Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday December 26 2016, @09:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who will be resigning soon prior to joining Congress as a U.S. Senator, has filed new "pimping" charges against the CEO and other executives of Backpage. The previous set of charges were dismissed by a judge less than two weeks ago. Backpage is an online classified advertising website known for its listings of escort services:

Harris said the new charges were based on new evidence. A Sacramento County judge threw out pimping charges against the men on 9 December, citing federal free-speech laws. In the latest case, filed in Sacramento County superior court, Harris claims Backpage illegally funnelled money through multiple companies and created various websites to get around banks that refused to process transactions. She also alleged that the company used photos of women from Backpage on other sites without their permission in order to increase revenue and knowingly profited from the proceeds of prostitution.

"By creating an online brothel – a hotbed of illicit and exploitative activity – Carl Ferrer, Michael Lacey, and James Larkin preyed on vulnerable victims, including children, and profited from their exploitation," Harris said in a statement.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26 2016, @10:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26 2016, @10:11PM (#446171)

    illegally funnelled money through multiple companies and created various websites to get around banks that refused to process transactions

    That doesn't sound like "pimping." No mention of them being charged with anything related to "money funneling."

    She also alleged that the company used photos of women from Backpage on other sites without their permission

    That sounds kinda bad, if it's really true. Maybe putting photos on the site implied permission according to the terms of service. Sounds sketchy, but it still doesn't sound like pimping. Sounds more like making excuses for charging them with something that you don't have evidence to charge them with.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26 2016, @10:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 26 2016, @10:27PM (#446179)

    What new evidence?

    It's right here in the summary:

    A Sacramento County judge threw out pimping charges against the men on 9 December, citing federal free-speech laws.

    That was evidence she had to try a different tactic to try to put them in jail.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by MrGuy on Monday December 26 2016, @10:48PM

    by MrGuy (1007) on Monday December 26 2016, @10:48PM (#446185)

    The previous charges were dismissed because the Communications Decency Act specifically exempted website owners from legal responsibility of the actions of their third-party users. For example, Craigslist isn't guilty of a crime just because someone tries to sell stolen goods via a Craigslist Ad.

    To get around that defense, it appears the prosecution is alleging that the owners of Backpage weren't simply providing a neutral service that was used by others to facilitate a crime, but rather that Backpage executives were active participants in the crime itself.

    It appears they're taking two approaches on this. If Backpage actively and knowingly helped facilitate payment activity for illegal activities, they can't claim to be just an unknowing communication service provider. That could potentially defeat the shield from the Communications Decency Act.

    Second, if the owners of the site used the illegal content to privately profit from it, it would be hard to argue they didn't know about anything illegal going on. And if they actively created some of the offending content, it's not third parties who did the bad actions. The Communications Decency Act only protects platform providers, not content creators.

    It's not clear what, if any, evidence there is to back up either of these claims. Allegations are not evidence. The previous dismissal made it pretty clear that the court won't hold Backpage liable for user-created content, so they need to have something substantial to prove Backpage execs were more actively involved in the illegal activity. Whether they have enough evidence to convince a court is something that we'll have to see.

  • (Score: 2) by timbim on Tuesday December 27 2016, @08:07AM

    by timbim (907) on Tuesday December 27 2016, @08:07AM (#446265)

    sounds exactly like what facebook does to me!

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 27 2016, @06:48PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday December 27 2016, @06:48PM (#446410) Journal

    No mention of them being charged with anything related to "money funneling."
     
    Harris, an incoming US senator, said she had charged Backpage executives Carl Ferrer, Michael Lacey and James Larkin with 13 counts of pimping and conspiracy to commit pimping. They also are charged with 26 counts of money laundering.