Backpage CEO Carl Ferrer was arrested in Houston, Texas this afternoon. Both the California and Texas Departments of Justice were involved in efforts to take down Ferrer. Two controlling shareholders of Backpage have also been issued felony conspiracy and human trafficking related charges.
"Backpage.com CEO arrested in Texas on pimping charges" via Reuters
- Lena Duvall
- 10-06-2016, 05:40 PM
- R.M.
- 10-06-2016, 05:49 PM
- darkmoonmaster
- 10-06-2016, 05:55 PM
This remembers me when craiglist used to have the adult section,
Good Bye BackPage for good.
Good Bye BackPage for good.
- Guest112917
- 10-06-2016, 06:20 PM
This will make for a lot of "unemployed" young ladies. I sure hope ECCIE does not go down like AHB did.
- Lena Duvall
- 10-06-2016, 07:42 PM
I'm really curious what the repercussions are going to be. Unlike this site or even the other purportedly classier national review board, BP is heavily used and relied on all over the world.
- Princess Jasmine
- 10-06-2016, 08:34 PM
Wow. That's crazy!
This can't be the end of BP!
The warrant was for money laundering?? But ends in pimping charges??
Idk but to me sounds like someone will be getting out soon?
I'm not a law expert though. I really do hope this isn't the end.
This can't be the end of BP!
The warrant was for money laundering?? But ends in pimping charges??
Idk but to me sounds like someone will be getting out soon?
I'm not a law expert though. I really do hope this isn't the end.
- bilbobaggin
- 10-06-2016, 08:45 PM
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play on one TV. So my opinion means nothing.
As far as I can tell, all he's charged with is felony pimping in California. Don't know if they can go after the "company" backpage with that charge. As far as I can tell the "company" isn't facing charges yet, just bigwigs.
Granted nobody is going to run the company if you face pimping charges for doing it. Just seems like a overzealous end of three year investigation that the only charge they can get is pimping.
As far as I can tell, all he's charged with is felony pimping in California. Don't know if they can go after the "company" backpage with that charge. As far as I can tell the "company" isn't facing charges yet, just bigwigs.
Granted nobody is going to run the company if you face pimping charges for doing it. Just seems like a overzealous end of three year investigation that the only charge they can get is pimping.
- ck1942
- 10-06-2016, 08:47 PM
Interesting that it took three years to bring some action, but no federal charges.
Backpage, for those who don't know its history was spun off from the Village Voice. It has enormous revenues and resources enough to mount a very strong defense.
My guess is that a principal part of the defense will be to get the charges federalized and then rely on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230 which essentially hold harmless the operator of a web site from action of those who post. Even if the charges remain at the state level, surely the defense will try to use the federal act as a bar to criminal charges.
That said, there have been attempts by attorneys general in the past, which is why Craigs List dropped sex ads and why BP was spun off by the Village Voice.
Interesting, too, that the timing falls into the political campaign season.
Backpage, for those who don't know its history was spun off from the Village Voice. It has enormous revenues and resources enough to mount a very strong defense.
My guess is that a principal part of the defense will be to get the charges federalized and then rely on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230 which essentially hold harmless the operator of a web site from action of those who post. Even if the charges remain at the state level, surely the defense will try to use the federal act as a bar to criminal charges.
That said, there have been attempts by attorneys general in the past, which is why Craigs List dropped sex ads and why BP was spun off by the Village Voice.
Interesting, too, that the timing falls into the political campaign season.
- Felicityforyou
- 10-06-2016, 08:58 PM
This is so Irritating to me.
Im not a fan of backpage ( THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION!!! )
My body is mine! and I should have every right to do with it as I please!
I enjoy myself, I enjoy Pleasing!
I FIRMLY BELIEVE officials should spend more time as well as effort, in seeking RAPIST, MURDERS, and CHILD MOLESTERS
- Mysterydate023
- 10-06-2016, 09:38 PM
Providers are low-hanging fruit that LE can pick when they need to look like they're accomplishing something.
- ck1942
- 10-07-2016, 05:29 AM
Meanwhile ... the vaunted NY Times did not have much of anything today regarding the arrest of the CEO, but did have this:
Supreme Court Won't Step Into Fight Over Backpage Sex Ads
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS OCT. 3, 2016, 9:55 A.M. E.D.T.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from an Illinois sheriff who was ordered to stop threatening credit card companies doing business with classified ad website Backpage.com.
The justices Monday let stand a lower court order that forbids Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart from contacting Visa and MasterCard to disrupt online sex ads linked to human trafficking.
Dart sent "cease and desist" letters last year urging the companies to stop providing payment services for any ads on the website. The companies complied within 48 hours.
Backpage sued, alleging Dart was illegally interfering with its ability to do business. A federal judge sided with Dart, finding his letters were protected by the Constitution's First Amendment. A federal appeals court reversed that ruling.
Dart's office says it's disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision.
Supreme Court Won't Step Into Fight Over Backpage Sex Ads
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS OCT. 3, 2016, 9:55 A.M. E.D.T.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from an Illinois sheriff who was ordered to stop threatening credit card companies doing business with classified ad website Backpage.com.
The justices Monday let stand a lower court order that forbids Cook County Sheriff Thomas Dart from contacting Visa and MasterCard to disrupt online sex ads linked to human trafficking.
Dart sent "cease and desist" letters last year urging the companies to stop providing payment services for any ads on the website. The companies complied within 48 hours.
Backpage sued, alleging Dart was illegally interfering with its ability to do business. A federal judge sided with Dart, finding his letters were protected by the Constitution's First Amendment. A federal appeals court reversed that ruling.
Dart's office says it's disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision.
- Guest010619
- 10-07-2016, 05:51 AM
Interesting that it took three years to bring some action, but no federal charges.And after the election, its anybody's guess how laws will be changed to take care of the problem.
Backpage, for those who don't know its history was spun off from the Village Voice. It has enormous revenues and resources enough to mount a very strong defense.
That said, there have been attempts by attorneys general in the past, which is why Craigs List dropped sex ads and why BP was spun off by the Village Voice.
Interesting, too, that the timing falls into the political campaign season. Originally Posted by ck1942
- Gotyour6
- 10-07-2016, 06:11 AM
Bye bye backpage
Hooks will have to find another way of hooking.
Hooks will have to find another way of hooking.
- slinmo
- 10-07-2016, 07:19 AM
[QUOTE=Felicityforyou;105872397 4]
Felicity, while I agree with your sentiment, just to play devil's advocate, I think you need to draw a distinction between doing what you want with your body and doing that for money. The law doesn't say that you can't do as you want, it says you can't charge for it. You can please as many of us as you want for free.
My body is mine! and I should have every right to do with it as I please!
I enjoy myself, I enjoy Pleasing!
Felicity, while I agree with your sentiment, just to play devil's advocate, I think you need to draw a distinction between doing what you want with your body and doing that for money. The law doesn't say that you can't do as you want, it says you can't charge for it. You can please as many of us as you want for free.
- Gotyour6
- 10-07-2016, 08:20 AM
Which means she should have the right to sell.