Comments on the political pressure applied?

http://www.backpage.com/statements/B...t-20170109.pdf

Curious to see the opinions here.

small minded jerks think by closing backpage,they're helping everyone.

that site does more good by staying up and make it easier for police to arrest pimps and rescue victims of the sex trade.

Bandaid

I'll be glad when the media/websites start putting weight-classes in their research options and REQUIRE authentic, accurate photos of the LADY advertising. "Consumer Protection"!

All hookers in the D.C. area should boycott any member of Congress, their staff, and/or other Federal employees and appointees who participate in quelling advertising on BP or any other media outlet. The National Organization of Women should be involved in the protest.

In other words: Cut them off! No more nookie or other pampering!

I think it is hilarious that all the ads are now in massage and dating. I believe it is free to post in those areas, at least dating.

http://www.backpage.com/statements/B...t-20170109.pdf

Curious to see the opinions here. Originally Posted by Old-T

Suppression of free speech..

I think it is hilarious ... Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

The out-of-country forums are up and running ....

... BP can let them post there ... word gets out.

Bandaid

I'll be glad when the media/websites start putting weight-classes in their research options and REQUIRE authentic, accurate photos of the LADY advertising. "Consumer Protection"!

All hookers in the D.C. area should boycott any member of Congress, their staff, and/or other Federal employees and appointees who participate in quelling advertising on BP or any other media outlet. The National Organization of Women should be involved in the protest.

In other words: Cut them off! No more nookie or other pampering! Originally Posted by LexusLover

And the hookers that they see in DC are not the ones posting on BP lol

Amazing that the Federal Government meddles in local business where they have no jurisdiction.
Prostitution is not illegal in the United States of America. It is however illegal in 49 of the 50 states.
Federal law only comes into play if the commerce crosses state lines.

And the hookers that they see in DC are not the ones posting on BP lol Originally Posted by Gotyour6

... they belong to same sorority ...

(and I suspect many started out on BP)

Suppression of free speech.. Originally Posted by DSK

Completely agree. And it is one of those areas where the RWWs and LWWs show that they are not so far apart. They both want to stop it, they just use different fallacious arguments why suppressing speech is good in this case, and why all women in the business are too dumb to actually be here because they choose to.

Amazing that the Federal Government meddles in local business where they have no jurisdiction.
Prostitution is not illegal in the United States of America. It is however illegal in 49 of the 50 states.
Federal law only comes into play if the commerce crosses state lines. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

Again, agree. And in this case it is the Reps doing it. As COG points out often, the differences are far less than the two parties would have people believe.

... they belong to same sorority ...

(and I suspect many started out on BP) Originally Posted by LexusLover

They are universes apart. Having a picture on BP will disqualify ladies from ever being a member of many of the inner circle dating groups that will not take that chance with the wrong PR from an overly inquisitive reporter.

"Freedom of the Press" ...?

Not all publishing is protected, nor is all speech.

And I'm not suggesting that advertising a "body rub" or "companionship" in a publication is "protected speech," but I would suggest that if there is some FACTUAL basis upon which to base a "reasonable belief" that serious crimes are being committed in the process of that commercial activity then there may be some justification for the government interference with the specific questionable behavior (but not a global ban).

Perhaps I misread the article I saw, but the gesture of shutting it down was by the company and not the government. It was threatened, I thought.

Again, agree. And in this case it is the Reps doing it. As COG points out often, the differences are far less than the two parties would have people believe. Originally Posted by Old-T

People need to understand that the battle isn't Republican v Democrat, or liberal v conservative. The real battle is Liberty v Tyranny.

You are 100% correct.
The goal is control of the people by the government rather than the original intent which was control of the government by the people.

Social engineering by the government is never a good thing. Just look at what they have done with public education or the family unit destruction via the welfare system. The collapse of the financial system via forced loans to unqualified borrowers. I can go on but I would rather not.

"Freedom of the Press" ...?

Not all publishing is protected, nor is all speech.

And I'm not suggesting that advertising a "body rub" or "companionship" in a publication is "protected speech," but I would suggest that if there is some FACTUAL basis upon which to base a "reasonable belief" that serious crimes are being committed in the process of that commercial activity then there may be some justification for the government interference with the specific questionable behavior (but not a global ban).

Perhaps I misread the article I saw, but the gesture of shutting it down was by the company and not the government. It was threatened, I thought. Originally Posted by LexusLover

If a reasonable person would feel like the government was going to ruin their livelihood if they did not "voluntarily" cease their activity, then that isn't much of a choice, is it?

If only we had a young, charismatic President who was fundamentally focused on changing America. To toss away to old, suffocating, conservative laws of internet gambling, prostitution, and *forbidden subject*. And he was given the tools like a Supermajority in Congress, a cooperative media and a Supreme Court that would back his decisions.

sigh