Federal Backpage Indictment Shows SESTA Unnecessary, Contains Zero Sex Trafficking Charges
from the all-about-the-sex-trafficking-except-when-it-isn't-really-about-that dept
Last Friday, the DOJ somehow managed to seize Backpage's websites, despite SESTA/FOSTA still lying on the president's desk waiting for a signature. The anti-Section 230 law, d/b/a an anti-sex trafficking statute, was declared a necessity by supporters -- the only thing able to pierce service provider immunity and somehow bring sex traffickers to justice by... [checks notes] arresting or fining tech company executives.
The indictment [PDF] behind the DOJ site seizures has finally been made public. It contains a wealth of details about Backpage's adult ads business and a plethora of charges (93) levelled at seven Backpage principals, including founders Michael Lacey and James Larkin.
What you won't find amongst the charges is anything about sex trafficking. Lacey is charged with 79 felonies, which include money laundering (which occurred after credit card companies were pressured into refusing to process Backpage ad payments), conspiracy, and 50 counts of Travel Act violations. Because Backpage processed adult ads for sex traffickers all over the nation, prosecutors are able to bring federal charges for state-level "facilitating prostitution" violations against Backpage execs under the theory these electronic transactions "crossed" state lines.
So, for all the handwringing about sex trafficking and "untouchable" tech execs, the DOJ has nailed a handful of execs and foregone any concerns about their apparent role in sex trafficking. What the indictment shows is Backpage allegedly facilitated a whole lot of consensual sex between paying customers and sex workers. The indictment also inadvertently shows how Backpage made things safer for sex workers.
In one internal email, LACEY actually bragged about the company's contributions to the prostitution industry: "Backpage is part of the solution. Eliminating adult advertising will in no way eliminate or even reduce the incidence of prostitution in this country… For the very first time, the oldest profession in the world has transparency, record keeping and safeguards."
To the government, this is a bad thing. To sex workers, it was a way to pre-screen customers and reduce their own risks. The government really doesn't care if sex workers are beaten, raped, or killed. It would rather force the oldest profession as far underground as possible and presumably let attrition cull the supply side. Meanwhile, it will busy itself with arresting the demand side, because that's the easiest way for it to rack up convictions. It quotes an affidavit from a Boston PD detective stating that "since 2010," the PD had arrested "over 100 buyers of sex of both adults and minors through Backpage.com ads." And this stops sex trafficking how? There's no mention of pimps being arrested despite the same detective making the sworn statement that "nearly all" cases associated with Backpage "involve pimp-controlled prostitution."
But that's about all the nice things I have to say about Backpage. The indictment contains details from internal documents showing ad moderators routinely stripped references to underage sex from ads so they could still allow the ads to run and presumably reach customers. They also show Backpage never implemented recommendations from NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) and researchers to better police ads for possible abuse of minors. The communications obtained by the government also show Backpage withheld info from NCMEC to keep its referrals to less than 500 a month. So, while it was referring plenty of stuff to the child exploitation clearinghouse, it was also holding stuff back so as not to appear to be a clearinghouse for child exploitation.
As for the efforts it made to strip ads of terms and pictures that might have given away the illegal nature of the acts being advertised, I'm less appalled. To be sure, this sort of facilitation is illegal. But the moderation efforts, in some cases, prevented illegal ads from being posted and only allowed those through that eliminated indications sex was being exchanged for money. The ads were likely legal post-moderation, but the acts being slyly advertised, not so much.
The bottom line appears to have been the main consideration -- not adherence to multiple statutes in the multiple states Backpage served customers. That leads to another fact routinely trumpeted by politicians and prosecutors: that the vast majority of Backpage's income came from "illegal" sex-for-sale ads. It's a fact but it's somewhat misleading. Sex ads were the only base service Backpage charged for. It was always going to make the most money from these ad sales. It's not because they were so much more profitable on their own. There's just nothing else to compare it to. Something that costs something is always going to generate more income than stuff given away for free.
On top of that, this ad section -- where Backpage made money -- was already killed by Backpage voluntarily. People selling and buying sex didn't just vanish, though. It migrated to other sections of the site, just like it did when Craigslist killed their adult services section off years ago. The market didn't disappear. It just became a little bit tougher to locate.
Whether you believe Backpage execs are scapegoats or pariahs, one thing is certain: legislators didn't need to tamper with Section 230 protections to make this happen. Plenty of existing statutes were available for prosecutors to wield against the website and its founders. And for all the talk of sex trafficking over the weekend, there's not a single charge related to sex trafficking in the long list being presented to a federal judge.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just like Al Capone
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alternate interpretation
"See? They couldn't bring any sex-trafficking charges against Backpage! This proves that we need SESTA, so that we can hold these people to account for their role in sex trafficking!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
prostitution vs. art
Thus, privacy factors aside, It would be easy to legalize prostitution just by recording the event -- at least in theory.
Though somehow that "camera = art" theory apparently didn't work for this legal eagle:
vhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5588923/Lawyer-cries-sentenced-80-years-prison-forcin g-clients-sex.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: prostitution vs. art
(Of course, that would just bring up the question of someone who's enough of a voyeurism fetishist to pay other people to have sex with each other just so he(?) can watch without participating, but I imagine there would be caveats in the law to account for that.)
I do recall reading something a while back whose gist was that people had tried to put a veneer of legality over prostitution exactly by using the "see, a camera! we're making porn!" defense, and it didn't work out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
so about President Trump....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just like Al Capone
Those in power will always seek to solidify it and add to it so they can remain in power.
Many people will also give them that power under the guise of receiving protection. The classic life cycle of government for human history. Tell people you will protect them if they let you be the boss... and they lay right down for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Question
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Oddly enough…
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Question
That seems like an unlikely tack, though. Plaintiffs won't just argue against the ex post facto provision, they'll also argue that it violates the First Amendment. That argument could be successful in getting the entire law thrown out, though that's a much bigger "if".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: prostitution vs. art
I'm not sure the paying part is forbidden from participating. I can't recall any specific case but I have the impression there are producers that take part in their productions. I'd guess it's something that's going to be filmed and commercialized or exposed some way. But I could be wrong because I have no clue about regulations on the porn industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, CDA UnConstitutional exempting certain corps from liability.
FOSTA REMOVES THAT EXEMPTION. It's fully Constitutional -- even if the alleged "ex post facto" parts were applied, because those actions were criminal before. Removing the exemption is not onerous new law, it's making all corps in the area of Publishing equal AS BEFORE. -- Actually, there's still too much exemption left, but that just points up how FOSTA is NOT a big deal.
But Techdirt favors the surveillance / advertising corporations which benefitted from CDA so had no responsibility or liability. -- Indeed, Techdirt is "supported" by Google, just take the Copia link to see why Techdirt keeps running this whining about law which passed with 94%. Doesn't even bother Techdirt to be in the 6% that appear in favor of prostitution, especially of slaves and children.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jury Nullifcation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No, CDA UnConstitutional exempting certain corps from liability.
"It's fully Constitutional"
No, it isn't. The ex facto provision makes it unconstitutional.
"it's making all corps in the area of Publishing equal AS BEFORE"
They were never equal. It's just that in the beginning the volume of user generated content was much lower and could be dealt with.
"But Techdirt favors the surveillance"
You are the one favoring surveillance and control because this will actually screw the users and concentrate the power on the few players that have the pockets to bear the burden of this shitty law.
"Doesn't even bother Techdirt to be in the 6% that appear in favor of prostitution, especially of slaves and children."
Ever heard of defamation? Or do you have evidence of what you are saying? Because I think you are in the 23%* that couldn't care less about children or sex traffic victims as long as your own ego is massaged enough.
*64,3% of all percentages are made on the fly by the way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Alternate interpretation
They're already trying to fool plebs into thinking SESTA enabled them to do this to Backpage, not the pre-SESTA laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No, CDA UnConstitutional exempting certain corps from liability.
With paper publishing, an editor decides what will be published, right down to letters to the editor and adverts. Do you really want to silence yourself by forcing that level of control on the Internet. All that CDA 230 says is the the user is responsible for what they publish, and moderation of a site does not make the site resposible for user posts. if you make the site owner responsible for user posts, you force them into becoming editors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I have in the past said that nobody had presented any credible reason to believe that Backpage actually contributed to creating prostitution-related content, and in fact mentioned that the last "Backpage indictment" had clearly failed to allege that. The most I'd seen anybody willing to specifically claim was that Backpage had automatically bounced ads with specific keywords and perhaps told the users why.
For the record, I appear to have been wrong. This indictment has a bunch of very detailed, presumably verifiable allegations of very specific activity that clearly amounted to Backpage editing content, including giving specific, detailed instructions on what to change as well as manually modifying the text of many ads.
That's a different kettle of fish. Whatever you think about whether prostitution or advertising for it should be legal, if what's claimed in this indictment is true, then Backpage was participating directly. And (out here in the court of public opinion) there's no reason to disbelieve such detailed claims, since it's not credible that anybody would make such claims if they didn't think they had evidence that would hold up at trial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Californa "Pandering" affair
After a law incriminating pandering was interpreted by ambitious attorneys to go after pornographers, we had a lengthy trial (which bankrupted one porn mogul) but ended in recognition of the First Amendment right to produce porn. California now has rulings specifying that porn production is legal in the state. And it is lawful to pay the talent to fuck each other.
I don't know the specifics of the laws, whether a camera makes paid sex legal. A later provision requires permanent records of shooting sessions, voted in to slow further porn production. It didn't.
I do know that in California, making porn is officially and expressly legal, and the redder parts of the state (quite a lot of it actually) have to suffer the perpetual shame that porn is legal in California, and that consequently California is the porn capital of the world.
Since then, in other states where porn is still in a gray zone, legislators and attorneys have learned to look the other way. No one else wants porn to be expressly legal in their state, and if porn production is challenged the first amendment is sure to rear its ugly head again, and then that state would have to wear the same badge of shame.
So for now a lot of sleeping dogs are being left to lie.
In the meantime, obscene pornography (your definition of obscene may vary) including obscene texts on your phone can be grounds for arrest and asset forfeiture. Remember that law enforcement officers do not have to know the laws they're enforcing, and pretty much just decide whether or not you're adequate grist for the prison system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why so many supporters for SESTA?
Ever wonder how many SESTA-supporting politicians will show up in Backpage records??? ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why so many supporters for SESTA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No it does not. The creator of the content is held responsible, like always.
I think what trips you up about this is that you consider internet platforms that provide user content the same as traditional publishers, like newspapers. In reality they are more like Zerox machines, making copies available of someone else's content. We don't hold Zerox liable when someone makes a copy of some text that defames someone, do we?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Oddly enough…
You will not make it up the ladder in a corrupt system by being honorable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Question
Otherwise they can rule that part be stricken down while leaving rest of the law in place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: prostitution vs. art
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And it is absolutely shocking that a company that uses the Internet as a conduit for its business would make payments to Internet Service Providers. Pretty much proof of criminal activity right there. What's next? Charging folks with paying their electric bill?
[ link to this | view in thread ]