Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This isn't about rights in the way the op portrays it. The owner knew it was being used for illegal prostitution and probably knew it was being used for harmful trafficking. The owner has over 50 charges filed now. That is why it got shut down.

If prostitution were legal and regulated and the owner knew his site was being used for illegal trafficking while refusing to try to reduce it in his medium, he'd likewise be in trouble for that.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Actually, I'm kind of serious. Why is rape prevention always about what women can and cannot do/say/wear/drink/go/behave? Why isn't it about putting limits on men's behavior?

There is a very small percentage of the population that is criminal. I read somewhere, I don't remember where, that about 3% of the population qualifies as criminal, and this remains constant through time. Let us assume that is right, and that it is evenly divided between the genders.

That means there are 97% of men who don't rape, which is a good thing. The hard part is, no matter how many times you say "rape is wrong", the percentage of men who do rape will rape anyway. We've already made it illegal, that hasn't stopped them. The hard part is, we don't know who in the larger community are the criminals until it is too late.

So, since we know that in spite of our best efforts there are still criminals out there, it becomes the responsibility of every individual to find a way to protect oneself from those criminals. That's why women are part of the solution for rape prevention. A woman could pass out drunk and naked in the middle of the most criminal part of town and it would still be wrong to rape her. That doesn't mean passing out drunk and naked in the most criminal part of town is a good thing to do.

 

[prideandfall]

But prostitution isn't about women doing what they want with their bodies.

this is true, but i tend to wonder whether it's applicable to draw an analogy to other jobs that require a lot of physical interaction (though obviously the social and cultural impact is vastly different so they're not directly comparable, i'm just talking about for the sake of argument)

if you remove the social/cultural stigma aspect of it (both in terms of how others view you and how you view yourself) is sex work really significantly different than say construction work, or yard work, or janitorial work, or any other job that is physically demanding?
i mean this rhetorical question insofar as it could be argued that none of those are jobs that are about what the person *wants* to do with their body, it's about what they're willing to put their bodies through for the sake of money.

now obviously sexuality is a far more complicated area, but again i reiterate that this is due to social and cultural imprinting... but when you get down to brass tax on a purely physical level, sex work doesn't strike me as being so different from any other kind of work that is physical and/or unpleasant.

It's about them (perhaps) getting paid to allow others to do what they want to the woman's body. Or for her to do what someone else wants to their body. Seriously: it's not about a woman's desires at all.

this is true, but... being hired as a fry cook isn't about their desires either, so from a purely capitalist perspective what difference does that make?

i know this statement is a bit hyperbolic but it's meant to be broadly philosophical: we all of us whore ourselves out in some form or another to be gainfully employed... nobody has a job where they show up and their boss goes "what can we do to make you comfortable and happy and give you money for it?"
so honestly i don't see how it makes any real difference what the prostitute wants or desires in the broader area of sexuality, because in the case of prostitution what it comes down to is that the prostitute wants money, and the rest is just a negotiation over what they're willing to do in order to get it.

 

[Derec]

This isn't about rights in the way the op portrays it. The owner knew it was being used for illegal prostitution and probably knew it was being used for harmful trafficking. The owner has over 50 charges filed now. That is why it got shut down.

But it is. CDA230 is a provision in the law that shields website operators from liability for what their users post. It protected Backpage as well as sites like eBay, Google or this very forum. The new bipartisan legislation guts that protection.
Now, if the site operators had real knowledge of actual trafficking, they should have shared that with powers that be. But when these powers are gung ho on shutting you down just because you provide an easy marketplace for sexual services, then any cooperation is difficult.

If prostitution were legal and regulated and the owner knew his site was being used for illegal trafficking while refusing to try to reduce it in his medium, he'd likewise be in trouble for that.

If he knew of particular cases, not only vague knowledge that it probably happens. These listings are difficult to police.
But if sex work were legal, cooperation in matters of underage and involuntary prostitution would be much easier.

Note that it wasn't just backpage that was shut down, but many other sites that had ads by sex workers. It's chaos in the community.
Imagine if Internet was big in the 70s during very hostile climate toward gays. Imagine gay men used Grindr and politicians decided to shut down all of Grindr and other hookup apps because there were some instances of underage users.
I guess Toni's and politicians' attitude would be that if legalizing gay sex cannot completely eliminate underage gay sex we should keep it illegal.

 

[Derec]

But prostitution isn't about women doing what they want with their bodies.

You have a restricted notion of what "want" entails. A barista wants to make coffee all day because she gets paid for doing so. She is not being coerced just because doing her job is an condition of continuing to receive paychecks. Even outside work such trade-offs happen. I want to brush my teeth not because of some desire for the activity itself, but to prevent bad breath and tooth decay. A couple may want to have sex on a day they when they do not desire it because the woman is fertile and they are trying to have kids.

It's about them (perhaps) getting paid to allow others to do what they want to the woman's body.

You also have a restricted notion of what sex work, or even sex in general, is.
It's not just about allowing the client to do things to her body, she is an active participant. She does things with her body as well as with the client's body (ooh yeah!)

Or for her to do what someone else wants to their body. Seriously: it's not about a woman's desires at all.

And baristas do not desire to make coffee and warm up croissants eight hours at a time. That does not mean it's illegitimate. And a sex worker can make what barista makes working a few hours a week, so there's that.

I dunno. Plenty of men are pretty skilled at avoiding paying support.

Child support is the only debt there are still debtor's prisons for. And oftentimes child support is abused as backdoor alimony - the woman can spend it on herself, not on the kid.

In the US, a woman cannot give her child up for adoption without the consent of the biological father. Both have to agree.

In theory perhaps, but in practice women often do.

Women can be ordered to pay support as can men.

Very rarely. And sometimes men have to pay the woman child support even when the kid lives with the dad full time.

 

[Derec]

This whole issue is moot anyway. Two consenting adults can have sex regardless of laws about prostitution. Also, two consenting adults can have sex for money--they just have to get married first like Trump and Melania.

So you are advocating temporary marriages like in Iran?

On a serious note, if you acknowledge that some women do have sex for monetary gain, for example by marrying a rich guy, why such hostility toward doing it overtly and honestly and short term?

 

[Juma]

This whole issue is moot anyway. Two consenting adults can have sex regardless of laws about prostitution. Also, two consenting adults can have sex for money--they just have to get married first like Trump and Melania.

So you are advocating temporary marriages like in Iran?

On a serious note, if you acknowledge that some women do have sex for monetary gain, for example by marrying a rich guy, why such hostility toward doing it overtly and honestly and short term?

Because the market of prostitution as a whole brings all sorts of misery. Trafficking, slavery, abuse. That is why.

 

[Derec]

Because the market of prostitution as a whole brings all sorts of misery. Trafficking, slavery, abuse. That is why.

Those things are bad and should be fought against. But why persecute consenting adults? Note that these negative things occur where sex work is illegal as well, so there is nothing gained by banning it outright.
It's the same illogical and illiberal reasoning used to justify the Prohibition. People can become alcoholic, people can get into DUI accidents, so let's ban all booze. But people still drank.

 

[bilby]

This whole issue is moot anyway. Two consenting adults can have sex regardless of laws about prostitution. Also, two consenting adults can have sex for money--they just have to get married first like Trump and Melania.

So you are advocating temporary marriages like in Iran?

On a serious note, if you acknowledge that some women do have sex for monetary gain, for example by marrying a rich guy, why such hostility toward doing it overtly and honestly and short term?

Because the market of prostitution as a whole brings all sorts of misery. Trafficking, slavery, abuse. That is why.

The market of employment as a whole also brings all sorts of misery. Trafficking, slavery, abuse. Yet I presume you don't oppose employment or call for its criminalization, but instead you presumably demand that workplaces, working conditions and employment practices are regulated, to eliminate as far as possible slavery, trafficking, abuse, child labour, etc., etc.

So why not apply the same approach to sex work? Legal and regulated sex work, like legal and regulated work of ANY kind, does provide some cover for unscrupulous people to engage in trafficking, slavery, and abuse. But criminalization simply eliminates any possibility of regulation, and massively increases the incidence of those bad outcomes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This isn't about rights in the way the op portrays it. The owner knew it was being used for illegal prostitution and probably knew it was being used for harmful trafficking. The owner has over 50 charges filed now. That is why it got shut down.

But it is. CDA230 is a provision in the law that shields website operators from liability for what their users post. It protected Backpage as well as sites like eBay, Google or this very forum. The new bipartisan legislation guts that protection.

Don't exaggerate. The law makes an exception for human trafficking. [see below]*

Now, if the site operators had real knowledge of actual trafficking, they should have shared that with powers that be. But when these powers are gung ho on shutting you down just because you provide an easy marketplace for sexual services, then any cooperation is difficult.

According to the prosecution internal documents with the company said they knew the vast majority of ads in the adult section were for prostitution. [see below]*

If prostitution were legal and regulated and the owner knew his site was being used for illegal trafficking while refusing to try to reduce it in his medium, he'd likewise be in trouble for that.

If he knew of particular cases, not only vague knowledge that it probably happens. These listings are difficult to police.
But if sex work were legal, cooperation in matters of underage and involuntary prostitution would be much easier.

That is an hypothesis. I personally am on the fence about it, but I don't think it's relevant as to why BackPage is being prosecuted. They violated the law and they knew about it, made some $500 million out of it, meanwhile profiting off of actual trafficking.

Note that it wasn't just backpage that was shut down, but many other sites that had ads by sex workers. It's chaos in the community.
Imagine if Internet was big in the 70s during very hostile climate toward gays. Imagine gay men used Grindr and politicians decided to shut down all of Grindr and other hookup apps because there were some instances of underage users.

I may want to support two rational, consenting adults for activities they may want to do with each other, but I don't really feel excited about a lopsided arrangement that involves a crack or heroin addict and a selfish person looking for sex. People aren't turning to gay apps because they're crack addicts who cannot make rational decisions about their lives, which makes being gay very different from prostitution.

I guess Toni's and politicians' attitude would be that if legalizing gay sex cannot completely eliminate underage gay sex we should keep it illegal.

Your whining is ridiculous once we look at the case of BackPage. Child sex traffickers submitted ads with words like teen, Lolita, amber alert and BackPage simply scrubbed those particular words, allowing the rest of the ad and the actual "transaction" to occur. [see below]*

*

"The Backpage defendants have admitted -- in internal company documents and during private meetings -- that they know the overwhelming majority of the website's ads involve prostitution," prosecutors allege in the indictment. "Many of the ads published on Backpage depicted children who were victims of sex trafficking. Once again, although Backpage has sought to create the perception that it diligently attempts to prevent the publication of such ads, the reality is that Backpage has allowed such ads to be published while declining -- for financial reasons -- to take necessary steps to address the problem."

Law enforcement officials said the case was brought in Arizona because Backpage was founded there, and that's where its servers and banking accounts exist.

A two-year Senate investigation into online sex trafficking found that found that Backpage.com knowingly aided criminal sex trafficking of women and young girls, simply scrubbing terms from ads such as "Lolita," "teenage," "rape," "Amber Alert," and publishing them on its site. After the investigation was published in January 2017, Backpage.com shut down its adult ads section.

The company has been targeted with several lawsuits over the years but has been largely protected by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a legal protection that gives a broad layer of immunity to online companies from being held liable for user-generated content. Companies are supposed to act in good faith to protect users but critics argue it can be used as a shield. The law, however, does not, protect sites from federal liability against criminal law, like child-pornography laws.

Last month, however, the Senate approved bipartisan legislation called the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. The legislation would create an exception to Section 230, which would pave the way for victims of sex trafficking to hold websites accountable for facilitating abuse.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/09/poli...ution-and-money-laundering-charges/index.html

 

[Toni]

Actually, I'm kind of serious. Why is rape prevention always about what women can and cannot do/say/wear/drink/go/behave? Why isn't it about putting limits on men's behavior?

There is a very small percentage of the population that is criminal. I read somewhere, I don't remember where, that about 3% of the population qualifies as criminal, and this remains constant through time. Let us assume that is right, and that it is evenly divided between the genders.

That means there are 97% of men who don't rape, which is a good thing. The hard part is, no matter how many times you say "rape is wrong", the percentage of men who do rape will rape anyway. We've already made it illegal, that hasn't stopped them. The hard part is, we don't know who in the larger community are the criminals until it is too late.

So, since we know that in spite of our best efforts there are still criminals out there, it becomes the responsibility of every individual to find a way to protect oneself from those criminals. That's why women are part of the solution for rape prevention. A woman could pass out drunk and naked in the middle of the most criminal part of town and it would still be wrong to rape her. That doesn't mean passing out drunk and naked in the most criminal part of town is a good thing to do.

A man passes out drunk in a bad part of town and someone steals his car keys and his wallet. When the thief is caught, people may shake their heads at the stupidity of the drunk for his poor judgment but there is no suggestion that he was dressed slutty or that he secretly wanted to be robbed. He is not blamed and the thief is convicted assuming that sufficient evidence (possession of credit cards, vehicle, etc) warrants it. Even if it's in a good part of town, in the classiest bar in town, it is assumed he did not willingly turn over his keys and wallet, even if the thief is very attractive and a star athlete. No one questions his clothing choices or his drinking behavior or his right to pass out drunk wherever: it is assumed that he still has the right to control his body and his property.

A woman passes out drunk in the worst part of town and is raped and possibly the rapists are caught and tried. The woman's behavior and dress is criticized and she is blamed for dressing slutty, for drinking too much and for going into a bad part of town. If the rape kit shows evidence that she had sex with more than one person that night, it is taken as evidence that she is promiscuous and was looking to get laid by a stranger in some no-strings hook up. This is actually less likely a scenario if she did pass out in a bad part of town, especially if her rapist is black--he might be convicted. If it's a nice part of town and the nicest bar and her assailant(s) are attractive and especially if they are athletes, it's assumed that is what she wanted all along.

I'm sorry: this is getting to be a derail but I wanted to respond.

 

[Toni]

Because the market of prostitution as a whole brings all sorts of misery. Trafficking, slavery, abuse. That is why.

Those things are bad and should be fought against. But why persecute consenting adults? Note that these negative things occur where sex work is illegal as well, so there is nothing gained by banning it outright.
It's the same illogical and illiberal reasoning used to justify the Prohibition. People can become alcoholic, people can get into DUI accidents, so let's ban all booze. But people still drank.

I do understand and appreciate this argument. For me, there are a couple of very powerful negative drawbacks: There is evidence that legalized prostitution actually increases trafficking in unwilling people forced into the sex trade. I cannot find any way to see this as a legitimate trade off: some people are more protected but others are put into more danger against their will. It isn't a net zero sum, in my opinion.

The other thing that I wonder about is what does it do to (mostly) girls and women, but also to gay boys and young men to be seen as something that others can use and discard at will, that the most intimate parts of their selves are for sale to...whomever, regardless of how the prostitute feels or what the prostitute wants? What does it do to customers, actually, who rely on prostitutes to satisfy their sexual needs and need for human contact by paying money rather than developing actual relationships with people? To me, these are both soul crushing scenarios that bring much more pain than they alleviate.

 

[LordKiran]

Prohibition is the evil. Not what is prohibited. Forcing products and or services underground on the black market that are widely demanded by the public creates these problems. Pedophilia is not widely demanded, and is illegal for many reasons. Adult sex work is illegal for what reasons? Religious cooks getting an icky feeling down there?

Because 200 years ago in the Victorian period Syphilis was rampant and it needed to be kept in check would be my guess. Not so much a problem in a time where sex is more sterile than its ever been.

Prostitution is fine when its on even terms between equals, such that I find the Nevada model to be acceptable.

 

[LordKiran]

Because the market of prostitution as a whole brings all sorts of misery. Trafficking, slavery, abuse. That is why.

Those things are bad and should be fought against. But why persecute consenting adults? Note that these negative things occur where sex work is illegal as well, so there is nothing gained by banning it outright.
It's the same illogical and illiberal reasoning used to justify the Prohibition. People can become alcoholic, people can get into DUI accidents, so let's ban all booze. But people still drank.

I do understand and appreciate this argument. For me, there are a couple of very powerful negative drawbacks: There is evidence that legalized prostitution actually increases trafficking in unwilling people forced into the sex trade. I cannot find any way to see this as a legitimate trade off: some people are more protected but others are put into more danger against their will. It isn't a net zero sum, in my opinion.

The other thing that I wonder about is what does it do to (mostly) girls and women, but also to gay boys and young men to be seen as something that others can use and discard at will, that the most intimate parts of their selves are for sale to...whomever, regardless of how the prostitute feels or what the prostitute wants? What does it do to customers, actually, who rely on prostitutes to satisfy their sexual needs and need for human contact by paying money rather than developing actual relationships with people? To me, these are both soul crushing scenarios that bring much more pain than they alleviate.

Dunno, think how many mass shootings could be avoided were the perpetrator not so sexually frustrated. Worth a thought at least.

 

[LordKiran]

Because the market of prostitution as a whole brings all sorts of misery. Trafficking, slavery, abuse. That is why.

The market of employment as a whole also brings all sorts of misery. Trafficking, slavery, abuse. Yet I presume you don't oppose employment or call for its criminalization, but instead you presumably demand that workplaces, working conditions and employment practices are regulated, to eliminate as far as possible slavery, trafficking, abuse, child labour, etc., etc.

So why not apply the same approach to sex work? Legal and regulated sex work, like legal and regulated work of ANY kind, does provide some cover for unscrupulous people to engage in trafficking, slavery, and abuse. But criminalization simply eliminates any possibility of regulation, and massively increases the incidence of those bad outcomes.

For what its worth I do think that is the case due to the economic climate we've fostered.

 

[Toni]

I do understand and appreciate this argument. For me, there are a couple of very powerful negative drawbacks: There is evidence that legalized prostitution actually increases trafficking in unwilling people forced into the sex trade. I cannot find any way to see this as a legitimate trade off: some people are more protected but others are put into more danger against their will. It isn't a net zero sum, in my opinion.

The other thing that I wonder about is what does it do to (mostly) girls and women, but also to gay boys and young men to be seen as something that others can use and discard at will, that the most intimate parts of their selves are for sale to...whomever, regardless of how the prostitute feels or what the prostitute wants? What does it do to customers, actually, who rely on prostitutes to satisfy their sexual needs and need for human contact by paying money rather than developing actual relationships with people? To me, these are both soul crushing scenarios that bring much more pain than they alleviate.

Dunno, think how many mass shootings could be avoided were the perpetrator not so sexually frustrated. Worth a thought at least.

So, it's womenkind's fault for not putting out enough?

Trust me: if being sexually frustrated caused mass shootings, you'd see a lot more women as the perpetrators rather than the victims.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You are asking to restrict the sexual freedom of all because some misbehave. Why do you stop where you do and only apply this to prostitution? Why not lock us all into chastity belts (an extreme example), restrict clothing choices making all of us dress conservative (you have spoken against this), etc? Why not ban sex outside of marriage? Maybe stone adulterers to death? No!

Men who pressure and coerce women to have abortions so they don't have to pay child support, so why not therefore ban abortion? No! Just because some misbehave is not a good reason to take away all of our freedoms.

If a woman wants to make money through providing sex why should you get to tell her she may not do so or criminalize her customers so she can't get business?

Also, what is your alternative for handling the social issues of sexually frustrated or undesirable and lonely men? What is the better solution?

Also, you have said (and you are correct) that prostitution will happen regardless of whether or not it is legal, so what positive comes from making it illegal? And should men who go to prostitutes but oppose sex trafficking be prosecuted or should the law be lenient on them having wide discretion, and if it does are you concerned that such discretion will be used against black men more than white?

 

[LordKiran]

I do understand and appreciate this argument. For me, there are a couple of very powerful negative drawbacks: There is evidence that legalized prostitution actually increases trafficking in unwilling people forced into the sex trade. I cannot find any way to see this as a legitimate trade off: some people are more protected but others are put into more danger against their will. It isn't a net zero sum, in my opinion.

The other thing that I wonder about is what does it do to (mostly) girls and women, but also to gay boys and young men to be seen as something that others can use and discard at will, that the most intimate parts of their selves are for sale to...whomever, regardless of how the prostitute feels or what the prostitute wants? What does it do to customers, actually, who rely on prostitutes to satisfy their sexual needs and need for human contact by paying money rather than developing actual relationships with people? To me, these are both soul crushing scenarios that bring much more pain than they alleviate.

Dunno, think how many mass shootings could be avoided were the perpetrator not so sexually frustrated. Worth a thought at least.

So, it's womenkind's fault for not putting out enough?

Did I say that? This really is over-defensive imo. How does saying that mass shooters might be sexually frustrated also imply fault with women-kind for not fucking them enough? Doesn't that idea in itself imply that women owe sex to men? Nothing I have said even implies that unless you have started with the assumption that I must think that. Rather unfair if you ask me.

 

[LordKiran]

You are asking to restrict the sexual freedom of all because some misbehave. Why do you stop where you do and only apply this to prostitution? Why not lock us all into chastity belts (an extreme example), restrict clothing choices making all of us dress conservative (you have spoken against this), etc? Why not ban sex outside of marriage? Maybe stone adulterers to death? No!

Men who pressure and coerce women to have abortions so they don't have to pay child support, so why not therefore ban abortion? No! Just because some misbehave is not a good reason to take away all of our freedoms.

If a woman wants to make money through providing sex why should you get to tell her she may not do so or criminalize her customers so she can't get business?

Also, what is your alternative for handling the social issues of sexually frustrated or undesirable and lonely men? What is the better solution?[1]

Also, you have said (and you are correct) that prostitution will happen regardless of whether or not it is legal, so what positive comes from making it illegal? And should men who go to prostitutes but oppose sex trafficking be prosecuted or should the law be lenient on them having wide discretion, and if it does are you concerned that such discretion will be used against black men more than white?

Why is the suffering of people forced into sex trafficking considered an acceptable cost in the interest of you being able to pay for sex? Odd choice of priority. Not very humanist.

1. Publicly offered (psycho)therapy that helps young men find their way in a healthy socially responsible way?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are asking to restrict the sexual freedom of all because some misbehave. Why do you stop where you do and only apply this to prostitution?

Isn't this exactly what regulation is about, restrictions for public safety etc? So, for example, there used to be practices of child labor in factories but it got regulated out of factory work (ie. banned). If you want to use a slippery slope argument, then it also applies to anything such as if you want to ban children, then next you're going to ban adults or if you want to ban drunk people from work, then next you're going to ban thinking people. The truth is that most of the people under discussion are under dire circumstances, including drug addiction to hard core drugs and therefore the concept of freedom is slightly different--they are not making rational decisions by-and-large and out of those that do, there is forced coercion, but some are also making decent decisions. If you want to make an argument based on, well, don't punish those that aren't victims, then that same argument could be applied to child factory work, too. Don't punish children that are acting safely and need jobs for money. Why are you against freedom? Seriously, such ranting ideological claims are ridiculous when you delve more deeply into the problem as above. Not to mention, the case of BackPage really is not the same as the case for legalization. No one wants to deal with the actual facts of the criminal case, just spout ideologically.

From previous post:

"The Backpage defendants have admitted -- in internal company documents and during private meetings -- that they know the overwhelming majority of the website's ads involve prostitution," prosecutors allege in the indictment. "Many of the ads published on Backpage depicted children who were victims of sex trafficking. Once again, although Backpage has sought to create the perception that it diligently attempts to prevent the publication of such ads, the reality is that Backpage has allowed such ads to be published while declining -- for financial reasons -- to take necessary steps to address the problem."

Law enforcement officials said the case was brought in Arizona because Backpage was founded there, and that's where its servers and banking accounts exist.

A two-year Senate investigation into online sex trafficking found that found that Backpage.com knowingly aided criminal sex trafficking of women and young girls, simply scrubbing terms from ads such as "Lolita," "teenage," "rape," "Amber Alert," and publishing them on its site. After the investigation was published in January 2017, Backpage.com shut down its adult ads section.

The company has been targeted with several lawsuits over the years but has been largely protected by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a legal protection that gives a broad layer of immunity to online companies from being held liable for user-generated content. Companies are supposed to act in good faith to protect users but critics argue it can be used as a shield. The law, however, does not, protect sites from federal liability against criminal law, like child-pornography laws.

Last month, however, the Senate approved bipartisan legislation called the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. The legislation would create an exception to Section 230, which would pave the way for victims of sex trafficking to hold websites accountable for facilitating abuse.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/09/poli...ution-and-money-laundering-charges/index.html