Feds Investigating Next Round Of Sites Accused Of Facilitating Sex Trafficking

from the whac-a-mole dept

The Wall Street Journal has a report about how both the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department are investigating three "massage and escort" sites accused of taking up where Backpage left off (that link is likely paywalled, but here's a Gizmodo summary of the same article). The article is interesting in that it explores how these three sites -- Rubmaps, Eros, and EroticMonkey -- are believed to be connected with one guy, David Azzato, who "was convicted in France in 2011 of profiting from prostitution through a European network of escort-ad sites." Azzato denies having anything to do with the sites, though the article highlights some evidence that at least suggests otherwise.

Either way, a few things struck me about the article. The first is the general futility of shutting down one or another such sites, because people move elsewhere:

“All three of those websites benefited substantially from the seizure of Backpage,” said Rob Spectre, ChildSafe.ai’s founder and chief executive.

In the article, it becomes quite clear that whoever is behind these sites -- whether it's Azzato or someone else entirely -- has zero interest in working with the US government to prevent trafficking. Contrast that with the recent reports that Backpage seemed to bend over backwards to work with the feds to prevent sex trafficking on the site. It raises a big question about what the actual goal is here.

Of course, part of the issue is the same one that comes up over and over again in these discussions: consensual sex work is not the same thing as sex trafficking. It's absolutely true that there can be overlap, but so much of this fight seems to break down along those lines. That was the point at which various reports suggest that Backpage's execs tried to draw the line. They were happy to help the feds stop actual traffickers -- but when some in the DOJ wanted to use Backpage to go after everyday consensual sex work, the execs said no.

And note that the Wall Street Journal piece seems to freely shift back and forth between prostitution and sex trafficking as if they're identical. That makes it difficult to have a serious conversation about the goals and tactics being used here. Generally speaking, people seem to use the language of sex trafficking to push for the attacks on these sites, but when it comes down to details, they're really just focused on prostitution.

A separate issue in the article is that it hints that the feds might go after American companies who provide services to the three sites in question (all of whom are based outside of the US):

It is true that website domains registered abroad may be outside the jurisdiction of U.S. law enforcement. But officials can request information from their U.S.-based technology providers and can seize those accounts through a court order, which could interrupt the websites’ operations. U.S. officials can also seek to prosecute individuals who own or run sites they allege are breaking U.S. laws.

Rubmaps, EroticMonkey and Eros all use San Francisco-based Cloudflare Inc., a web infrastructure and security company, according to domain records. Cloudflare didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Again, this seems like a pretty messed up way of going about all of this. Cloudflare is just providing some basic infrastructure and security services. If the feds think it makes sense to go after that company because some of its customers had illegal activities occurring on their websites, that opens up a whole bunch of serious questions about how deep the liability levels are supposed to go.

Filed Under: david azzato, dhs, doj, escorts, fosta, prostitution, sex trafficking
Companies: cloudflare

Inside Story On The War On Backpage Raises All Sorts Of Legal Questions

from the well-isn't-that-interesting dept

Recently Wired had a pretty amazing cover article on the inside story on the DOJ's legal war against Backpage that is superbly well-written and quite interesting. Wired found the perfect reporter for this in Christine Biederman, who was once a staff reporter at one of the many alt weeklies owned by Michael Lacey and James Larkin -- the two owners of Backpage who are still facing federal charges over the site -- as well as a former assistant US attorney at the DOJ. Biederman understands all of the issues here deeply and does a great job laying them all out. I highly recommend you set aside some time to read the whole article, which gives a great backgrounder on Lacey and Larkin, how they built up an alt-weekly empire, only to see it fizzle, while then building out Backpage as a massive success -- and who now face criminal charges that raise all sorts of legal questions.

For this post, however, I did want to focus on some of the legal issues. We've discussed Backpage a lot over the years, including questioning whether what it did was truly illegal. No one denies that the site was absolutely used for some fairly horrible things -- including sex trafficking. The questions, though, surround whether or not that's Backpage's responsibility -- and whether or not in shutting down the site, law enforcement actually shut down a useful tool in tracking down actual traffickers, making the trafficking problem worse. Biederman's piece also shows some of the moral panic around FOSTA, and raises questions about just how big the sex trafficking issue truly is and whether or not the government is abusing the civil asset forfeiture process to make it impossible for Lacey and Larkin to mount a defense. These are all topics that we've long covered on Techdirt.

Let's start, though, with the legal attacks on the site, which began not with Backpage, but with a moral panic about the advertising on Craigslist -- which was eventually pressured into shutting down its adult ads section (after FOSTA passed, Craigslist went even further and shut down its entire Personals section). Cook County, Illinois Sheriff Thomas Dart sued Craigslist in 2009, in a case that was tossed out just months later thanks to Section 230 of the CDA (Dart later was one of the most aggressive in going after Backpage). He's quoted in the Wired article making no sense at all:

In early 2009, Thomas Dart, the sheriff of Cook County, Illinois, sued Craigslist for facilitating prostitution. “Missing children, runaways, abused women, and women trafficked in from foreign countries are routinely forced to have sex with strangers because they’re being pimped on Craigslist,” he said. “I could make arrests off Craigslist 24 hours a day, but to what end? I’m trying to go up the ladder.”

But suing Craigslist (or Backpage) is not "going up the ladder" at all. It's burying the ladder and everything around it. Both Craigslist and Backpage were active in helping law enforcement track down actual sex traffickers who were using their site. Shutting down the platforms has only served to make it more difficult for law enforcement to track down traffickers, because they're now much harder to find. At the same time, the evidence shows that shutting down these sites has also resulted in an increase in murdered women.

The article also details how far Backpage went to actually be responsive to law enforcement's concerns and to help stop sex trafficking on the site:

On October 18, Backpage announced on its blog that it had retained Hemanshu Nigam, a former federal prosecutor who specialized in sex crimes and child abuse, to develop a “holistic” safety program. Nigam sat on the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and had done similar work for Myspace. In the months that followed, Nigam and his new clients met repeatedly with representatives from anti-trafficking organizations. They discussed changes to Backpage’s site architecture, moderation practices, and content policies. The organizations suggested, for instance, that users should be prevented from employing search terms such as “incest” or “Lolita,” since these might “indicate illegal activity.” Backpage moderators, meanwhile, should be on the lookout for “ads written from masculine perspective,” particularly if they employed the euphemism “new in town,” which “is often used by pimps who shuttle children to locations where they do not know anyone and cannot get help.”

By late January 2011, Backpage had implemented many of the recommendations: It had banned photographs with nudity, drawn up a list of “inappropriate terms,” beefed up its vetting process, and begun referring “ads containing possible minors” directly to Allen’s staff. Ferrer also worked closely with the authorities. According to a Justice Department memo from 2012, “unlike virtually every other website that is used for prostitution and sex trafficking, Backpage is remarkably responsive to law enforcement requests and often takes proactive steps to assist in investigations.” A later memo noted that “even Ernie Allen believed that Backpage was genuinely trying to rid its site of juvenile sex trafficking.”

However, as the article details, the more Backpage did, the more law enforcement demanded of them -- often pulling the exact same trick that many have pulled, conflating consensual sex work with sex trafficking.

And that actually turns out to be a big issue. Many people wondered why the feds "took so long" to go after Backpage, and it turns out that a big part of the reason is that there wasn't enough evidence of actual sex trafficking (a federal crime, which is not protected by Section 230) -- just prostitution, which is not a federal crime.

State Attorneys General weren’t the only prosecutors itching to get in on the action. The Feds were too, but they had a problem: They couldn’t identify a viable crime. Prostitution wasn’t a federal offense, and they didn’t seem to think they could make sex-trafficking charges stick. Back in 2011, the Justice Department had quietly opened a grand jury investigation into Backpage in Washington state; according to an internal memo, prosecutors interviewed more than a dozen witnesses and subpoenaed more than 100,000 documents but ultimately decided that “a successful criminal prosecution of Backpage is unlikely.” They thought about trying to make a case under the Travel Act but, as they noted, that theory “had never been litigated in a similar context.”

Instead... they went with another approach that we've talked about here a lot: civil asset forfeiture:

So they formulated another potential plan of attack. “Moving forward,” they wrote, the Justice Department should “take a hard look at bringing this case as a civil forfeiture case,” with its “lower standard of proof.” In this scenario, the government would seize a website operator’s assets and property, then force them to prove they weren’t implicated in criminal activity.

The government first tested this theory against a few smaller sites.

In June 2014 the Justice Department put this plan into action. It seized myRedBook and demanded that the site’s owner, Eric “Red” Omuro, forfeit $5 million in cash and property. The following summer, the Department of Homeland Security launched a similar raid against “the nation’s largest online male-escort service,” Rentboy, and its owner, Jeffrey Hurant.

At the time, we noted that these cases raised significant legal questions, because they seemed to go against Supreme Court precedent regarding the seizure of expressive materials. However, with the feds taking all their assets and threatening huge jail terms, you'll never guess what happened next:

Both men pleaded guilty to violations of the Travel Act in exchange for lighter sentences and lesser fines. The forfeiture approach seemed to be working.

So, even though these cases "raise all kinds of thorny constitutional questions," those questions never have a chance to get answered:

The asset freezes raise all kinds of thorny constitutional questions. Generally speaking, federal prosecutors are permitted to freeze a defendant’s assets based on probable cause alone, even before the defendant has a chance to challenge the government’s case in court. But regular forfeiture rules do not apply in cases involving forums for speech—newspapers, films, books, magazines, websites. The US Supreme Court has decreed that when the government seizes these expressive materials, or the proceeds derived from them, it must immediately hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the seizure is valid.

And that's also the approach the feds have taken against Backpage. But on steroids. The feds have designed it so that it has Larkin and Lacey fighting the case on two fronts: the asset seizures in one court, and the criminal charges in another:

But the Backpage defendants have a problem: So far, they can’t get a court to hear their claims. Since last summer, the Justice Department appears to have been playing a clever shell game. They’ve brought cases against the Backpage defendants in two federal districts—civil seizures in Los Angeles, criminal matters in Phoenix—and they’re making the defendants spend what money they have left chasing Uncle Sam from place to place. So far, judges in both districts have agreed with the government’s suggestion that they should defer to each other, effectively denying the defendants a forum to challenge the asset freezes. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear arguments in the case in July.

As a lawyer in the article notes, this appears to be the DOJ doing "an end run around the First Amendment."

Even if you think Larkin and Lacey are awful people (and the article is not at all sympathetic in its portrayal of the two men), if the First Amendment and due process matter to you, the details here also matter significantly.

Indeed, the article notes that using the Travel Act in combination with civil seizures and forfeiture seems to be an end run around Section 230:

Even if Fosta-Sesta is one day ruled unconstitutional, as many legal scholars expect, government officials have shown that they’re willing to subvert Section 230 in other ways. If Lacey and Larkin lose—if the asset seizures stand and the Travel Act charges stick—prosecutors will have a valuable new weapon to wield against Silicon Valley.

This entire approach has been a dangerous disaster. And, again, that applies even if you hate Backpage, Larkin, Lacey and everything they stand for. There are really serious due process and free speech issues here -- not to mention all of the evidence that taking down the site has put more people at risk and was based almost entirely on made up stats.

The article is quite clear that Backpage did some sketchy stuff -- but it also was pretty clear that it tried to stop sex trafficking and the legal attack on them is highly questionable on a variety of levels. It's easy to write off Backpage as a "bad actor" -- it may well be that. But the most difficult (and often most important) cases, often involve bad actors. And those situations set precedents for everyone else -- and after reading Biederman's article, I'm more concerned than before about the nature of the DOJ's prosecution.

Filed Under: asset seizure, free speech, intermediary liability, james larkin, michael lacey, prostitution, section 230, sex trafficking
Companies: backpage

A FOSTA Of One's Own: UK Parliament Members Looking To Punish Websites, Push Traffickers Underground

from the FOSTA-Home-Secretary-is-not-a-position-that-needs-to-exist dept

Our government decided to make the internet worse, endanger the lives of sex workers, and make it harder for law enforcement to hunt down sex traffickers. And it was all done in the name of fighting sex trafficking. SESTA/FOSTA's passage immediately contributed to all three problems upon passage, throwing sex workers under the bus along with Section 230 immunity. The upside for the government was obvious: it could now target websites and site owners, rather than sex traffickers, for grandstanding prosecutions.

Violet Blue reports for Engadget that the UK government -- no stranger to terrible laws targeting the internet -- is thinking about copy-pasting FOSTA for its own use. It would also like to do all the things listed above, only without the minimal restraint of the First Amendment.

A self-appointed group of MPs (the "All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade") fronted by Ms. Champion made a call to ban "prostitution websites" during a Wednesday House of Commons debate. Conflating sex work with trafficking just like their American counterparts, they claim websites where workers advertise and screen clients "directly and knowingly" profit from sex trafficking.

Watching British politicians advance something as broken and harmful as FOSTA-SESTA is like watching an animal try to chew its leg off to escape a trap -- while we're all standing outside the glass enclosure shouting "that's the wrong leg!" Champion is apparently OK about the fact that they're parroting Trump and FOSTA-SESTA; she's even joked that it's a special kind of irony. Indeed.

It's not that sex trafficking doesn't exist or shouldn't be addressed. It's that this "solution" does nothing to solve the problem. It only makes it worse. It drives traffickers underground, making law enforcement's job that much more difficult. And it impairs the ability of sex workers -- those who have chosen this line of work freely -- to earn a living. It increases the dangers they face, especially when paired with increased criminalization of those purchasing sex.

The adoption of FOSTA as a blueprint for sex trafficking legislation also ignores the ugly truth about its support stateside. It's not about sex trafficking. It's about punishing those who are easiest to reach: websites and customers. That sex trafficking will hum along under the radar uninterrupted doesn't phase supporters of this law. It's enough that the government will publicly hang a few website owners for content posted by third parties.

It will be worse in the UK where a challenge along civil liberties lines is more likely to fail. UK speech laws are a mess and it's unlikely opponents of the proposed law will find judicial relief from UK FOSTA knockoff. The lives the law endangers are of zero concern to a majority of politicians and the platform the law is built on -- ending sex trafficking -- is something very few feel comfortable taking a stand against.

Filed Under: censorship, fosta, intermediary liability, prostitution, sarah champion, sesta, trafficking, uk

FOSTA Supporters Come Out Swinging Against Critics

from the is-there-a-point-in-here-somewhere? dept

You may not have heard the phrase "bootleggers and baptists," in regards to how strange bedfellows join forces in favor of certain regulations, but it's a useful concept. From a 1983 paper by Bruce Yandle, it discusses the odd realization that many people in industry often hope for regulation in a certain area knowing that the regulations will actually limit competition and benefit themselves. More importantly, it notes that those industry forces seeking to support such regulations will often hide behind those espousing moral reasons for the regulations. For the industry folks, it's a win-win: they get the regulation they want, without it appearing to be for their own benefit, but rather for the benefit of some righteous moral cause. Here's how Yandle describes the concept:

Indeed, the pages of history are full of episodes best explained by a theory of regulation I call "bootleggers and Baptists." Bootleggers, you will remember, support Sunday closing laws that shut down all the local bars and liquor stores. Baptists support the same laws and lobby vigorously for them. Both parties gain, while the regulators are content because the law is easy to administer. Of course, this theory is not new. In a democratic society, economic forces will always play through the political mechanism in ways determined by the voting mechanism employed. Politicians need resources in order to get elected. Selected members of the public can gain resources through the political process, and highly organized groups can do that quite handily. The most successful ventures of this sort occur where there is an overarching public concern to be addressed (like the problem of alcohol) whose "solution" allows resources to be distributed from the public purse to particular groups or from one group to another (as from bartenders to bootleggers).

This concept can be seen in many places. Indeed, the Econtalk podcast recently had on Dick Carpenter who discussed his book "Bootleneckers" which looks into a number of similar examples.

Paul Matzko has recently written an essay that specifically applies the "bootleggers and baptists" concept to FOSTA, the law that was recently passed overwhelmingly that claims to be about stopping sex trafficking, but as we've explained ad nauseum is actually putting victims' lives in danger. As Matzko notes, it's a classic bootleggers and baptists scenario:

Anti-sex trafficking activists play the “Baptist” role, earnestly contending for reforms that they believe will help women and children enmeshed in a web of sexual exploitation. While internet content providers like Facebook and Amazon are not “bootleggers” themselves, since they operate within the law, they are roughly equivalent to the licit producers of alcohol during Prohibition, who benefited from a competitive moat created by the new rules.

As we've been pointing out the problems with the law, and the fact that police are now admitting the law is making it harder for them to find victims of sex trafficking, while actual sex traffickers are finding the law has made their job easier, we've wondered about what happened to all of those "Baptists" who had been pushing for the law all along. They seemed mighty quiet in the face of reports of women literally dying because of the law they passed.

Last week, a group of FOSTA supporters finally released an opinion piece attempting to defend the law, while brushing off the concerns of those who actually see how it's putting victims' lives at risk. The opinion piece is incredible and incredibly dishonest.

Recently, there has been widespread confusion surrounding SESTA/FOSTA, the new legislation that enhances the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”). In short, SESTA/FOSTA closed the loophole that gave blanket immunity to internet service providers who failed to take measures to prevent people from being sold for sex through their websites.

First off, during debates on the law, we were told by the bill's supporters that the new standard was not that it applied to those who "failed to take measures to prevent." Indeed, we were told that SESTA/FOSTA did not require active measures -- just responding to knowledge of sex trafficking or prostitution. So, just as an opening, this opinion piece is either admitting that they don't know what's in the bill or what it's supporters said during the run up to the bill, or they're admitting that the bill really does do exactly what many of us worried the bill would do and were mocked for saying as much.

Now, rather than trying to meaningfully understand the legal impact of SESTA/FOSTA, self-proclaimed “sex worker advocates” have used the flurry of misinformation to their advantage, perpetuating a false narrative about the law’s supposed effects.

The "flurry of misinformation" seems to be reports from the ground from people who are actually living the effects. To brush them off is fairly astounding.

The very text of § 2421A (a) reveals that the law was intended to apply to websites, and not target the people who post on them. In fact, those who post were never subject to the protections of Section 230(c) of the CDA in the first place. Yet sex worker advocates proclaim SESTA/FOSTA infringes on their ability to sell sex.

This paragraph is almost totally bullshit. It creates a strawman, and then knocks down something entirely different. Yes, FOSTA/SESTA applies to websites rather than users (that's why we've pointed out it's so mis-targeted in the first place, since it does nothing to target sex traffickers). The complaints from sex workers is not that it "infringes on their ability to sell sex." The complaint from sex workers is that by putting liability on websites who "facilitate" any form of prostitution is that it then prevents the many ways in which sex workers and victims of sex trafficking communicate and get information to protect themselves or get help. Because the law targets websites, those websites who provide ways for sex workers and/or victims of sex trafficking to communicate, are at a huge risk of criminal liability. And thus, they are shutting down or blocking the ability to use them. And, the problem is not that this "infringes on their ability to sell sex," but rather it makes it much more difficult for them to stay safe or to get help if they are victims.

Sex workers who post their own commercial sex advertisements were always (and still are) subject to applicable prostitution laws. SESTA/FOSTA did nothing to change this. Instead, the law is fundamentally concerned with websites who intend to facilitate “the prostitution of another person.” Therefore, individual people can continue to use the internet to discuss and advertise commercial sex on various websites, subject to the same applicable prostitution laws.

Again, this is discussing something else. Yes, the laws on prostitution are not changing, but by blaming websites, those websites are no longer letting these people who are at an extraordinarily high risk of violence, trafficking or death to better protect themselves. And FOSTA/SESTA forces those websites that they relied on to protect themselves to shut down. That's the problem, which these "advocates" refuse to acknowledge.

Simply put, SESTA/FOSTA holds internet service providers accountable for allowing their websites to serve as springboards for sex trafficking. Yet, sex worker rights advocates continue to push an alarmist agenda, mangling what the law actually says. They argue that it will increase the deaths of prostituted people everywhere because it will prevent screening efforts, “force” them “back out” on the street, and prevent them from earning a “livelihood” from this “empowering” career choice. These vain arguments were made bolstered by the fictitious proclamation that “survivors” said so.

Prostitution is incredibly dangerous. The admission by sex workers who claim to use certain websites to screen violent and homicidal sex buyers acknowledges the inherent danger of commercial sex. The passage of SESTA/FOSTA does not make prostitution more dangerous, because unless the websites used for screening were intended to promote or facilitate the prostitution of a person other than the one posting on the site, the screening websites and the users remain in the same legal position as they were prior to the passage of SESTA/FOSTA.

What?!? This is either ignorance or willful blindness on the part of the FOSTA advocates. The law is written so broadly, that any tool where sex workers communicate may be seen as a tool for "facilitating" some aspect of prostitution, and thus would be criminally liable under FOSTA. How can they say with a straight face that those websites "remain in the same legal position" when a ton of them are already shutting down?

Furthermore, this argument relies on the premise that the information shared about commercial sex online is completely accurate. Meaning, all sex buyers use their real names and provide truthful information during transactions, that the people who sell sex always feel safe to use their identities to critique their customers, and that people who solicit sex via the figurative cover of the internet are inherently more trustworthy than those who do it in person. These presumptions are ludicrous.

None of the argument relies on this totally made up assumption. Instead, it relies on actual empirical data, like the fact that when Craigslist introduced its "Adult Services" section, female homicide rates across the board dropped by over 17% (not just the homicide rate of sex workers). In other words, here's actual data proving these FOSTA advocates wrong, and the best they can do in response is make up a nonsensical claim that sex workers are saying everyone is truthful online.

Now that websites are no longer immune from legal action for their part in facilitating sex trafficking, some have smartly opted to remove content that could trigger violations. Craigslist promptly deleted its personal ad section;. Backpage.com was shut down by the government in early April following indictment of the site’s founders on criminal charges including facilitating prostitution.

What an odd thing to note. First off, Backpage was shutdown before FOSTA was passed. So it makes absolutely no sense that these advocates are taking credit for it. Second, just moments ago, they were claiming that most sites shouldn't be impacted by FOSTA/SESTA, yet here they're excited about Craigslist taking down its regular dating site (i.e., not a hotbed of sex trafficking). And, I'll note that they don't bother to mention the fact that Cloudflare shut down a social network for sex workers called Switter. It's a convenient one for them to ignore, because earlier in the article they insisted that such sites would not be impacted by the law.

Once again, the FOSTA advocates seem to be living in a fantasy world where they can pretend they can just ignore reality.

SESTA/FOSTA won’t stop trafficking. But, it is an incredible blow to the commercial sex industry, - an industry that not even sex worker rights advocates can claim is fundamentally safe. To say otherwise is incredibly disheartening and politically distracting.

The "Baptists" have had their say here, but they can only make their point by outright misrepresentation and ignoring the facts.

Filed Under: fosta, morals, myths, prostitution, sesta, sex workers

Could The DOJ Be Violating SESTA/FOSTA?

from the quite-possible dept

Last week, Gizmodo's Dell Cameron has a great report on how the DOJ's Amber Alert site was configured so stupidly that it could be used to redirect people to any website (this was also true of weather.gov and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). And it was being used. To redirect people to hardcore porn. Basically, the sites were designed such that just by knowing the right URL and adding a new URL to the end, it would redirect to those sites. Porn sites used this for a couple of reasons: first, since they'd now be getting referrals from high ranking sites, it can help their Google ranking. Second, because the primary URL would come from a trusted source again, it would help their Google ranking. And, finally, the links may look much more legit to people doing searches (though that would be more true of scam sites than porn sites).

Redirect scripts like this used to be fairly common, but they died off long ago. Except in the federal government. From Cameron's article:

“This is like the 1990s called and wants its vulnerable redirect script back,” said Adriel Desautels, founder of the penetration testing firm Netragard.

But, here's the thing: does this mean that the DOJ (and the NOAA) could be violating SESTA/FOSTA? It's possible! And that just goes to show how poorly drafted the law is. Remember, under the law, it is now illegal to "participate in a venture" that "knowingly" is "assisting, supporting, or facilitating" a violation of sex trafficking laws. So, if someone were to create a DOJ Amber Alert redirect to a sex trafficking website (or just an escort site, since people keep insisting those serve little purpose other than sex trafficking) would the DOJ be in violation?

The obvious response is that the DOJ isn't "knowingly" doing this. But... is that true? As Cameron's article notes, every time you hit one of those Amber Alert redirects, the DOJ gives you a nice little parting message:

Is that enough to "knowingly" participate? Maybe. I would bet that if non-governmental websites popped up similar messages, SESTA/FOSTA supporters would argue it's proof of knowledge. After all, Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers claimied that merely "turning a blind eye" was enough to prove "knowledge." And here, clearly, the DOJ must be logging those exit pages. Is it ignoring them? Is that turning a blind eye? Does that count as knowledge?

Maybe it's a stretch, but the fact that the language of the bill even makes this a possibility just demonstrates how poorly drafted the bill is, and shame on all the politicians who refused to step up and fix it.

Filed Under: doj, fosta, intermediary liability, porn, prostitution, redirects, sesta, trafficking, unintended consequences

FOSTA/SESTA Passed Thanks To Facebook's Vocal Support; New Article Suggests Facebook Is Violating FOSTA/SESTA

from the self-own dept

One of the main reasons FOSTA/SESTA is now law is because of Facebook's vocal support for the bill. Sheryl Sandberg repeatedly spoke out in favor of the bill, misrepresenting what the bill actually did. In our own post-mortem on what happened with FOSTA/SESTA we noted that a big part of the problem was that many people inside Facebook (incredibly) did not appear to understand how CDA 230 works, and thus misunderstood how FOSTA/SESTA would create all sorts of problems. Last month, we noted that there was some evidence to suggest that Facebook itself was violating the law it supported.

However, a new article from Buzzfeed presents even more evidence of just how much liability Facebook may have put on itself in supporting the law. The article is fairly incredible, talking about how Facebook has allowed a group on its site that helps landlords seek out gay sex in exchange for housing -- and the report is chilling in how far it goes. In some cases, it certainly appears to reach the level of sex trafficking, where those desperate for housing basically become sex slaves to their landlords.

Today, in the first instalment of this series, we uncover some of the damage done to these young men – the sexual violence – by landlords, and reveal how they are being enabled by two major internet companies, one of which is Facebook. The world’s largest social media platform, BuzzFeed News can reveal, is hosting explicit posts from landlords promising housing in return for gay sex.

In multiple interviews with the men exchanging sex for rent and groups trying to deal with the crisis, BuzzFeed News also uncovered a spectrum of experiences that goes far beyond what has so far been documented, with social media, hook-up apps, and chemsex parties facilitating everything.

At best, impoverished young men are seeking refuge in places where they are at risk of sexual exploitation. At worst, teenagers are being kept in domestic prisons where all personal boundaries are breached, where their lives are in danger.

I've seen multiple people point out -- accurately -- that the article's focus on Facebook here is a little silly. The real focus should be on the "landlords" who are seeking out and taking advantage of desperate young men in need of a place to live. But, given that the focus is on Facebook, it certainly appears that Facebook has the knowledge required to be a violation of FOSTA/SESTA:

Despite the explicit nature of the postings on the group’s site, the administrator told BuzzFeed News that Facebook has not intervened. “We have never had an incident from Facebook,” he said. “If they [members] want to post something that will not fly with Facebook I write them, and tell them what needs to be changed.”

This has not stopped explicit notices being posted.

When approached by BuzzFeed News to respond to issues relating to this group, Facebook initially replied promising that a representative would comment. That response, however, did not materialise, despite several attempts by BuzzFeed News, over several days, to invite Facebook to do so. A week after first contacting the social media company, the group remains on its site.

It still seems wrong to blame Facebook for what the horrific landlords are doing here, but, hey, FOSTA/SESTA is now the law, and it's the law thanks in large part to Facebook's strong support for it. So, given all of this, will Facebook now face legal action, either from the victims of this group or from law enforcement?

Filed Under: fosta, groups, houseboys, prostitution, sesta, sex for rent, sex trafficking, slavery
Companies: facebook

House Prepared To Rush Vote On Terrible Frankenstein SESTA, Which Will Harm Trafficking Victims & The Internet

from the big-massive-mistake dept

Things had been mostly quiet on the SESTA/FOSTA front for the past few weeks, but apparently that's about to change, as the House leadership has agreed to a plan to rush the bill to a full floor vote next week, by creating a terrible Frankenstein of a bill that solves none of the existing concerns people had -- but creates new ones. If you don't recall, there are competing bills in the House (FOSTA) and the Senate (SESTA) which purportedly both attempt to deal with the problem of human traffickers using internet services to enable illegal trafficking. Both bills have serious flaws in how they attack the problem -- with the potential to actually make the problem of trafficking worse while also screwing up how the internet works (especially for smaller internet services) at the same time.

Things had been at a standstill for the past couple months as the House pushed its approach with FOSTA, while the Senate stood by its approach with SESTA. SESTA works by changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to create a huge hole saying that CDA 230 doesn't apply if a site "knowingly facilitates" a violation of sex trafficking laws. If you don't have much experience with how similar laws work on the internet, this might sound reasonable, but in practice it's not. There's a similar "knowledge" standard in copyright law, and we've seen that abused repeatedly to censor all sorts of content over the years. You just need to allege that something violates the law, and a platform seeking to avoid potentially crippling liability is likely to remove that content. As I've noted, if the law passes, almost every internet company will be put at risk, including anyone from small blogs like ours to Wikipedia. The bill's backers seem to think this is a benefit rather than a problem -- which is quite incredible.

Until now, the House had been pushing an alternative proposal, called FOSTA, which tried to achieve similar results without punching a giant hole in CDA 230. Instead, it focused on creating a new crime for those with the intent to promote or facilitate prostitution. The intent standard is a much stronger one than the "knowledge" standard. There were still a couple of problems with FOSTA, though. Rather than focusing on sex trafficking, it covered all prostitution, which is too frequently lumped in with trafficking, and worried many in the community of folks supporting the rights of sex workers. But, a larger issue was that this would still open a huge hole for state and local prosecutors to go on massive fishing expeditions if any sort of prostitution related content ended up on any website. Even if they couldn't show intent, they could still bog down almost any internet platform with charges and investigations for quite some time. I mean, even we get people trying to spam our comments all the time with what appear to be prostitution ads. We catch most of them, but what if a few get through and some law enforcement agency wants to make life difficult for us? Under FOSTA, that's a real possibility. Such laws can be abused.

Still, the approaches were so different that things appeared to mostly be at a standstill. However, as noted above, suddenly things are moving and moving fast... and in the worst possible way. House Leadership apparently decided that rather than convince the Senate to move to a FOSTA approach, they would just bolt SESTA onto FOSTA via an amendment. And then, suddenly the House bill has all the problems of both bills without fixing either.

That amendment was released yesterday and is being introduced by Rep. Mimi Walters of California. Her district includes Irvine, which houses a whole bunch of tech companies who should be absolutely furious that their own representative just made things much more difficult for them. Take, for example, JobzMall, an Irvine-based company for connecting workers and employers. It's not difficult to think of how some might try to abuse that tool for prostitution or trafficking -- and suddenly the site may face a ton of legal fights, fishing expeditions and criminal threats because of this. That seems like a huge, huge problem.

And, importantly, it cannot be stressed enough that nothing in either of these bills does anything at all to actually stop sex trafficking. Supporters of the bill keep insisting it's necessary to stop sex trafficking and that those opposed to the bills are somehow in favor of sex trafficking. That's just wrong. Those opposed to the bill know what happens when you have mis-targeted bills that hold platforms responsible for what users do with them: and it's not that the "bad stuff" goes away. Instead, the bad stuff tends to continue, and lots of perfectly acceptable things get censored.

A recent paper by one of the world's foremost experts on "intermediary liability," Daphne Keller, explains why the bill won't work based on years and years of studying how these kinds of intermediary liability laws work in practice:

SESTA’s confusing language and poor policy choices, combined with platforms’ natural incentive to avoid legal risk, make its likely practical consequences all too clear. It will give platforms reason to err on the side of removing Internet users’ speech in response to any controversy – and in response to false or mistaken allegations, which are often levied against online speech. It will also make platforms that want to weed out bad user generated content think twice, since such efforts could increase their overall legal exposure.

And, again, NONE of that does anything to actually go after sex traffickers.

As Keller notes in her paper:

SESTA would fall short on both of intermediary liability law’s core goals: getting illegal content down from the Internet, and keeping legal speech up. It may not survive the inevitable First Amendment challenge if it becomes law. That’s a shame. Preventing online sex trafficking is an important goal, and one that any reasonable participant in the SESTA discussion shares. There is no perfect law for doing that, but there are laws that could do better than SESTA -- and with far less harm to ordinary Internet users. Twenty years of intermediary liability lawmaking, in the US and around the world, has provided valuable lessons that could guide Congress in creating a more viable law.

But instead of doing that, Congress is pushing through with something that doesn't even remotely attempt to fix the problems, but bolts together two totally separate problematic bills and washes its hands of the whole process. And, we won't even bother getting into the procedural insanity of this suddenly coming to the House floor for a vote early next week, despite the Judiciary Committee only voting for FOSTA, but not this SESTA-clone amendment.

This is a terrible idea, done in a terrible way and Congress seems to be doing it because it wants to "do something" about sex trafficking, without realizing what it's doing won't help stop sex trafficking, and could create massive harm for the wider internet. It's the perfectly dumb solution to the wrong problem. It's a very Congress-like approach to things, in which "doing something" is much more important than understanding the issues or doing the right thing.

And, once again, while some are incorrectly insisting that "the big tech companies" are against this, they are not. Their trade group, the Internet Association, came out in favor of SESTA's approach and Facebook in particular has gone all in supporting the bill. In talking to people familiar with Facebook's thinking on this, they recognize that they can withstand whatever bullshit comes out of this, but they know that smaller platforms cannot. And to Facebook, that is one of the benefits of SESTA. It weakens the competition and hurts smaller companies.

So, no, this is not "big tech" fighting SESTA. Basically every smaller internet platform I've spoken to is upset about this and trying to figure out how they're going to handle the inevitable mess this causes. But few are willing to speak out publicly, because they know that SESTA supporters will vocally attack them and falsely claim that they're "in favor of sex trafficking." Incredibly, most of those attacks will come on platforms that only exist because of CDA 230's strong protections.

Filed Under: cda 230, congress, fosta, house, intermediary liability, mimi walters, prostitution, section 230, sesta, sex trafficking
Companies: facebook, internet association

Congress Fixes More Problems With FOSTA Bill... But It Still Needs Work

from the getting-better... dept

Congress continues to push for a bill to deal with the use of the internet for sex trafficking. Over the past few months we've discussed multiple attempts at this. Most of the initial action happened on the Senate side, with SESTA -- the "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act." That was a terrible bill with many, many problems. The Senate then put forth a revised version that had marginal improvements, but still many, many problems. While it was voted out of committee, Senator Wyden put a hold on it, noting how bad it would be for the internet and free speech.

From there, the action moved over to the House, with its version, called FOSTA -- the "Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act." Believe it or not, FOSTA as initially written was even worse than SESTA. However, there's now a planned markup of the bill in the House Judiciary tomorrow, and it's over a totally revised "manager's amendment" from Judicary chair Rep. Bob Goodlatte, rather than the original FOSTA that was sponsored by Rep. Ann Wagner. As law professor Eric Goldman points out, of the four bills presented so far, the Goodlatte Manager's Amendment is by far the best, but still has significant problems that should be corrected if the bill is to move forward.

One oddity: the new FOSTA doesn't just focus on sex trafficking, but expands to all online prostitution. This seems both dangerous and unnecessary. While there are legitimate debates to be had about whether or not prostitution should be legalized, the issues around prostitution are clearly different than the issues of coerced sex trafficking. Yes, there is obviously some overlap between trafficking and prostitution, but automatically sweeping both issues together is problematic for a whole host of policy reasons. Everyone should be reasonably against trafficking of unwilling individuals. The issues around willing and consentual transactions involving sex are a lot more complicated. Conflating both in a single bill seems... dangerous.

However, some elements of FOSTA are clearly better than what we saw in SESTA. Instead of focusing on punching a giant hole in CDA 230, the new FOSTA takes a smarter approach. It first creates a new crime (outside of CDA 230), which would be 18 USC 2421A, which would make it a crime to take actions "with the intent to promote or facilitate the prostitution of another person." What's important here is the "intent" standard. The previous bills all used some form of "knowledge" or "knowing conduct." Here, you need to have the actual intent to promote or facilitate prostitution, which is a much more reasonable standard for making these actions criminal. The crime can be "enhanced" if the party engages in "acts of reckless disregard of the fact that such conduct contirubted to sex trafficking violation[s]" but that's only once the intent is already shown. Again, this seems like a more reasonable approach, and would solve the problems we had with the knowledge standard -- and the fear that this would disincentivize monitoring or helping law enforcement under SESTA.

Still, as Eric Goldman notes, this bill could lead to "dubious investigations" and fishing expeditions as prosecutors look to show "intent" on platforms with many, many users, where some of those users may be engaged in prostitution:

Consider how this could play out for giants like Google or Facebook. Despite their best efforts, surely both networks have some online prostitution activity. Let’s hypothesize that 0.01% of their site usage relates to online prostitution. Across a billion-member userbase, a 0.01% online prostitution usage converts to 100,000 users. So even if Google and Facebook get it 99.99% right, state and local prosecutors could still point to tens of thousands of online prostitution incidents as circumstantial evidence of the services’ “intent” to promote or facilitate online prostitution. And the statutory baseline of 5+ prostitutes frames the issue to make the online giants look like hotbeds of prostitution activity. So even if a prosecutor’s case will fail in court, substitute FOSTA would give state and local prosecutors a lot of juice to go after the Internet giants.

Goldman suggests one possible fix for this:

We can’t easily eliminate the risk of bogus state and local investigations due to substitute FOSTA, but we can blunt the 5+ language. Something like “promotes or facilitates the prostitution of 5 or more persons HIMSELF OR HERSELF (NOT CONSIDERING THE ACTS OR CONTENT OF ANY THIRD PARTIES).” This change would not treat third party promotions as part of the enhancement, and it would take some wind out of the sails of overeager prosecutors who can find many more than 5+ ads on a site.

But, that won't totally eliminate bogus fishing expeditions.

Another problem with the bill is some convoluted language in which Congress wants to say that this isn't really changing CDA 230, but it can be read in the exact opposite way. Here's the language:

Consistent with section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230), a defendant may be held liable, under this subsection, where promotion or facilitation of prostitution activity includes responsibility for the creation or development of all or part of the information or content provided through any interactive computer service.

As Goldman notes, you can read this to say that "if an online service is responsible for ANY content on its site, it is responsible for ALL content, including all third party content," even though that's almost certainly not what is meant. Instead, it appears to be Congress (needlessly) reconfirming the state of CDA 230, which many of us have pointed out in response to critics: that it already allows prosecution when the service provider is the developer of the content itself (rather than just a third party host). This paragraph is unnecessary, as that's what the law already says, and by adding this new, convoluted language that can be read in the exact opposite way... it's only going to lead to a bunch of lawsuits around this provision and the (horrifying) possibility of a court reading it to change CDA 230.

Overall, I tend to agree with Goldman that it's still unclear why this bill is necessary, other than political grandstanding.

I continue to believe that Congress does not need to pass any bill: the SAVE Act did the work Congress wanted it to do; the Rentboy and MyRedbook prosecutions show the DOJ has effective legal tools (recall that both involved a prosecution for online prostitution, not sex trafficking, so they cover very similar ground to substitute FOSTA); Congress has other anti-sex trafficking initiatives in queue that may be more helpful; and it’s not empirically clear that efforts to extinguish online prostitution ads will protect victims. So here’s how I’d rank my priorities:

1) best outcome: no legislative changes

2) second-best outcome (a distant second): substitute FOSTA due to the intent scienter, national legal standard and tight linkage between civil and state law enforcement claims and the federal crime

3) third-best outcome (substantially behind substitute FOSTA): SESTA as amended, which fixed some of SESTA’s roughest edges but still retained its core imposition of the moderator’s dilemma

4) fourth-best outcome: FOSTA as introduced. That version is probably already defunct. At least, I hope so.

I might take this a step further. These bills really seem misguided, and seem much more designed for political grandstanding and the ability for their sponsors to claim they "did something" on a hotbutton topic. But, as noted, while sex trafficking is a real problem, it's a much smaller one than politicians claim. And, all of these bills will actually make it more difficult for law enforcement to track down and arrest the real criminals. That, again, seems misguided. Targeting intermediaries and tools, rather than the sex traffickers themselves, has always seemed like a backwards approach. I'm all for law enforcement seeking out and arresting sex traffickers. But these bills still seem to focus on criminalizing third parties, rather than the actual traffickers, and in doing so, make sure that the actual trafficking activity is more difficult for law enforcement to track down. That's even more true when you conflate prostitution with sex trafficking. So, while the manager's amendment on FOSTA is clearly a "better" solution, it's still a probably unnecessary and counterproductive one.

Filed Under: cda 230, congress, fosta, intermediary liability, prostitution, sesta, sex trafficking

How Congress' Attempt To Break CDA230 Could Kill Airbnb

from the liability-liability-liability dept

Earlier this week, we wrote about a dangerous bill to punch a giant hole in Section 230 of the CDA. We spent a lot of time in that post detailing how problematic the bill is and how it would actually be counterproductive to the stated goal of stopping human trafficking. But, beyond just being counterproductive to the stated goal, the bill would likely create fairly massive negative consequences for tons of internet companies. If anyone used any part of that company's products and services for trafficking, it would open up companies not just to liability, but to costly legal action, even if they're eventually vindicated.

And I wanted to dig into one example: Airbnb. As we've discussed in the past, Airbnb relies heavily on CDA 230, because otherwise, any time anything went wrong with an Airbnb hosted place, Airbnb would face potentially crippling lawsuits. And I'm thinking about Airbnb specifically, because of a recent ruling that Eric Goldman pointed out, in which Airbnb's largest competitor VRBO was saved by CDA 230. You can go over to Eric's blog to read the details, but the really short version is that someone booked a "luxury resort" via VRBO for a ridiculous sum of money, and the rental units never happened. The victims targeted VRBO with the lawsuit, but the court has none of it.

The plaintiffs claimed VRBO qualified as a “seller of travel services,” which would subject it to heightened regulation. The court disagrees: “HomeAway merely provides a venue for others to sell or provide lodging, but does not provide the actual facility where people can ‘lodge.'” See the uncited SF Housing Rights Committee v. Homeaway ruling. Further, if VRBO did constitute a seller of travel services, Section 230 would apply: “To hold HomeAway liable for misleading or inaccurate material (e.g., images from another property listing appearing on a different HomeAway website being duplicated on the VBRO.com Jewels of Belize rental account) in the third party created Jewels of Belize listing contravenes Section 230 of the CDA.”

To get around Section 230, the plaintiffs invoked VRBO’s “Basic Rental Guarantee,” which provides reimbursement for certain types of fraud (but doesn’t cover direct wire transfers like those at issue here). VRBO denied the reimbursement claim, concluding that the listing came from an authorized property owner and the property actually existed (but apparently had serious problems). The court says VRBO did what it promised to do in the “guarantee.” The fact VRBO used the term “guarantee” (a term I wouldn’t have chosen personally) didn’t convert the reimbursement promise into something more.

Now, there's a somewhat reasonable argument to be made that it would be smart business strategy for VRBO to handle the situation better and to reimburse these people. But making the company legally liable is another story.

So, now let's get back to SESTA, the bill that was released earlier this week. Surely, some of you are thinking, that's not a big deal for Airbnb? After all, everyone's just talking about how it's designed to takedown Backpage (ignoring that Backpage already shut down its adult section, and current law already lets the DOJ go after Backpage if it violated federal trafficking laws). And Airbnb isn't Backpage. But... there actually have been a whole bunch of stories this year claiming that prostitutes are now using Airbnb. And, with some folks trying to conflate prostitution with trafficking, is it any stretch of the imagination to think lawyers will start suing Airbnb, claiming it's violating federal anti-trafficking laws?

As Eric Goldman asks in his post:

In light of that, how would Airbnb and VRBO change their behavior to reduce their potential liability for sex trafficking pursuant to the proposed bills? Heck if I know, and I doubt Congress knows either.

Put yourself in the shoes of Airbnb and tell me: how would you completely rule out that anyone could possibly abuse the Airbnb service for trafficking? It's... not easy. This doesn't mean Airbnb wants this activity to happen via it's platform. I'm 100% sure that it does not. It would be thrilled if there were an easy to way to stop it. But... it's not. Like, this is a basic impossibility. And yet, if it happens, then suddenly the companies themselves could be liable for criminal activity. Criminal activity that was done by others, that Airbnb would have no effective way to stop, short of shutting down the site or doing something ridiculous and drastic. That... seems like a pretty big overreaction. Yes, trafficking is a problem, but this bill is sending a wrecking ball through the internet as it seeks out one particular company.

And, yes, I get that some people don't like Airbnb, so maybe they're fine with this kind of collateral damage, but Airbnb is just one example here. Plenty of other sites that you probably do like will face similar problems. This is a bad bill that won't even help with its stated goals, but will create serious problems for people around the globe.

Filed Under: cda 230, intermediary liability, liability, prostitution, section 230, trafficking, unintended consequences
Companies: airbnb, vrbo

Arrested Backpage Execs Ask Kamala Harris To Drop Bogus Case She Herself Has Admitted She Has No Authority To Bring

from the grandstanding dept

A few weeks ago, we wrote about the absolutely ridiculous and unconstitutional charges brought by California Attorney General Kamala Harris and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against the online classified site Backpage.com. We focused on the fact that Section 230 clearly protects Backpage from such a lawsuit, and went into detail on the ridiculousness of Harris' "investigator" using the fact that Backpage itself actually worked with him to track down, remove, and block ads for prostitution as some sort of evidence of wrongdoing.

The execs are now hitting back -- as they should. They've asked the court to dump the case with a detailed and thorough filing. It highlights that the charges violate the First Amendment, Section 230 of the CDA and, at an even more basic level, the complaint doesn't even satisfy the requirements for "pimping," which is what they're charged with.

The AG’s Complaint and theory of prosecution are frankly outrageous. The AG seeks to impose criminal liability on a website simply because it published and received fees for third-party ads. The AG’s chrages directly contravene the First Amendment and the immunity afforded to websites under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S.C. § 230. Escort ads on Backpage.com are protected speech under the First Amendment, as several courts have held. The AG cannot arrest, imprison and refuse to release individuals associated with the website simply based on an investigator’s opinions about what he believes is “obvious” about escort ads. Courts upholding the First Amendment rights of Backpage.com and its users have rejected the same tack time and again. The First Amendment also expressly precludes state authorities from imposing criminal liability on parties that publish or distribute speech absent proof of scienter, i.e., that the publisher knew the specific information published was unlawful. The Supreme Court so held over fifty years ago, Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959), recognizing the First Amendment prohibits states from imposing criminal liability that would require publishers to review all materials they distribute, because such a requirement would severely chill speech. More specifically, the AG’s theory expressly violates Section 230, which Congress enacted twenty years ago to preserve and promote free speech on the Internet by immunizing website operators from liability for publishing content provided by third-party users. Section 230 preempts all contrary state laws—including state criminal laws. Indeed, Attorney General Harris has acknowledged that Section 230 precludes her from prosecuting Backpage.com, but she has now commenced a prosecution to do precisely what she admits Section 230 prohibits.

That point about Harris "acknowledging" that Section 230 bars this lawsuit is a big one. It's based on the letter that Harris signed onto, from a bunch of Attorneys General to Congress, asking it to change Section 230 to grant state AGs the ability to go after Backpage. We had written about this letter three years ago when it was sent, but I had forgotten that it explicitly called out Backpage.com, and noted that the reason they wanted Section 230 modified was because they knew it was immune from prosecution by those state AGs. The letter (again, that Harris herself signed), says:

In instance after instance, State and local authorities discover that the vehicles for advertising the victims of the child sex trade to the world are online classified ad services, such as Backpage.com. The involvement of these advertising companies is not incidental—these companies have constructed their business models around income gained from participants in the sex trade. But, as it has most recently been interpreted, the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”) prevents State and local law enforcement agencies from prosecuting these companies. This must change. The undersigned Attorneys General respectfully request that the U.S. Congress amend the CDA....

Yet now, despite no change being made to the law, Harris thinks she can bring a case against them?

Separately, the lawyers have sent a letter to Harris directly reminding her of this and asking her to drop the case:

Ads posted on Backpage.com are protected by the First Amendment, as several courts have held. As the Seventh Circuit recently said in enjoining the Sheriff of Cook County, Illinois and rejecting much the same theories that the State asserts here: “[A] public official who tries to shut down an avenue of expression of ideas and opinions through actual or threatened imposition of government power or sanction is violating the First Amendment.” ... The State cannot prosecute a publisher for publishing speech with absolutely no showing that the speech was unlawful, much less any allegation that defendants ever even saw the specific ads that are the basis for its charges. As the Supreme Court has long recognized, states cannot punish parties that publish or distribute speech without proving they had knowledge of illegality, as any other rule would severely chill speech.

More specifically, Section 230 precludes the charges the State seeks to assert. As you know, Section 230 bars state-law claims against websites and other interactive computer services based on the publication of third-party content. A website cannot be held liable for publishing content submitted by users or for failing to block or remove such content, notwithstanding any allegations that it knew or should have known the content concerned unlawful conduct. Section 230 expressly preempts all inconsistent civil and criminal state laws. Literally hundreds of cases have applied and underscored the broad immunity that Section 230 provides and that Congress intended so as to avoid government interference— especially by state authorities—that would chill free speech on the Internet.

Indeed, in July 2013, you and other state attorneys general signed a letter to various members of Congress urging that Section 230 be amended to exempt state criminal laws from CDA immunity so that you could pursue Backpage.com. See July 23, 2013 letter from National Association of Attorneys General.... It is troubling that the State is now pursuing a prosecution you admitted you have no authority to bring.

Accordingly, the State should dismiss the complaint and all charges against Messrs. Ferrer, Lacey and Larkin. We write now to urge that this happen immediately.

Finally, Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin released a statement about this mess, in which they directly suggest that this whole thing was about Harris trying to seal her election to the Senate, and highlighting how infamous Sheriff Joe Arpaio tried to arrest them a decade ago, and they ended up winning $4 million for civil rights violations. But, they note, Harris probably doesn't care, because she got the headlines and the press coverage and the TV cameras covering them doing the perp walk in orange jumpsuits.

Of course, knowing the law was of modest comfort as we were being booked into the Sacramento County jail and paraded in front of the press in orange jump suits last week on a charge Ms. Harris knew she had no legal authority to bring when she brought it. We never set out when we published our first newspaper over 40 years ago to become the first American journalists to claim the rueful distinction of having been jailed both for editorials we wrote and advertising we published.

In 2007 we were arrested in Phoenix by agents of Sheriff Joe Arpaio for having published a story in the Phoenix New Times criticizing Arpaio for misusing a Grand Jury to harass New Times and its readers. We sued Arpaio in federal court under the Civil Rights Act and settled the case against the Sheriff and his handpicked Special Prosecutor for nearly $4 million.

[....]

Make no mistake; Kamala Harris has won all that she was looking to win when she had us arrested. Like Sherriff Arpaio, she issued her sanctimonious public statement, controlled her media cycle and got her “perp walk” on the evening news. Arpaio didn’t pay a dime of the civil damages we won against him. The taxpayers of Maricopa County did. And if the polls are any indication, Harris will be warmly ensconced in the United States Senate by the time her blatant violations of the First Amendment and federal law are finally adjudicated. She won’t pay. The taxpayers of California will.

And, as Kamala Harris knows, it probably won’t even make the evening news.

Indeed. This kind of bullshit seems like a massive abuse of power by Kamala Harris for the sake of grandstanding for her election campaign. She's yelled about Backpage for years, despite acknowledging she has no legal authority to go after them. And then, just a month before the election on her big campaign to become Senator, she magically decides to arrest them on charges she herself knows can't stick? That's a really fucked up abuse of power, stomping on the civil rights and Constitutional rights of these guys, and knowing damn well that once the case is lost, it's the taxpayers of California who will have to pay the bill. What shameful behavior by an elected official.

Filed Under: california, carl ferrer, cda 230, first amendment, free speech, grandstanding, intermediary liability, james larkin, kamala harris, ken paxton, michael lacey, pimping, prostitution, section 230
Companies: backpage.com