Hours after the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a report claiming that online classifieds website Backpage "knowingly concealed evidence of criminality by systematically editing its adult ads", Backpage shut down the U.S. adult advertising section of its site:
The online classified advertising site Backpage.com abruptly shut its "adult" section on Monday, yielding to a campaign by state and federal government officials to close a service they contend promotes prostitution and human trafficking. The unexpected move came hours after a U.S. Senate subcommittee released a report accusing Backpage of actively editing posts on the site to remove evidence of child sex trafficking.
In announcing its decision, Backpage said it was the victim of government censorship. Backpage attorneys said executives would appear at a subcommittee hearing on Tuesday, but would not testify.
U.S. Senators Rob Portman and Claire McCaskill, however, said their subcommittee found Backpage had been far more complicit in sex trafficking than previously known. "Backpage's response wasn't to deny what we said. It was to shut down their site," they said in a statement. "That's not 'censorship' — it's validation of our findings."
On the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from three sex trafficking victims accusing Backpage of facilitating the exploitation of children. The Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that said Backpage is shielded from liability by federal law since the site's classified ads are posted by users.
Also at Washington Post, NBC, and USA Today.
Previously: Backpage's Dallas Offices Raided, CEO Charged With "Pimping"
"Pimping" Charges Against Backpage Executives Dismissed
California Attorney General Pursues New Charges Against Backpage CEO
Related Stories
Backpage, an online classified advertising website, has had its offices in Dallas, Texas raided. The CEO was arrested in Texas on a California warrant, and two others have also been charged with crimes related to the operation of the website:
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and California Attorney General Kamala Harris said that a three-year-long joint investigation revealed that adult and child sex trafficking victims were forced into prostitution through escort ads that appear on the web site. They also alleged that Ferrer and shareholders Michael Lacey and James Larkin made millions of dollars from illegal sex trade.
Ferrer faces charges of pimping a minor, pimping, and conspiracy to commit pimping, while Lacey and Larkin face conspiracy to commit pimping charges. Lacey and Larkin were not in custody on Thursday, and it was not immediately clear when Ferrer would make his first court appearance. Undercover officers in California posted escort ads online that led them to johns who used Backpage, and authorities interviewed more than a half dozen sex trafficking victims who confirmed they paid Backpage to post ads on the web site promoting prostitution.
[...] In addition to its adult services ads, Backpage also publishes advertising from people renting apartments, selling a car or advertising a job opening. But the company's internal revenue reports show that from January 2013 to March 2015, nearly 99% of Backpage's worldwide income was generated from the web site's "adult" section, according to charging documents filed in California. The company collected over $51 million revenue in California during that period.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from a Chicago-area Sheriff who was ordered by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to stop threatening credit card companies that do business with Backpage. A month ago, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked a Congressional subpoena into the site's operations on First Amendment grounds.
Law enforcement officials around the country have complained about prostitution (especially that of children) facilitated by Backpage for years. Now California and Texas officials will have to prove that Backpage's seemingly hands-off approach is illegal. Reason's blog notes that Carl Ferrer is not accused of performing the crimes he has been charged with, but is accused of running a website that others used to facilitate crimes. Backpage also reports ads suspected of containing under-18s to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). NCMEC's President says the organization applauds the charges and that "the criminal action initiated today will lead to new hope for children who are sold for sex online."
Also at NYT, Dallas News, NBC, CNN, Reuters, and Ars Technica. Redacted California criminal complaint.
The first result in a Google News search for "backpage" is sometimes a randomly placed text ad for their site: "Free classified ads with photos. Find houses and apts for rent, personals, jobs, cats and dogs for sale."
Original Submission Alternate Submission #1 Alternate Submission #2
Executives for the online classified advertising website Backpage have seen the charges against them dismissed:
Last month, a California judge tentatively ruled that he would dismiss charges lodged by California's attorney general against Backpage.com's chief executive and two of its former owners. The tables seemed to turn after a November 16 hearing in which Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Bowman decided against following his tentative ruling. But on Friday, the judge issued a final order that virtually mirrored the earlier one: charges dismissed.
[...] Judge Bowman agreed with the defendants, including former owners Michael Lacey and James Larkin, that they were protected, among other things, by the Communications Decency Act, and hence they were not liable for third-party ads posted by others.
"Congress struck a balance in favor of free speech in that Congress did not wish to hold liable online publishers for the action of publishing third-party speech and thus provided for both a foreclosure from prosecution and an affirmative defense at trial. Congress has spoken on this matter and it is for Congress, not this Court, to revisit," the judge initially ruled. Judge Bowman issued nearly the same language (PDF) in his latest ruling: "By enacting the CDA, Congress struck a balance in favor of free speech by providing for both a foreclosure from prosecution and an affirmative defense at trial for those who are deemed an internet service provider."
Previously: Backpage's Dallas Offices Raided, CEO Charged With "Pimping"
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.
Notorious website backpage.com has been seized according to NY Daily News.
Sex ads platform Backpage.com was seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Friday hours after its founder's Phoenix home was raided.
Visitors to the site landed on a notice from the federal government announcing its seizure.
"Backpage.com and affiliated websites have been seized as part of an enforcement action by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division, with analytical assistance from the Joint Regional Intelligence Center," the announcement read.
Founder's home also raided by the FBI Friday morning.
U.S. Government Seizes backpage.com
The FBI, Justice Department, and other agencies have seized backpage.com, and one of the co-founders had their home raided:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:19AM
Sounds like a job for good old fashioned detective work uncovering the sex trafficking occurring on the site, and if anything the site would facilitate law enforcement with their entrapment efforts. If that detective works uncovers evidence of criminal activity by the company then fine, have a trial and judgment. If it forces the company to shut down its service with no evidence beyond the content published by users, then that is censorship. Violating Constitutional rights should be regarded as a serious crime, it isn't just a piece of toilet paper y'know.
So, who's got odds on what? Is the tech company an innocent victim? Or is the CEO a scandalous dirty sex trafficker? Is the government boot stepping too high?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:30AM
How about, we all just go out and get beer and not say anything on this topic instead? Would be about as effective as actual discussion and would create less animosity between 'lentals.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:33AM
I haven't seen that much animosity in the previous discussions about Backpage. Most lentils seem to be pro-Backpage.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:42AM
I can fix that: "Should the backpage CEO and users be allowed to carry a 3D-printed concealed weapon to watch the Trump inauguration in their electric cars in the parking lot of a black church powered by Russian renewable energy?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @05:11AM
The second amendment says yes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:12AM
That's because there's a lot of Libertarians here. And others who lack any concept of unintended consequences.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:22AM
Legal or illegal, it seems like this activity is likely to continue. The Web and ***coin have made it even easier to get away with.
If Congress is targeting Backpage, it probably has more to do with the fact that it is untaxed rather than helping teh childrenz. Other forms of illicit sex involve some tax being paid (massage parlors, for example).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @04:49AM
(Score: 2, Troll) by aristarchus on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:57AM
Libertarianism is based on the awareness of unintended consequences. You're clearly an idiot.
Oh, please! Libertarians could not consequence themselves out of a wet paper bag! And you know why the bag is wet, right? In my vast and extensive experience, libertarians by and large are persons that no other person would ever want to have sex with. Now this might be because they are internet trolls, and trolls like ogres have layers. Or it may be that they are just so fricking self centered and egotistical that they could never every conceive [see what I did there? jdavidb only manages 'cause he's sky fairy before Ayn fairy!] of sharing a sexual encounter with another human being. For these poor radical individualists sovereign individual egoists, they can only get pleasure if they pay for it. In fact, more often than not, or so I am told by some professionals who cater to this crowd, just paying is enough to end the transaction right there.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday January 12 2017, @09:48PM
So people who actually care about freedom and the Constitution lack any concept of unintended consequences? It's possible to be fully aware of the consequences of something and yet still accept them in the name of freedom.
And what unintended consequences, exactly? I'm not seeing any huge negative consequences in this case, but even if you do, there's a chance that I won't consider to be a big deal what you consider to be a big deal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:32AM
is the CEO of this outfit. Add on the rest of the scumbag troop.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:37AM
I'm sure this will totally destroy prostitution, as the people who, according to you, were making over 90% of their millions off the adult classifieds, will not work on a loophole at all.
So, will it be a "dating" section, a "services" section, a "wellness" section, or just plain backbackpage.com?
The cops should be glad they have backpage, like a red light district: whether it's to search for trafficking, or just for their arrest quota, they know where to look. Remove the "centralized" point, and they're off wasting their time looking all over the place again. If actual child traffickers were stupid enough to use such an obvious place, it's great for everyone that it's easier to catch them!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:46AM
Consenting adults. License, tax and monitor it. Who cares?
Oh, the nattering nabobs of negativism, and the sexual prudes who hit up pornhub on the sly, or get naked with other dudes while proclaiming homosexuality is teh evil.
Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by vux984 on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:04AM
Consenting adults. License, tax and monitor it. Who cares?
1) That's not going to stop sex trafficking of children.
2) And as for adults, sure, but you better make DAMNED SURE its between actual consenting adults, and not between one adult who is consenting, and one adult who has been lured into the work under false pretenses and/or and has been threatened to have her family butchered if she doesn't "consent". That might be implied by your 'license, tax, and monitor' or it might not... as there is a demographic who gets off on it being exactly that situation and who would seek out human traffickers with coerced 'sex slaves' even if they could get it legally around the corner. They aren't buying simple sexual gratification, they are seeking that whole power trip, and they're not going to get it at the local legal regulated brothel, even if it existed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:15AM
They can't get that from a consensual BDSM experience?
And let me remind you that we can't test your hypothesis in places where prostitution is illegal. If the John just wants sex and not a power trip, they still have to violate the law. We just have to take your esteemed word for it that they are seeking the power trip. Sure, you could compare it to continued trafficking in legalized countries, but other factors may be involved.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:43AM
They can't get that from a consensual BDSM experience?
No.
Sure, you could compare it to continued trafficking in legalized countries
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada [wikipedia.org]
"Despite there being a legal option, the vast majority of prostitution in Nevada takes place illegally in Reno and Las Vegas."
This doesn't really argue for or against my main point, but its still pretty surprising on some level.
This on the other hand is interesting reading that is more connected to the argument at hand:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X12001453 [sciencedirect.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @11:53AM
"Despite there being a legal option, the vast majority of prostitution in Nevada takes place illegally in Reno and Las Vegas."
Pricing has everything to do with it. The legal brothels can be quite expensive compared to your local streetwalker.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:27AM
OK, so the totally symbolic act of shutting down Backpage is going to stop child trafficking. /sarc
That said, this whole child trafficking thing being pushed hard in the news recently, has the feeling of the satanic ritual abuse / recovered memory scams of the 90s.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:49AM
OK, so the totally symbolic act of shutting down Backpage is going to stop child trafficking. /sarc
FWIW I agree. This is symbolic... pointless theatre. It's probably the 'right thing to do' but its not going to really change anything.
That said, this whole child trafficking thing being pushed hard in the news recently, has the feeling of the satanic ritual abuse / recovered memory scams of the 90s.
Really? I don't really see it in the news nearly that much at all. i find it kind of... hyper-cynical that you seem to imply that its not a real problem based on a sense that you hear about it 'too much'. There's certainly no shortage of real victims out there, if you are prepared to look.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @07:09AM
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/12/20/0039236 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday January 12 2017, @09:51PM
It's probably the 'right thing to do' but its not going to really change anything.
It's not even the right thing to do; these people are just thugs and bullies.
Really? I don't really see it in the news nearly that much at all. i find it kind of... hyper-cynical that you seem to imply that its not a real problem based on a sense that you hear about it 'too much'.
The whole sex trafficking thing in general seems to be a popular excuse to curtail freedoms. Oftentimes they'll simply redefine the term so that it includes all prostitution in existence just so that they can make it appear as if there's more actual sex trafficking than there really is. It's an exaggerated problem that does exist to some extent, much like fears of terrorism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:33AM
1) That's not going to stop sex trafficking of children.
What part of license and monitor don't you get? Children can't get a license. Reputable companies know they're being monitored and won't deal with children.
What you have is 90% of the sex trade is now under control, which means law enforcement can choose who among the other 10% can be shot without consequences.
Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Thursday January 12 2017, @06:34AM
What part of license and monitor don't you get? Children can't get a license. Reputable companies know they're being monitored and won't deal with children.
Then its going to have zero affect on the particular type of case referenced by the article, it was, and shall remain 'underground'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @07:21AM
I am just commenting to hold a place until Azumi gets here and rips you a new asshole, just like you requested on BackdoorPage. Consent? Are the ropes too tight? Oh, you are not an adult? We are going to traffic your ass, with this piece of paper that you willing signed as we held a 9mm to your temple, OK? Do you have a problem with that? I thought not. Yes, we are going to natter your nabobs, you negative nellie John! Who really needs more than one kidney, anyway?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by anotherblackhat on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:46AM
I thought making prostitution illegal was up to the states - it's certainly legal in (parts of) Nevada.
Is there some federal law I don't know about, or some other reason congress should be allowed to investigate what is arguably a state matter?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:27AM
Congress is a Republican majority now. First they tried to kill their ethics watchdog. They were going to do prostitutes eventually, though didn't think it'd be this soon. Expect they'll go after abortion and same sex marriage at some point. Might take a swipe at evolution when they try to shut down research into Climate Change. Probably bang the war drums once they're settled in, and the military will trash some pitiful little nation that is no threat whatsoever to the US. Might be Syria. Yemen could be a candidate. Libya is another possibility. Or, could "surge" in Afghanistan and Iraq, while blaming Obama for cutting back.
All this will serve to distract their supporters from all the fraud, corruption, larceny they're going to ignore that their "friends" on Wall Street and in the Prison and Military Industrial Complex do.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Thexalon on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:42AM
Nah, the Republicans are a bit more traditional and will probably just do their secretaries.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @07:15AM
What? Does no one remember Jeff Gannon? Fake ex-Marine cut top? The one who visited Karl Rove in the Whitehouse on multiple occasions? Republicans kill their secretaries (or interns, a la Joe Scarborough), and have sex with steaming hunks of love of the same sex. Karl Rove! Karl Rove! Say it like you means it! Squeal like a pig, Karl Rove! And, the Donald having Royal Golden Showers with Russian prostitutes of questionable gender. "Oh, my!", as George Takei would say. (But, he wouldn't. This is just too perverted.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:27AM
Slavery is illegal, and immoral. Sex slavery even more so. There was this thing called "The Civil War" in America, and evidently you can still shame the Japanese government about it. Moreover, think of the children! Did you not see the movie, "Little Miss Sunshine"? Pervs all around, dude!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @03:58AM
Prostitution is not illegal under federal law, but you can't expect congress to be specific about federal law.
Child prostitution is however not legal, nor is human trafficking, depending on exactly what is happening.
Backpage wasn't convicted of a crime, issued a court injunction, or censored in any way. When Congress produces a report that says they might be complicit in child prostitution, they shut down rather than defend against the accusation.
I'm all in favor of innocent until proven guilty, but this seems more like cockroaches scurrying away from the light.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Thursday January 12 2017, @04:07AM
They are continuing to fight various legal battles related to the adult section and they have won numerous times (see Supreme Court note in summary and on this story [soylentnews.org]). For all we know, the shutdown was done on the advice of their lawyers and is temporary (or they intend it to be temporary):
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday January 12 2017, @09:59PM
I'm all in favor of innocent until proven guilty, but [...]
But you're not. If you bully someone enough using the nearly unlimited resources of the government, they're eventually going to crack even if they have a lot of money; it's an obvious strategy to punish someone you hate who is not actually doing anything illegal. Even if they did give up, that's not proof of wrongdoing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @08:58AM
When we're talking about the ADULT section
(Score: 1) by ewk on Thursday January 12 2017, @01:48PM
In the ADULT-section you post FOR adults... (apparently) not necessarily ABOUT adults...
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @02:05PM
Don't forget the underrepresented child buyers of adult services: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110516/ [imdb.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @04:22PM
What you are seeing here is the usual prohibition tactics: take an activity that is not in itself harmful, use some extreme example of criminality or "bad stuff" associated with this activity in a very small percentage of cases, and prohibit all legitimate, non-harmful cases by saying they are ALL just like the extreme cases.
I can reduce it to the word "demonizing." In Sweden, the have demonized male prostitution customers and now only THEY are the criminals, not even the prostitutes who are plying their trade, as if they play no part in the affair. It has been reduced in those countries to "men are a problem." As a thought experiment, imagine if people could -sell- weed and keep the money, but if you buy it, -you- get arrested. Insane.
If only we could HONESTLY study past and current examples of prostitution and compare outcomes where it is legal and illegal and make make informed decisions...
I think we need to recognize that there are different ways to be a prostitute, and some are better than others.
Streetwalkers are the worst. They are exposed to more danger and generally the most messed up women are in this type of prostitution. I have no problem with outlawing this by regulation.
Trading sex for money is as old as humanity. It is even respectable as long as you marry your rich sugar daddy. As an example, I give you Donald Trump's wives. (Not picking on Donald in particular.)
Go after the thugs in the business and leave the rest alone, I say.