A very limited defense of FOSTA - the case of Backpage
4got2wipe
In a brilliant place!
Friday, April 13, 2018 5:48 AM
As a (mostly) libertarian I am nervous about any abridgment of 1st amendment rights, but I am interested that Backpage's CEO took a plea deal so quickly.
Although I think laws against voluntary prostitution are ridiculous, I hope everyone here can agree that actual trafficking = non-brilliant and something the government should fight.
I'm just skeptical that the Backpage guy would have plead out so quickly if California and Texas didn't have something more on him than just facilitating prostitution. Something link-able to actual trafficking. I think chilling free speech that disseminates information about sex work is probably a net negative in terms of keeping it off the streets and improving sex worker safety, but if Backpage was profiting from people forced into sex work then I don't have any sympathy.
I think they probably were profiting from people forced into sex work, and may have been more involved than you would think. I suspect there will eventually be a free speech challenge to FOSTA and it could be struck down, at least partially. But in this specific and narrow case (Backpage) we should consider the possibility that it was on the side of angels.
Just my 2 cents and a potentially unpopular opinion.
I hope Founder is careful to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Although I think laws against voluntary prostitution are ridiculous, I hope everyone here can agree that actual trafficking = non-brilliant and something the government should fight.
I'm just skeptical that the Backpage guy would have plead out so quickly if California and Texas didn't have something more on him than just facilitating prostitution. Something link-able to actual trafficking. I think chilling free speech that disseminates information about sex work is probably a net negative in terms of keeping it off the streets and improving sex worker safety, but if Backpage was profiting from people forced into sex work then I don't have any sympathy.
I think they probably were profiting from people forced into sex work, and may have been more involved than you would think. I suspect there will eventually be a free speech challenge to FOSTA and it could be struck down, at least partially. But in this specific and narrow case (Backpage) we should consider the possibility that it was on the side of angels.
Just my 2 cents and a potentially unpopular opinion.
I hope Founder is careful to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
10 comments
So let’s see, he’s doing 5 years max, probably has a shit-ton of money hidden somewhere that the feds will leave alone. Still looking at 5 years at his age is not good, no matter how much money may still be waiting for him when he gets out.
Now if ends up doing a year and a half at club fed, maybe not such a bad deal afterall.
Until... that one club (Cheaters; closed now, which is good. Fuck 'em with a log.) messed it up for everyone by hiring an underage runaway being trafficked by a pimp. Once that story broke, the news media started going undercover into all of the other strip clubs to reveal all the "sex crimes" going on in the city.
At that point, the cops had to put their thumb down on all the clubs. And it had a profound chilling effect for several months. The good news is that the pendulum has swung back in favor of the PLs since then. This was years ago. It's better, but not like before.
To the point, I equate Backpage to that one club that is so flagrant and sociopathic in their practices that it ripples across the industry. I suspect that Backpage had some very bad things going on within their ecosystem. And if they didn't know about it explicitly, then they were happy to turn a blind eye while counting their stacks of money.
I don't like what this is doing to the more responsible adult marketplace around Backpage. But if my suspicions are correct regarding Backpage, then fuck 'em with a log.
There is no defense for FOSTA. Before BP became the target du jour, the same people were going after CL. BP's biggest sin, as was CL's before that, was to be too conspicuous due to its size and ease of use. Of course there were some bad apples that misused BP, but to my knowledge nobody anywhere has provided evidence that trafficking was rampant on BP. FOSTA will face some heavy constitutional challenges I suspect as it is just too sweeping in its scope. Imagine cities being sued because pimps traffick girls on their sidewalks - FOSTA is the Internet equivalent of this.
I hope there is some strong backing from first amendment folks - as this is a bad thing for free speech. There are legit reasons for keeping free speech free. Trafficking is wrong - and non-brilliant.
You can't let a company like Backpage rake in hundreds of millions of dollars while turning a blind eye to trafficking on their site. Maybe FOSTA goes too far, but something needs to change. At minimum, there should be some uniform set of rules that companies have to follow to police their own sites.
Nonprofit "Polaris" came out in favor of FOSTA. Anti-trafficking nonprofit started by two Brown U. students -- not a bunch nutty right-wing evangelicals.
I don't buy rickdugan's comment that "of course" he just took the deal because he had "the full weight of the federal government" etc. Backpage was apparently quite profitable so I'm sure he could afford good lawyers. People do fight the government and win if the case against them is weak. I think that I f the case against Backpage was weak he could have and would have won.
I think the Backpage folks probably were bad actors and there was a lot more going on that he avoided by taking the deal. His legal team probably didn't want to fight and die on the hill defending him. I suspect they were pretty sure they would lose and he'd go away a lot longer.
After all, "up to 5 years" isn't horrible. I suspect it won't actually be 5 years and I also suspect he isn't going to a prison where he'll be some murdering maniacs bitch during his time.
I'm not saying FOSTA is good law, but none of us are experts in constitutional law and know whether it will actually stand up to a court case. I suspect a lot of the web site closures are from smaller operations that don't want to risk it. The full impact is unclear at this point. Just exercise care here and don't write anything seriously non-brilliant, even as a joke!
I though he got his knickers all in a twist because I criticized his constant statements about driving drunk, called me a troll, and claimed he put me on ignore.
This is more of a psychology/people watching question. To be fair to rickdugan, he writes brilliant crazy stories and, regardless of their veracity, I love reading his stuff. I also suspect he exaggerates his drunk driving stories to stir the pot. Assuming he isn't endangering any lives I tip my hat to him for his stories.
Also, despite my skepticism regarding what I believe to be an overly simplistic interpretation of the Backpage situation, his reply was actually coherent and respectful. So another tip of the hat for that! ;)
And I do agree with him and many other regarding FOSTA probably being way too broad. I'm just saying that I haven't actually read the law and I'm not a legal expert. And neither is anybody else here (with the possible exceptions of JohnSmith69 and skibum609, assuming they are telling the truth about their profession and have relevant legal expertise).