4 ms·
It isn't a spin because it has resulted in a crack down in garden variety prostitution and a shutdown of multiple services (including ones that were purely defe
by AFNobody 9y ago
It isn't a spin because it has resulted in a crack down in garden variety prostitution and a shutdown of multiple services (including ones that were purely defensive exercises of free speech, such as unsafe/bad date lists).
- creaghpatr 9y agoI expect the coming allegations will detail conspiracy to commit a crime and/or RICO between the people running the site and sex traffickers. The key thing that will need to be proven is the complicity of the admins, although if they are already seizing the site I expect the authorities have what a judge or grand jury feels is enough evidence to warrant the seizure.
- AFNobody 9y agoThe problem is, they passed a bunch of legal changes recently under the guise of "Well, it is because Backpage cannot be brought to Justice." And now, well, "Oh yeah we had the power all along" which is what your comment is stating as your belief. That is why your claims about spin are problematic to me. You are ignoring the background of the situation to make a very narrow claim about "spin" when the claims of "spin" are about the laws they passed citing Backpage.
- creaghpatr 9y agoSESTA has not been signed into law so I’m not sure what you’re talking about, unless the sex workers were on the Backpage payroll.
- chimeracoder 9y ago> The key thing that will need to be proven is the complicity of the admins No. That's what used to be necessary, before SESTA and FOSTA passed[0]. The whole point of SESTA and FOSTA was to remove that requirement - websites are now liable even if they aren't complicit. Even if they take active efforts to combat sex work on their service, they're still liable if someone manages to use the site for that purpose. Again, none of this relates to sex trafficking. It applies to consensual sex work. [0] And even though SESTA and FOSTA aren't signed into law yet, Blumenthal specifically wrote the law to apply retroactively. So once the bills are signed, this lower standard is what will apply.
- joering2 9y agoThen how come I don't see Zuckerberg and Sandberg behind bars yet? Don't tell me there is none, or never been a sex trafficking thru Facebook.
- PrimHelios 9y agoThat one's simple: bribery.
- nym 9y agoLaws like this are selective in nature.
- 220V_USKettle 9y agoThere is no ticker symbol for backpage in their portfolio.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Then how come I don't see Zuckerberg and Sandberg behind bars yet? Well, because SESTA hasn't gone into effect yet. You can bet once it does there will be at least private civil cases against Facebook. Public, including criminal, ones might take until they've got precedent from smashing less well-funded defendants, but they'll come, too, especially (even if Facebook takes drastic action now to prevent future liability) for past cases under the retroactivity provisions (which should be constitutionally problematic for criminal cases, but not so much for civil cases.)
- dragonwriter 9y ago> The whole point of SESTA and FOSTA was to remove that requirement - websites are now liable even if they aren't complicit. FOSTA has an intent to facilitate prostitution requirement, SESTA has a lower threshold with regard to trafficking. > Again, none of this relates to sex trafficking. It applies to consensual sex work. True of FOSTA, but not SESTA. > And even though SESTA and FOSTA aren't signed into law yet, Blumenthal specifically wrote the law to apply retroactively. At least as far as criminal liability goes, that is a fairly direct violation of the prohibition on ex post facto laws; for civil liabilities that would otherwise be barred by the Section 230 safe harbor, though, that's not an issue.