Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday September 07 2016, @04:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the back-and-forth dept.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday temporarily blocked a congressional subpoena that seeks information on how the classified advertising website Backpage.com screens ads for possible sex trafficking.

The order came hours after Backpage CEO Carl Ferrer asked the high court to intervene, saying the case threatens the First Amendment rights of online publishers.

A federal appeals court ruled 2-1 on Friday that the website must respond to the subpoena within 10 days. Roberts said Backpage does not have to comply with the appeals court order until further action from the Supreme Court.

[...] The Senate panel has tried for nearly a year to force Backpage to produce certain documents as part of its investigation into human trafficking over the Internet.

After the website refused to comply, the Senate voted 96-0 in March to hold the website in contempt.

[...] While Backpage has produced over 16,000 pages of documents responding to the subpoena, Ferrer said documents relating to the website's system for reviewing ads are part of the editorial process protected under the First Amendment.

"This case presents a question of exceptional nationwide importance involving the protection the First Amendment provides to online publishers of third-party content when they engage in core editorial functions," Ferrer said in a brief filed to Roberts.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_SEX_TRAFFICKING


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Francis on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:43PM

    by Francis (5544) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:43PM (#398920)

    Nice straw man you've got there. There's plenty of legitimate reasons for people to use cryptography and none for allowing people to pay for sex. And absolutely no reason to allow pimping or otherwise profiting off other people's prostitution.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday September 08 2016, @01:18AM

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday September 08 2016, @01:18AM (#398951)

    > There's plenty of legitimate reasons (...) and none for allowing people to pay for sex.

    That would be quite incorrect.
    People pay for sex all the time, except that it's typically not a direct payment, but in the various forms of flowers, clothes, food, a roof overhead, a car...
    People also pay for all kind of legal disgusting activities involving body parts and/or fluids, whether it's for health or for fun. It would be interesting to know where you'd draw the line.
    The clear presence of a constant an unwavering demand is quite at odds with your opinion that people shouldn't be allowed to have safe activities between consenting parties, but only if there is cash on the table... who appointed you dictator?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:20AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:20AM (#399057)

      Francis consistently opposes the right to control your own body if there's even the slightest chance of indirect harm or mishap. This same logic is not applied elsewhere, of course. It's no surprise he would resort to the ridiculous 'You don't need to do X!' argument.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:51AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 08 2016, @02:51AM (#398987) Journal

    There's plenty of legitimate reasons for people to use cryptography and none for allowing people to pay for sex.

    Except, of course, that they want sex enough to pay for it and paying for sex is a victimless crime. That's reason enough.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:17AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:17AM (#399054)

    Even if you disagree with the analogy, there is no straw man there. Fallacy fail.

  • (Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:46AM

    by CirclesInSand (2899) on Thursday September 08 2016, @06:46AM (#399068)

    And absolutely no reason to allow ... profiting off other people's prostitution.

    Really? You are deciding on behalf of everyone else that prostitutes don't need bodyguards, or accountants, or agents? Do you have any advice on which direction we should all face when we pray?