The problem as I see it has to do with RULE OF LAW (or simply following the law). So in a dictatorship, following the law is something citizens have to decide because they want to keep their families safe but ultimately eventually they ought to revolt against the dictator and the means to do that is by breaking laws he/she has imposed on them. We, however, are not in a dictatorship. We are in a democracy (relatively speaking). The vast majority of laws are not dictatorial and the people have a lot of sway, perhaps not as much as we ought to because of various undue influences, but for the most part it's a fair system.
Some laws in a representative democracy are simply going to be controversial. The way citizens ought to act most of the time in such cases is to follow the law. So, if some conservative kook thinks that the "death tax" is unfair, they shouldn't not be paying it. They ought to ensure the law is followed. BUT, they ought to continue to make arguments and continue to be politically active against what they perceive as the highest priority laws they think are unfair. Call representative. Political ads, campaigns, protests. Discussions. Advocacy. ETC.
So I think in a representative democracy, this is the default position: one ought to follow the laws and where there is a disagreement, there ought to be political activism, even if it's just voting for the "right" people. But as with anything, maybe there are some exceptions, such as life and death situations. Prostitutes who may need work can generally speaking be unemployed or on welfare, but conservatives have limited those options. So, perhaps, there are some cases of some few street prostitutes who do this to survive. IMO, that's their prerogative. So, in my opinion that's an exception.
I am just not seeing the same level of argument here for Derec and BackPage, nor to call a representative democracy Fascists. I mean, one thing we heard is that Ugly Men if they don't have prostitutes are at-risk to commit offenses against women. It wasn't stated like that, more like the probability of rape goes up without prostitution, but it's actually what it means. So, when I hear that I cringe because it is telling me there are individuals who have some kind of entitlement to break the law already and if you don't give them what they want, they will break the law even more and hurt people. The root of the problem is the lack of empathy and sense of entitlement, not the restriction of a "service." So, what if women just all together one day stopped needing to be prostitutes and there were NONE. By the premises used in this scenarios already, it means some of these individuals would resort to rape. They clearly need some kind of mental rehabilitation, like to learn that empathy and be less entitled, then, and that's the conclusion.
They deserve little sympathy. Likewise, for persons making a business that has made $500 million by knowingly being involved in child/teen prostitution...and that means BackPage. BackPage is hardly a victim, I mean literally "hardly" because maybe they are very slightly. But since they were engaging in such practices, thumbing their noses at representative democracy, feeling entitled to not only engage in supporting prostitution, but also CHILD/TEEN prostitution, it is completely unfair to classify everyone else who thinks they ought to have consequences as Fascists.
Now the only real other issue here is whether two consenting adults who are both making well-thought-out, rational decisions (i.e. one is not addicted to drugs or on crack etc) ought to be able to engage in a financial transaction for sex. I think the answer is probably yes, but there's a big discussion for it because of all the side issues to include empirical studies and so forth. Keeping in mind that right now it's not legal and both Derec and BackPage ought to be following the laws of the land, generally speaking.
ETA: I will add one side issue. That is the issue of ex post facto. In the case of BackPage, I think they're guilty of heinous offenses of breaking the law and ought to have some consequences. Somehow a new law is being used as part of this. I don't think the new law ought to be used for crimes committed a year ago and more and I think that laws already existing are enough for convicting them on at least some of the charges. I do not think that laws ought to back-apply, even if the law itself is not about a criminal offense but how to handle them. I take a pretty broad approach to how I think the principle of ex post facto ought to be applied to rights, even of criminals.
