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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

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

    Total Score:   1  
  • (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?