LEGALITY?? Justice? AGENDAS? What REAL REASONING fuels our new sex trafficking bill???

Backpage is the website ALWAYS in the eye of public scruitiny. Why?

The answer is simple-

They keep WINNING IN COURT!

Case Law- CIVIL
M.A. v. Village Voice Media, LLC- DISSMISSED

Backpage.com v. McKenna, et alBackpage.com, LLC v. Coopen -The court rejected the State's argument

Backpage.com, LLC v. Hoffman et al -United States District Judge Claire C. Cecchi granted Backpage a permanent injunction as unconstitutional and a violation of Section 230.

Doe No. 1 v. Backpage.com, LLC -The court held that Backpage could not be liable for the "existence of an escorts section" ("whatever its social merits, [the section] is not illegal"

Backpage.com, LLC v. Dart — The injunction was denied, but the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed this decision and granted the injunction- finding in favor of BP.

Criminal Charges:
On October 6, 2016, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and California Attorney General Kamala Harris arrested CEO Carl Ferrer on felony charges of pimping a minor, pimping, and conspiracy to commit pimping. The California arrest warrant alleged that 99% of Backpage’s revenue was directly attributable to prostitution-related ads, and many of the ads involved victims of sex trafficking.- DISMISSED


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backpage

This law is simply a tool to get compliance from ONE website! After years of failing to force it from them, RE-WRITING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW to get favorable rulings in the VERY courtrooms which were designed to PROTECT AND UPHOLD THOSE LAWS IS THE SOLUTION??? SAD.
So if BP kept winning the cases, why didn't craigslist?
They did actually...

I don't have time right now too cite the cases which set precedent before Backpage. However if you go to the link above scroll down to the legalities section and read, you will find two precedent-setting cases one Myspace and the other Craigslist
Craigslist caved to public pressure despite winning in court as the general public does not have the capacity or intelligence to understand court rulings due to the continuing devaluing of education in America.

Add in the devolvement of civil debate and therein lies the start of a very deep rabbit hole.
YES XFRANK! Intelligence is the reason I chose to post this in a section no one ever reads unless summoned by a stupid legal question such as, "what attorneys can help me for trade in Kansas? "

I find it highly DISAPPOINTING that the even the looked up to providers with high intellect have gone on rants about VPN PROTONMAIL HIDE FROM THE GOVERNMENT rather than use their status to provide information gained from SIMPLE RESEARCH... which easily led me to THIS MAJOR FLAW, yet there has been no mention of it elsewhere that I have seen.

FOSTA "shall apply regardless of whether the conduct alleged occurred… before, on, or after such date of enactment." This is what's known as an ex post facto law, and it's explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. .

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-ne...-weve-known-it.


IF this bill is actually signed into law, NO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WOULD APPLY!!! Essentially ANYONE COULD file a lawsuit against AOL who, in 1996, 22 years ago, is not immune in this new amendment despite legislation being WRITTEN that very year, ABSOLVING THE OWNERS OF 3RD PARTY ACTION RESPONSIBILITY. MORE proof that the agenda here is to hold BackPage liable for cases and crimes they have fought and won already.

For entertainment, here is a bill that hasn't yet passed. What countries are being blackmailed into joining this debacle?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2986/text
ck1942's Avatar
Ms Strawberry -- very valid question, and, love your research.

So the answer to your question is very simple:

POLITICS!

Fact of the matter is quite likely that the new laws will be significantly reduced in court action from those web sites, entities with deep enough pockets to fight the good fight.

Aim of the politicians is to appear to "do something!" Congress and state legislatures quite often craft laws they know won't survive in Courts, but they continue to do it anyway.

And, if nothing else, make the "culprits" pay out the wazoo and if it bankrupts them, so much the better.

Those who see "THE SKY IS FALLING" are jumping to big conclusions and the trolls are abetting the turmoil.

Meanwhile, those who are planning ahead are actually ahead of the pack insofar as it is about time many in the hobby heeded the security wake up call.

See links in my signature regarding current events.
Craigslist caved to public pressure despite winning in court as the general public does not have the capacity or intelligence to understand court rulings due to the continuing devaluing of education in America.

Add in the devolvement of civil debate and therein lies the start of a very deep rabbit hole. Originally Posted by xfrankthetankx
So effectively CL wussed out cause of whiners..
So effectively CL wussed out cause of whiners.. Originally Posted by garhkal
OH MY GOD I am so captivated by your astounding intellect right now!!! merica

ck1942's Avatar
CL in my opinion bowed to the threats of lawsuits which could cost it mucho dinero and actually possible loss of control of the site, plus jail time for the owners (and maybe the operators?) ...

Did CL have a great defense when Section 230 was intact? YES!

Pending actual judicial resolution of the pending/not so pending new laws, CL made (imo) a wise business decision that can easily be reverse in a year or two if feasible.

We all should be blessed with the same common sense in the new environment (however it turns out) to hobby sensibly and sanely.

Happy Hobbying!
Ck you are exactly where I am "thought wise" regarding the need to APPEAR TO BE working hard to combat this issue.
I believe that is the intent, however, I also believe that CL, along with others who have already complied publicly, are making a statement to the public. They are saying, "Look. We all complied and BP is STILL going strong? That motion their lawyer filed the second the new laws was signed has kept them afloat. This site... not a peep from owners regarding the matters.

The more I read, the more I become fascinated by the intricacies of this, and the facts all lead back to 203, it's bulletproof ability on the courts and the case law which has been cited to win cases of similar nature over and over again.

This law actually allows many creative ways to engineer a lawsuit. Since literally every app or software we use is a 3rd party, a conversation on ANY platform could be made into a trafficking claim.
HoustonDan's Avatar
The CL decision was likely based on a cost-benefit analysis.

They make ZERO money off personals. The potential lawsuits are likely to cost quite a lot. They have a small department of employees tasked with monitoring the personals. They can repurpose those people and focus on ads that actually fund them and not have to worry about the hassle.

AND they get huge PR for being a first mover.

It’s common sense for CL.


BP...well they’re willing to fight. I still say this bill gets an injunction dropped on it as soon as it is signed. Too many groups are lining up against it.
Agent220's Avatar
This was about CONTROL and MONEY.
Unique_Carpenter's Avatar
Of course it's about the money.
Politically attuned prosecuters know very well that they can put folks out of business just by hauling them into court even if laws are unconstitutional. It will take an outfit with deep pockets to decide to fight. Thus, folks who dont want to spend the $ will bow out, and some will go to great extents to make over their sites to social sites but will still prob get chased later.
As of yet, no court cases filed to challange.
The CL decision was likely based on a cost-benefit analysis.

They make ZERO money off personals. The potential lawsuits are likely to cost quite a lot. They have a small department of employees tasked with monitoring the personals. They can repurpose those people and focus on ads that actually fund them and not have to worry about the hassle.

AND they get huge PR for being a first mover.

It’s common sense for CL.


BP...well they’re willing to fight. I still say this bill gets an injunction dropped on it as soon as it is signed. Too many groups are lining up against it. Originally Posted by HoustonDan
CL was never interested in hosting escort ads to begin with. They only started the adult section because escorts had taken over the civvie dating ad section.
BP was a Craigslist clone that hardly anyone used, and they got lucky when all the CL escort advertisers moved there en masse.
If anyone wishes to donate to the legal battle over Fosta, DO IT!

Our constitutional rights are being defended in federal court, and the costs of litigation are astronomical.

https://woodhullfoundation.salsalabs...uit/index.html

This GREAT ARTICLE on BP, it's founder's etc is recent and informative.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pol...ort-ads-219034

Backpage's founders have fought for freedom of press/speech for DECADES.