it's a dubious case IMO. The 1st amendment is incredibly important and
even more so in journalism, but this seems like a retroactive last ditch
defense.

They clearly wanted to profit off of the sex industry in places where it was
still illegal to do so.

