Former Child Prostitute Sues Village Voice For 'Aiding & Abetting' Via Sex Ads
from the section-230-challenge dept
With so much attention being paid to Craigslist over its "adult services" section, one thing that Craigslist often pointed out was that many other classifieds services allowed much worse -- with the Village Voice's Backpages.com often being used as a prime example. And while we haven't heard of state attorneys general getting ready to go after Backpages, apparently a former child who was sold as a prostitute is going to try. The girl, still a minor, going by the name M.A. is suing the Village Voice and specifically claiming that Section 230 of the CDA doesn't apply:As for getting around Section 230, the lawsuit points out that Section 230 includes an "exemption" for the exploitation of children. Perhaps I'm wrong (Section 230 experts, feel free to chime in), but I'm not sure this is quite true. Section 230 does state that nothing in Section 230 should be construed to "impair the enforcement" of laws related to sexual exploitation of children, but that doesn't mean that it makes service providers automatically liable if their services are used in that nature. And I don't see how what Backpages did "impaired the enforcement" of the law so it's not clear how that exemption really applies here.
Either way, this makes for an interesting test of Section 230 -- on a highly emotional issue. No one denies that what happened to M.A. sounds horrific and those involved should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (and, it's certainly good to hear that the main person involved has plead guilty and hopefully won't be able to do this to others). That it happened at all is horrifying and sickening. But does it make sense to blame a service provider who served as the bulletin board? That may be a bit extreme and risks adding significant liability to anyone who allows any sort of user-generated system.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: section 230
Companies: backpages, village voice
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
this is getting out of control
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yellow pages next!
"Real Rubber"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
isn't this the Pirate Bay argument?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prepare to be disappointed...
My gut says the court system should be changed such that all cases filed must be carried through to a decision. Additionally, the "loser" must the lawyers fees for both sides, but not to exceed the least amount spent. In other words, if Joe Citizen spends $10K and loses to mega-corporation who spends $200K, Joe Citizen only has to pay $10K of mega-corps fees. Settlements could still be reached, but only by one side accepting a judgement against them and paying legal fees.
While it would certainly cut down on lawsuits as a negotiation ploy, I'm also certain there are unintended consequences I'm not considering.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How was the pimp found?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: isn't this the Pirate Bay argument?
It's easy to say they need to pay attention, a lot more difficult to do in practice until you have all the facts. How many ads per day are submitted? How long would it take a human being to scan each and every ad for approval? How many ads would have to get approved per day to stay ahead of expenses? How quickly would the Voice go under if it didn't have automated ad submission in place?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: isn't this the Pirate Bay argument?
Suppose the pirate bay only contained torrents for legal materials (stay with me here), thousands of them.
Now, suppose I create a script that uploads 100 torrents each hour. 99 are legal, 1 is illegal.
How do you identify which ones point to legal material and which ones point to illegal material? Notice that you want that done today (preferably), not in 2 weeks. And this was just one of me.
Same concept applies to blogs and craiglist/ebay types (to name a few examples).
Of course, if anyone identifies illegal they have every right to ask (demand?) the site to pull it down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: this is getting out of control
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Section 230 construction
[ link to this | view in thread ]
research
I've been on Backpage with other people who are trying to solve this problem. The stuff we found was unreal. I won't link to it here. I will simply ask you to please research before you state your opinion.
Yes, there are kids. There are pregnant women high on drugs. Plus, a bunch of other stuff I won't get into. Just like Craigslist, BP has an obligation to monitor their site.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lili Balfour - bone head
And as for backpage content....you are obviously a frumpish prude. Get used to it. Prostitution should be legal. And the subject of this case is a rare event there. I have looked and there are no children there except in the rarest of circumstances.
....and yes I am sure Mike knows all that I have said. He's one of the most intelligent writers I have read on the net.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: research
I guess you already know that Mike isn't a journalist then. Whoops.
"I've been on Backpage with other people who are trying to solve this problem. The stuff we found was unreal. I won't link to it here. I will simply ask you to please research before you state your opinion. "
I can't seem to find anything like what you say on backpage.com myself. Apparently even the FBI haven't found much and I'm sure they spent longer than 5 minutes googling:
"In the last two years, Backpage.com has had 58 million posts, of which 6 million were adult. In this vast exchange of information, law enforcement agencies have asked for our testimony in precisely five underage cases."
"Yes, there are kids. There are pregnant women high on drugs. Plus, a bunch of other stuff I won't get into. Just like Craigslist, BP has an obligation to monitor their site."
No, they have political pressure. If they had an obligation then everyone would have to check everything that was posted on a web site. I trust that you report everything you find to the authorities anyway (although I do wonder why they need things reporting when the whole site is indexable by Google).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: research
I love the irony in you claiming that you research before typing... and then admitting you have no idea if this is what I do for a living.
I've been on Backpage with other people who are trying to solve this problem. The stuff we found was unreal. I won't link to it here. I will simply ask you to please research before you state your opinion.
My opinion has nothing to do with what's on Backpage, but with a fundamental understanding of who is liable for what *is* on there.
Yes, there are kids. There are pregnant women high on drugs. Plus, a bunch of other stuff I won't get into. Just like Craigslist, BP has an obligation to monitor their site.
That's legally untrue -- and it makes no sense. As we've explained before, if there's bad content on there, that makes it easier for the police to actually stop those who are *actually* responsible.
Why do you wish to shut down such a useful tool?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: research
Because according to many Americans, sex is bad. Unless of course it's done by the catholic church with minors against their will, then it's okay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Research
Again, you just focus on what is law. What about what is right? Do people have the obligation to do the right thing?
I’ve never said Backpage should close their site. I, along with other interested parties, have been asking for Backpage to address the issue. Addressing the issue means creating greater controls around who can post on their site. A pregnant woman who is on drugs is harming her unborn child. Any rational human being would agree that something like that should be reported to child protective services. Instead, Backpage continued to run her ads, over and over again. Maybe that is legal, but it’s still wrong.
I think it's interesting that the majority of your audience is anonymous. One of your anonymous readers even disclosed that they were a pedophile and people should go easy on him because he was in treatment. That's like an alcoholic who has killed innocent people in a drunk driving accident asking a judge for forgiveness because he is in treatment. People should be accountable for their actions. End of story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Research
I know that you feel like something needs to be done "for the children", but it is not ethical to expect one group to be harmed for the benefit of another group. If you figure out how group A(that is being harmed) can be assisted without group B(your target, and the group that would be harmed if group A is helped, without thought for group B) being damaged, then I am ready to hear it. The fact is that YOU have no damned clue what you are talking about.
You can take it from ex-law enforcement(me), you really have no clue .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Prepare to be disappointed...
The father had to pay Westboro Baptist "Church's" legal bills(http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-30/justice/westboro.baptist.snyder_1_military-funerals-albert- snyder-westboro-baptist-church?_s=PM:CRIME), which is an extreme travesty and totally legal. Perhaps the father can get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this and overturn his loss(though that is questionable), but he is going to have to pay the freaks that were violating the privacy and dignity of this father(and the Marine's other family), who was trying to grieve the lose of his loved one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Case in point: AT&T constantly has complaints about their network. Slow was my word for it. But after realizing that the entire 7th floor of the At&T building in New York has been given over to a Homeland Security listening post. All AT&T traffic gets monitored. Think that slows it down? I guarantee it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Prepare to be disappointed...
And in the specific case you brought up I don't really see a problem the guy lost, he got emotional and thought he could bully others into silence and got owned, it is tragic, I find it in bad taste what the Westboro Baptist church does and they be not the best example of what free speech protects but it is free speech none the less.
Also other controversial things that I don't like but I will defend the right of those people to talk about are, white supremacy and groups that advocate that underage sex should not be a crime when it involves a legal adult, those are just to loaded areas where free speech applies and yet have little social support for it at the moment.
Is up to every citizen to decide if they should agree or not and discriminate accordingly, but to try and shut other up because you don't like what they say is not only wrong is dangerous one day you will be the one saying something others don't like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Research
Here is what is right.
Life is difficult already without trying to create more liabilities for other people, should we punish witness who refuse to testify? should we go after everyone who run away from a bar fight and didn't try to stop it? should we punish and hold people accountable for witnessing robbery? Should we hold every manufacture to be responsible for what others do with their products?, which reminds me about your misleading BP comment, BP is being held accountable not for third party actions but for their own actions that lead to a disaster.
I hope your work is never ever used by and outlaw because by your own standards you have should known better and do something about it, which I know it is impossible.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Research
What you are doing is bugging a service provider to do what you want, what they do is not wrong, but you keep trying to say they are somehow responsible when they are not and couldn't possibly be even if they wanted too.
Ultimately people like you feed unscrupulous AG's that want something from it and will exploit that to gain something, which will lead to a closure of those things and serve no purposes, what you are doing is in fact alerting bad people that they are being watched and should try harder and harder they will try and get better until people like you can't do anything about it, you in fact are their best friends, you are teaching them how to evade the system and making it very clear on how to do so, you don't want controls you want those things to end and don't care what it takes to do it, you are the real menace to society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Research
However, in the real world, filtering through thousands (millions in case of google) of requests/uploads/posts and decide what is legal and what is not is just impossible. Impossible because of the volume and because, sometimes, it is not absolutely clear when something is legal or not. Just scroll up and try to solve the 100 torrents problem if you disagree.
This is why websites cannot be liable for the activities of their users. HOWEVER, websites and their users must assist law enforcement entities when requested. They also have the duty to report illegal activities. If they do not, I agree that they should be slapped around HARD.
One final thing: most of us are anonymous because the site gives us that freedom. Are you questioning our RIGHT to remain anonymous?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Research
You say people should be held accountable for their actions, and yet you think the the service provider should be the judge? Seriously?!?
PEOPLE, the ones who are actually producing and providing the illegal content should be held accountable, but not the service provider. If Backpage had been made aware of the material and then did nothing, that would be a different story, but you cannot realistically expect a service provider to audit everything that comes across their pipes. If you do, then you also believe that all phone conversations, emails, txts, SMS, snail mail, UPS, smoke signals, etc...should be monitored for "wrong" (your word) conversations.
You say people should do the right thing, and I don't disagree with that notion, but it's not realistic. Your opinion of right/wrong and mine are probably different. We may agree on some things, but certainly not all. That's precisely why we have a legal system in this country, to define the community standards for what activities are allowed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Research
You should do some more research.
Again, you just focus on what is law. What about what is right? Do people have the obligation to do the right thing?
I *am* focusing on what is right.
I�ve never said Backpage should close their site. I, along with other interested parties, have been asking for Backpage to address the issue. Addressing the issue means creating greater controls around who can post on their site. A pregnant woman who is on drugs is harming her unborn child. Any rational human being would agree that something like that should be reported to child protective services. Instead, Backpage continued to run her ads, over and over again. Maybe that is legal, but it�s still wrong.
You are still missing the point, as nearly everyone else here is trying to explain to you:
HOW can Backpage reasonably know that it's a pregnant woman who is on drugs? Answer that simple question and we can move forward. You keep assuming that Backpage has some magical way of knowing who's posting and what they're posting -- and being able to make a snap judgment on what's right and what's not right.
I think it's interesting that the majority of your audience is anonymous. One of your anonymous readers even disclosed that they were a pedophile and people should go easy on him because he was in treatment.
I'm sorry, but I must have missed that. Where was that comment made?
The fact that people are anonymous on the site is meaningless. They are free to post that way if they would like. Most of the responses have pointed out the problems in your reasoning, and you have not chosen to respond to any of them, but instead resort to calls to emotion.
Again: no one is saying that what is happening is "right" on these sites. What we're saying is that you're BLAMING THE WRONG PARTY and in doing so, making it HARDER to actually reach the people who are ACTUALLY responsible.
I'm having a hard time figuring out why you can't separate these issues and continue to blame the wrong party.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the problem with backpage and DCMA
At least prior to the AG's making Craigslist take cash for the ads, Craigslist had no no prior involvement with the add prior to posting. With backpage that has never been true.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
re: Research
"State AGs Now Targeting Backpage After Forcing Craigslist To Stop Helping Them Pursue Lawbreakers" pretty much confirms what I was originally told. You are more interested in getting people riled up than having a serious discussion about human trafficking.
The woman who was 7 months pregnant and frantically posting ads could barely keep her eyes open. So, she was either really sleepy or high on drugs.
Why don't I respond to the anonymous comments here? Because I think they are all pretty silly. I'm a bonehead who is trying to destroy "web 2.0 communities." I'm 12...yet I'm a frumpish prude. Homeland security efforts are bad because they interfere with AT&T. The KKK has a right to free speech. Yeah, I guess when you remain anonymous it gives you the power to say some pretty silly stuff and mouth off to someone who you wouldn't mouth off to in person.
I'll respond to "In a perfect world, we would have a machine that would be able to filter everything anyone does on the internet in search for illegal activities."
Well I guess we live in a perfect world because Microsoft has created software that scans for child porn. But who cares about actually solving the problem. It's so much more fun to create headlines that get people riled up.
I can go on and on about sites like Eros Guide that take pride in controlling the content on their site to ensure that people are not being exploited. Oh, but again, how boring.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: re: Research
Fair enough, but if you are not willing to do the research, it does seem rather unfortunate that you demanded the same of me before "opening my mouth," doesn't it?
I'm just pointing out that your attack on me was uncalled for.
"State AGs Now Targeting Backpage After Forcing Craigslist To Stop Helping Them Pursue Lawbreakers" pretty much confirms what I was originally told. You are more interested in getting people riled up than having a serious discussion about human trafficking.
Lili, I have no interest in "getting people riled up." If I wanted to do that, I'd post about Hollywood celebrities or whatever actually gets traffic. Trust me, tech policy questions about state attorneys general decision is not exactly scintillating traffic-generating content.
My posts are very much about points that I think re important -- including the fact that I find human trafficking a horrible, horrible thing, for which something needs to be done. As I wrote (I thought clearly, so I don't understand your protests) is that what the AGs are doing is MAKING THE PROBLEM WORSE. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this? You still can't separate the fact that shutting down the tools that are HELPING LAW ENFORCEMENT makes it that much more difficult for law enforcement to stop these sickening activities. What you are supporting will MAKE HUMAN TRAFFICKING WORSE.
Why don't I respond to the anonymous comments here? Because I think they are all pretty silly.
Some anonymous comments some are silly. Condemning them all for being anonymous is like condemning websites for the actions of a few of their users... oh wait. I see a pattern.
The woman who was 7 months pregnant and frantically posting ads could barely keep her eyes open. So, she was either really sleepy or high on drugs.
?? I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. You say this as if it's relevant to the discussion. It's not. The point is that Backpage does not review each post and has no reasonable way of determining the legality of each and every post unless someone calls attention to them. So if you see a post with a pregnant woman, alert Backpage, but stop complaining that Backpage didn't magically find it.
Well I guess we live in a perfect world because Microsoft has created software that scans for child porn. But who cares about actually solving the problem. It's so much more fun to create headlines that get people riled up.
That's not what the commenter said. For someone who keeps insisting you want a "serious discussion" on the topic, it's about time for you to actually LEARN something about these issues.
There are some filters out there, but they don't work well. That's the point. You can't figure all of this out with an algorithm. You can't have people making a legal determination on every post. The way to deal with it is to have law enforcement work with these sites to identify those who are breaking the law. Not send them elsewhere.
I can go on and on about sites like Eros Guide that take pride in controlling the content on their site to ensure that people are not being exploited. Oh, but again, how boring.
You're still not responding to the actual issue.
This has been extremely frustrating. You have not responded to any of the legitimate points people raised. You instead just make emotional pleas that are blatantly wrong. Seriously. Stop and LEARN. You are making the problem worse with your misunderstanding of the issues. It's a serious issue and I *beg* you to stop making it worse.
Seriously. Respond to a simple question:
How does blocking these sites, rather than going after the actual people responsible make anything better?
Simple question. Please provide a simple answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
re: Research
Aug 8th, 2010 @ 10:23pm
Political Campaign Against Craigslist Ratchets Up
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100806/11433810530.shtml#c378
Aug 10th, 2010 @ 12:11pm
Media Campaign Against Craigslist Continues, As WaPo Writes Article About Its Own Anti-Craigslist Advertiser
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100809/00092510542.shtml#c346
You never responded to either of these comments. I was told by someone that I was wasting my time trying to get you to do homework on the human rights aspect. They said that this is your hobby and you’re not trying to be an investigative journalist. I gave you the opportunity to state your role. And really even if you don’t call yourself a journalist, I would think you would try to understand such a sensitive issue like youth sex trafficking. This led to my question to you…
Sep 20th, 2010 @ 8:20pm
Former Child Prostitute Sues Village Voice For 'Aiding & Abetting' Via Sex Ads
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100919/02104911071/former-child-prostitute-sues-village-voic e-for-aiding-abetting-via-sex-ads.shtml#c107
Now you ask me “How can Backpage reasonably know that it's a pregnant woman who is on drugs?”
I respond with:
“The woman who was 7 months pregnant and frantically posting ads could barely keep her eyes open. So, she was either really sleepy or high on drugs.”
You respond with:
“?? I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. You say this as if it's relevant to the discussion. It's not.”
You ask: “How does blocking these sites, rather than going after the actual people responsible make anything better?”
I have never advocated “blocking these sites.” I applaud sites like Eros that are taking proactive actions to ensure people are not being exploited. I don’t think adult entertainment ads should be posted on community websites like Backpage or Craigslist, unless they are going to monitor them. If they don’t want to monitor them (like Eros does) then take them down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: re: Research
It appeared that you were asking rhetorical questions in both of those links, and neither asked me to understand an issue I wasn't already quite familiar with.
I was told by someone that I was wasting my time trying to get you to do homework on the human rights aspect. They said that this is your hobby and youre not trying to be an investigative journalist. I gave you the opportunity to state your role. And really even if you dont call yourself a journalist, I would think you would try to understand such a sensitive issue like youth sex trafficking.
This is not my hobby, but I am not an investigative journalist. But I have no problem researching something. I do it all the time, as should be evident from what I write. My problem was that I had researched the matter, and you falsely accused me of not having done so, without pointing out a single fact that I got wrong.
As for the situation with the pregnant woman, you are (yet again) missing the point, which is why this discussion has become so incredibly frustrating. You point out that her picture gives her away, but you are assuming that someone is sitting there at Backpages reviewing every picture that goes up. That's the point that we keep making. No one is able to pre-review every bit of content that goes up on a tool like Craigslist or Backpages and it's wrong and silly to assume that they do.
You still don't seem to get that simple point.
I dont think adult entertainment ads should be posted on community websites like Backpage or Craigslist, unless they are going to monitor them. If they dont want to monitor them (like Eros does) then take them down.
Again, you avoid the key point. Even if they are being monitored (which, at CL, they were), you can't get it right all of the time. And, either way, it'll just drive the content to other areas where it's not monitored.
You're living in a fantasy world. In a perfect world, there would be some way to catch all of these types of ads automatically. But that doesn't exist. So what's the next best thing? Having the companies that have these ads work closely with law enforcement to actually catch those responsible *WHEN* the questionable ads are *brought to their attention*.
What's the *worst* solution? Shutting down the companies that do work with law enforcement or setting them up on some ridiculously IMPOSSIBLE monitoring standard, that makes sure the content will go to other sites where law enforcement is not helped, and the only people who are helped are those involved in the trafficking.
This is a really serious matter, and your position is making human trafficking WORSE. Please, for the sake of what you claim to believe in, stop doing what you're doing. You're making things worse. You're doing harm to the people you think you're helping. Please stop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Research
Sorry, but that's exactly what you are advocating by trying to make service providers liable for every single thing every single user does with their service.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
re: Research
Yes, the solution is to monitor sites the way that Eros guide does. You can choose to disagree with me. But the facts speak for themselves. Eros has never had a problem with exploitation, but Craigslist has.
I have way too much work to do to continue this conversation. Total waste of time. You continue to tell me I don't get it. Well, I think you don't get it. Let's leave it at that.
Please go after Rackspace for violating Dove World Outreach Center's freedom of speech. I think you've spent enough time on Craigslist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: re: Research
Addressing me by name does not change the fact that the questions asked were clearly rhetorical.
Yes, the solution is to monitor sites the way that Eros guide does. You can choose to disagree with me. But the facts speak for themselves. Eros has never had a problem with exploitation, but Craigslist has.
Yes, the facts speak for themselves. It's not "Craigslist" that "has a problem." It's the PEOPLE EXPLOITING AND TRAFFICKING other humans. Why do you not see this? Why do you try to protect the human traffickers by making sure that it's HARDER for law enforcement to track and capture them?
I have way too much work to do to continue this conversation. Total waste of time. You continue to tell me I don't get it. Well, I think you don't get it. Let's leave it at that.
It's not that you don't get it. It's that you don't even seem to realize what's being discussed. Lili, this is *serious* and I really want you to rethink your position, because focusing on the service providers who are HELPING police only serves to make the problem worse.
Please go after Rackspace for violating Dove World Outreach Center's freedom of speech. I think you've spent enough time on Craigslist.
Huh? A company cannot violate someone's freedom of speech, but I'm unfamiliar with the situation you are discussing.
And, I will decide when I've "spent enough time" on a topic. It seems to me that I have not, when folks like yourself are still fighting the wrong fight.
Once again, I beg you to educate yourself on this issue, so that you do not help the side that is making the problem worse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How was the pimp found?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: re: Research
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: re: Research
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: re: Research
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: re: Research
If that's your principle, that anything related to sex should be segregated and monitored, then let's discuss its consequences and how it applies to other service providers.
One consequence may be that by agreeing or stating that they are monitoring anything, they risk admitting liability for both anything they let through that they shouldn't (negligence) and anything they block that they shouldn't (discrimination).
Your principle should surely apply equally across all providers offering services related to sex that may be used illicitly in some way:
Dating services.
Chat services.
Anything facilitating the selling of 'sex accessories'.
Common carriers (postal service, telephone service).
Adult forums.
I'm sure there are many more I haven't thought of. How will non commercial entities adhere to the principle? Your principle is pretty pointless if all people have to do is set up a non profit service that imitates Craiglist. Who will pay for monitoring non commercial services? If you only apply it to commercial services, then what is the point?
[ link to this | view in thread ]