Judge Tosses Charges Against Backpage Execs, Tells Kamala Harris To Take It Up With Congress
from the SENATOR-KAMALA-HARRIS...-thanks-2016 dept
California judge Michael Bowman hinted -- with a tentative ruling issued last month -- that he didn't think much of Attorney General (now US Senator)[ ಠ_ಠ ] Kamala Harris' grandstanding, misguided, First Amendment-damaging attempt to prosecute Backpage executives for pimping.
Not only did Harris pretend Section 230 immunization didn't exist, she actively fought to have the executives prosecuted for the actions of others. The twisted legal rationale deployed by Harris didn't win over Judge Bowman, who noted Backpage had, at best, republished third-party content. If Harris wanted site owners to be punished for third-party content, she would have to ask the nation's legislators to fix it.
As stated above, Congress stuck a balance in favor of free speech in that Congress did not wish to hold liable online publishers for the action of publishing third party speech and thus provided for both a foreclosure from prosecution and an affirmative defense at trial. Congress has spoken on this matter and it is for Congress, not this Court, to revisit.
[Once again, Kamala Harris is NOW A US SENATOR.]
The judge rolled back a little of his pre-judgment, asking the state of California for more input before making his final decision. Harris' office took this opportunity to dump another 70+ pages of "damning" evidence into the judge's lap -- mostly internal emails that detailed how Backpage handled the aggregation of third-party content at two affiliated sites.
This wasn't persuasive. Judge Bowman stands by his original decision, leaving the above paragraph intact except for added emphasis on the last sentence. The court isn't here to fix legislation Kamala Harris doesn't like. That's up to Congress, an entity Kamala Harris is now unfortunately a part of.
The decision [PDF] reiterates Bowman's points: that what Harris is seeking to prosecute is actually protected by Section 230 immunity.
After considering the state's new evidence, Bowman concluded in a December 9 decision that "defendants have, at most, republished material that was created by a third party." The judge pointed out that California's declaration in support of the defendants' arrest warrant even stated that EvilEmpire.com ads were "essentially identical" to their Backpage.com counterparts. "This demonstrates republication, not content creation," and "republication is entitled to immunity under the CDA," wrote Bowman.
Judge Bowman did take a little time to call out Harris' disingenuous prosecutorial claims, focusing on the state's assertion, that moderation which removed illegal content was somehow an illegal act.
Assuming that the People's assertion is true; that the ad went from expressing intent to advertise prostitution to express a desire to 'date,' the People are essentially complaining that Backpage staff scrubbed the original ad, removing any hint of illegality. If this was the alleged content 'manipulation,' the content was modified from being illegal to legal. Surely the AG is not seeking to hold Defendants liable for posting a legal ad; this behavior is exactly the type of 'good Samaritan' behavior that the CDA encourages through the grant of immunity.
With that, the criminal charges against the Backpage executives have been vacated and their bond nullified. And the court helpfully reaffirms Section 230 protections at a time where they've been under increasing attack in California courtrooms.
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: congress, free speech, kamala harris, section 230
Companies: backpage
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: enforce their morals on society
Society has to be moral. But morality must not be based on religion. It has to come from our common humanity, not from some partisan doctrinaire ideology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There should be a law that prosecutors can't run for public office until at least 5 years after leaving the attorney general's and district attorney's office.
We could call it the Giuliani rule, or the Giuliani-Christie rule, or the Giuliani-Christie-Harris rule. I'm sure there are other good names; those are just some that come to mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now to counter-sue for violation of rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now to counter-sue for violation of rights
How will you convince John/Jane Dumb Public to recall an elected leader who is proven tough on human trafficking and prostitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now to counter-sue for violation of rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Granted, there's all sorts of ways this sort of system could be abused for profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Which means the grandstanding worked. At the expense of taxpaying money, results being charges tossed don't matter. That was the point from the beginning, no? Humans being humans ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To be fair to the electorate, the election had poor choices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To be fair to the electorate, the election had poor choices
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As an AG she is expected to know the law & to brazenly bring a merit-less cases for headlines, she doubled down on it.
We need to stop electing people based on soundbites & demand better coverage. The media was to scared to mention she was running afoul of federal law & perhaps this had more to do with her run for congress than protecting the citizens. Must be nice to demand the tax payers fund your own personal crusade to get votes given the issues they have with their budget already.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]