Backpage Tells Attorneys General That They Won't Give In To Censorship Demand
from the good-for-them dept
On Tuesday, we wrote about how a group of grandstanding state attorneys general had moved on from blaming Craigslist for the actions of its users, now that they had successfully censored that site, and began demanding similar censorship for Backpage.com, the online classifieds from Village Voice Media. As a few people have sent in, Backpage does not seem interested in backing down, posting a public response and pointing out that they are operating perfectly in accordance with the law, that even the AGs admit that Backpage cooperates with law enforcement, and that the AGs would be better served going after those actually involved in the activities, rather than blaming third parties:While no system is perfect, even the AGs acknowledge Backpage.com's good-faith cooperation with law enforcement.They also note: "Censorship will not create public safety nor will it rid the world of exploitation."
In the last two years, Backpage.com users have posted 58 million ads and only 6 million in the adult services section. Federal and state authorities have called on Backpage.com to testify in just five cases involving alleged abuse of underage persons. Backpage.com continues to respond to valid subpoenas from law enforcement officials whose job it is to investigate, apprehend and prosecute criminals who wrongfully post illegal ads and victimize others.
Backpage.com is disappointed that the AGs have determined to shift blame from criminal predators to a legal business operator in an apparent attempt to capitalize on political opportunity during the election season.
Of course, rather than recognizing any of this and maybe backing down, Connecticut Attorney General (and Senate candidate) Richard Blumenthal responded in typically misleading fashion:
"I am deeply disappointed by this unfortunate and unfounded resistance to taking common-sense steps toward protecting women and children. I am hopeful that the company will reconsider its resistance and do the right thing. I will consult with my fellow attorneys general and consider possible next steps."Notice that he does not respond to any of the actual points raised. He does not respond to the fact that shutting down these services won't do anything to help protect women and children and will almost certainly make the problem worse. He just pretends that the world is the exact opposite of what it is. It's as if Richard Blumenthal thinks that everyone out there is incredibly dumb and believes the world works as he says it does, rather than how it actually works.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: backpage, classifieds, grandstanding, legality, richard blumenthal
Companies: backpage, village voice
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Bah...
"In 2007, Hans Bader, Counsel for Special Projects of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (a libertarian think-tank) ranked Blumenthal as "the nation's worst state attorney general", based on "a set of explicit criteria — such as encroachment on the powers of other branches of government, meddling in the affairs of other states or federal agencies, encouragement of judicial activism and frivolous lawsuits, favoritism towards campaign contributors, ethical breaches, and failure to provide representation to state agencies or to provide legal advice.""
He's noted for being heavily involved in the completely useless 1998 Tobacco settlements as well.
He also claimed to have served in Vietnam, while the actual evidence shows that he "got at least five deferments that kept him out of the war". (via CBS News)
He also has claimed several times that he has never taken PAC money for his campaigns, when the evidence shows " that he has accepted $480,000 in political action committee money since he made that claim in January. Moreover, his Republican opponent, former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon, points to nearly $17,000 Blumenthal received as a state legislative candidate in the 1980s — a figure Blumenthal’s campaign does not dispute." (via Associated Press)
In other words, he's a liar, a grandstander, and a schemer. What else should we expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bah...
He must be doing something right, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bah...
In the current race, it's Blumenthal vs. Linda McMahon, noted executive of World Wrestling Entertainment.
The Terminator got elected governor of California. A porn star was running for office down south. We've had more Bush's and Clintons in various offices in this country during the last 20 years than I care to mention, and the fact that anyone named Rockefeller is still being elected makes me sick.
Sigh....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Bah...
Both Blumenthal and Linda McMahon were there in person, and after seeing them up close and hearing them talk, in my expert opinion, Linda McMahon is a much bigger douche than Blumenthal. Hopefully he'll realize that people don't vote for him because of his grandstanding, but simply because the Republican option is repulsive and unelectable.
Also, the biggest turnoff was the fact that McMahon and her campaign aids were practically forcing their campaign stickers on everyone who didn't want them, all while McMahon maintained her creepy smile.
Sorry for the slightly off topic post, but it just sucks to have someone like Blumenthal be the better option for a senator, a proportional representation system like in many EU countries would be nice to eliminate the two party block.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bah...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and just like that...
smart move for backpage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HELP!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: HELP!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Close enough
Not everyone, just the journalists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Close enough
Sadly, he might be right on both counts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assuming that the "bad stuff" only happens in the adult section, I'd like to see someone explaining me how can you filter through 6 million ads and (reliably) identify the "bad stuff". Can't be done, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My only fear is that there are slightly more intelligent pimps out there posting coded messages in other sections. How do I know that the futon I'm thinking of buying isn't *really* advertising prostitution?? That's why I'm definitely on board with shutting down sites like these all together. It's good for the newspapers, too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The problem still exists and actually got worse, but at least _you_ can't see it anymore. Bet that makes you feel safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, here we are. This is awkward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What we should do is seek out those committing these atrocities, not wasting our energies attacking the tools they use.
A tool is a tool. A hammer can be used to build a house, the same way it can be used to kill a man.
What you suggest is banning the use of hammers instead of arresting murderers. The end result is that murderers just switch to screwdrivers to do their murdering and you have to start all over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speak truth to power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Speak truth to power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unfounded resistance
unfounded resistance. Say it again, unfounded resistance.
unfounded resistance = crazy
common-sense steps toward protecting = Allow us to trample the pesky Constitution.
I am hopeful that the company will reconsider its resistance = I hope they come to their senses, because they are crazy.
I will consult with my fellow attorneys general and consider possible next steps= We know there is nothing legally we can do, so we will find something else.
I am surprised he didn't pull out the "radical" A-bomb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But how...
I don't think most voters are smart enough to understand this argument. How could anyone effectively convey to them that the AG's grandstanding is actually hurting the people he's claiming to protect without coming across as a kiddie-porn-loving pervert?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But how...
Yes, it is a lie. What he is doing will have that effect, but it is not his intention, or at least we hope so. But it is as big a lie as the one they would use. Neither side actually wants to protect the molesters, or at least we hope so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But how...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: But how...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: But how...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meet him face to face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb people...
But people *ARE* dumb. There are many, many people out there that don't know how legitimate and constructive debate works, and they are guided solely by how they FEEEEEL about something. You only have to play to their emotions to get action, which is something Blumenthal does well.
Most people don't want constructive debate. They want to feel good about themselves and they want to feel like someone is taking action. They want to feel like someone has stood up and said something for them. And Blumenthal does. He says plenty. He just doesn't address the facts. But that doesn't matter to most people. As long as they feel good and righteous, everything's okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb people...
The same BS that they are trying to use to demonize the former was tried with the latter, and it was exposed as a bunch of LIES over a period of years.
The anti-pedosexuals and anti-prostitutes are NOT trying to protect children and prostitutes. If they wanted to do that, they would bring pedosexuality and prostitution out into the open and legalize them, instead of forcing them into the darkness where people can be impaled with a sword and no one will ever know.
99% of the problems with those two things can be DIRECTLY linked to trying to keep children IGNORANT (not innocent, there is no such thing) of sex and keeping prostitution illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dumb people...
Just to clarify, I would presume that you mean legalise the attraction to children (which is currently considered an offence in itself), rather than anything physical. Although I can see an argument for looking at the whole age of consent thing too. You have to marvel when the age of consent in the UK is lower than in the land of liberty. At least they have their guns..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have to simplify
blaming Backpage.com for a sex ad involving children would be like blaming ford for someone driving drunk in one of their cars. Lets say the result of the DUI is the death of a small family including children. Would you go after the guy driving drunk or Ford?
Now yes, A few people out there that would say Ford should put breathalyzers in all their cars to prevent this, but this is where the "lets be realistic" argument comes in. There has to be a line where people are held accountable for their actions. Companies are not the police nor do I want them to be.
So to stop this BS from these guys, these companies need to run ad campaigns that say things like "would you blame Ford for a DUI accent"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You have to simplify
What? My God, NO! This is America, how dare you want to hold people accountable for their own actions. This is the land of the frivolous lawsuit and sleazy defense lawyer, where nobody has to be responsible for anything, because there is always someone else to blame.
After all when kids commit heinous crimes, who is responsible? The makers of every video game they've ever played, of course. This is the place you want to be when you want to argue at a murder trial that you should be found not guilty of killing your wife because you were under the influence of caffeine at the time. This is the land where a convicted thief can sue whomever he robbed after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free speech and human rights.
In the last two years, Backpage.com users have posted 58 million ads and only 6 million in the adult services section.
So great, to put it another way, over 10% of our total revinue is from 'adult services' what OVER 3 MILLION ADDS PER YEAR..
No bad scratch, for a super-PIMP.
Ofcourse it aiding and abetting crime, its inciting crime (therefore not protected by first amendment). Its clearly illegal.
But backpage makes squillions of dollars from it, and that is why they dont want to stop it..
Maybe Backpage should get a new PR guy, making statements like the above is really stupid.
basically stating that 3 million adds per year are for these 'services' shows that its a huge money spinner.
And with that many adds, how does that explain how it is easier to find and convict those crims who break the law and advertise. Its not happening now, and they are advertising NOW.
So claiming that taking the adds offline will stop law enforcement is a joke.
Allowing crimes to be commited with your knowledge is aiding crime, and inciting crime.
You dont open all the safes in a bank and fire all the security guards so its easier for a bank robber to rob, (and therefore easier to find them).
You stop the crime before it occures, and a part of that is making it illegal to commit that crime, and illigal to promote, incite or aid the committing of a crime.
Its a nasty and higly egocentric look to consider your free speech rights are a justification for allowing crimes to be committed, promoted, and partially justified.
The only people who would want to fight hard for this cause are those that take advantage of those services, or who profit from it..
And you really dont want to be in that camp, trying to justify what is essentially a human rights issue.
So your 'free speech' trumps the people forced into prostitution's human rights.. Nice attitude mike.... !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech and human rights.
Or those who understand the issue. Please Darryl, stop embarrassing yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech and human rights.
The AGs HAVE ALREADY STATED that Backpage.com co-operates fully. Repeatedly. So why now, are they going after it when it already co-operates? it discouragtes further co-operation, and I've e-mailed the Connecticut AG office to explain why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abetting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
backpage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]