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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by frojack on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:38PM

    by frojack (1554) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:38PM (#398795) Journal

    Ah the myth of the independent self employed sex worker raises its head again.
    Even where prostitution is legalized [wikipedia.org], women and girls are trafficed.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:45PM (#398797)

    Even if they aren't independent, that does not imply sex trafficking. What's truly a myth is all the moralistic fearmongering.

    Even where prostitution is legalized, women and girls are trafficed.

    Even less than usual, I would imagine.

    But I guess nothing will satisfy you outside of absolute perfection.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08 2016, @04:32PM (#399221)

      Even where prostitution is legalized, women and girls are trafficed.

      Even less than usual, I would imagine.

      What you imagine means nothing to me.

      But I guess nothing will satisfy you outside of absolute perfection.

      I can't speak for frojack, but a citation of a credible source--something that goes a bit beyond what your feeble mind can imagine--would work for me.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:58PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @05:58PM (#398800)

    > Ah the myth of the independent self employed sex worker raises its head again.

    One of my friends was one. She had some really bad days, but it did pay for a roof and college. (no, I couldn't have afforded her services, she was really just a college friend)
    They are not a myth, even if they are not the typical case. She had decided legal lap dances didn't have enough buck-for-yuck return, compared to execs in suits.

    > Even where prostitution is legalized, women and girls are trafficed.

    Well, Nevada is a pretty bad example, with one guy owning most of the brothels, and some pretty girls-hostile local laws. The bulk of the demand is too far from the legal and overpriced offer.
    If there was a real red light district/system, with local and federal police (to limit corruption) checking the providers regularly, it would reduce the incentive (let's not try to argue Vegas is interested in reducing demand).

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:35PM

      by frojack (1554) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @06:35PM (#398815) Journal

      Well, Nevada is a pretty bad example,

      You are free to offer a different example where legal prostitution eliminates or substantially reduces human trafficking and pimp-induced-slavery.
      I suppose its possible that might exist somewhere, but even if women ran the world, girls would be trafficked against their will.

      As for your remarks about Vegas, I assume you do know prostitution is illegal there, - even if still available).

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:58PM

        by Francis (5544) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:58PM (#398843)

        Sweden has probably the best model. Selling sex is legal, but buying, pimping and trafficking are illegal.

        It cuts down on the typical problems associated with prostitution. Legalization schemes tend to break because it's surprisingly hard to tell the difference between forced and voluntary prostitution in brothels.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:02PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:02PM (#398845)

          Legalization schemes tend to break because it's surprisingly hard to tell the difference between forced and voluntary prostitution in brothels.

          I feel the same way about encryption. It's hard to tell the good guys from the bad. To make law enforcement's job easier, we may need to place some restrictions on what encryption the general public is allowed to use.

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:21PM

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:21PM (#398855) Journal

            While we're at it, we should relax the constitution to make policing, investigating and prosecuting easier.

            Police work is easy in a police state.

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
          • (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.

            • (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?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @08:54PM (#398864)

          Personally I'm baffled by this. Are voluntary prostitutes not allowed to leave? How does that work? Do they just sign away years of their life or something?

          • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @09:39PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @09:39PM (#398879)

            It's one of those feminist laws, essentially anything the woman does is sanctified and righteous and anything the man does is evil.

        • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Wednesday September 07 2016, @09:54PM

          by JNCF (4317) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @09:54PM (#398890) Journal

          Sweden has probably the best model. Selling sex is legal, but buying, pimping and trafficking are illegal.

          That seems like an odd double standard. Setting aside the pimping and trafficking, this is like making drugs legal to sell but not legal to buy. If the voluntary transaction is heinous enough that society decides the government needs to swoop in and save the day, why should only one party be held responsible?

          Of course in the real world we punish drug dealers much harsher than users -- also a double standard, but in the opposite direction.

          • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Francis on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:41PM

            by Francis (5544) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @11:41PM (#398917)

            the point of it it's that the harm is to the prostitutes and so they get the protection when they need it. There's no compelling reason for prostitution to be legal, but human trafficking and sex tourism are significant problems.

            • (Score: 2) by JNCF on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:36AM

              by JNCF (4317) on Thursday September 08 2016, @03:36AM (#399003) Journal

              Ah, so sellers can seek protection from the law but buyers can't. Interesting economy.

              There's no compelling reason for prostitution to be legal,

              And an interesting standard for legality. Is there any compelling reason for cotton candy to be legal? Is this even the question we generally ask?

  • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday September 08 2016, @08:53PM

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday September 08 2016, @08:53PM (#399352)

    Ah the myth of the independent self employed sex worker raises its head again.

    I would not be surprised to hear they are inflating their statistics by including online dating sites as well.