Mister T 45020 Report post Posted October 7, 2016 http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/backpage-raided-ceo-arrested-sex-trafficking-42635569 also: http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/06/backpagecom-ceo-carl-ferrer-arrested 6 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phaedrus 209521 Report post Posted October 8, 2016 Well, shit. I severely doubt that BP's CEO was personally involved an anything apart from running a site where escorts advertise. His great sin was to fail to kowtow to the powers that be when they came calling, unlike the folks running CL. This is really just judicial terrorism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reddog01 30280 Report post Posted October 8, 2016 We will have to see if this establishes precedent or reenforces what happened with CL. If a trial is conducted the facts have to be presented beyond a reasonable doubt against this individual. If he is convicted for just providing a forum to post advertisements that are linked to promoting illegal activity (trafficking and underage) who might be next? I certainly don't condone trafficking or the exploitation of those underage. People involved in these activities need to have the book thrown at them. Another dynamic: The authorities, if they suspect trafficking/underage, I would think could often use these adds to find or track the guilty persons involved. This shit happens and tracking "sketchy" adds can help with investigations and the arrest of real trafficking perpetrators. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Meaghan McLeod 179664 Report post Posted October 8, 2016 Reminds me of the Seattle board getting shut down, and hobbyists being arrested simply because they posted reviews online, AND discussed it in a restaurant during their weekly lunch meetings with each other. No one was caught during an encounter - just posting reviews and discussing their encounters in public. http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/07/fbi-helps-shut-down-seattle-sex-work-rev Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted October 11, 2016 We will have to see if this establishes precedent or reenforces what happened with CL. If a trial is conducted the facts have to be presented beyond a reasonable doubt against this individual. If he is convicted for just providing a forum to post advertisements that are linked to promoting illegal activity (trafficking and underage) who might be next? I certainly don't condone trafficking or the exploitation of those underage. People involved in these activities need to have the book thrown at them. Another dynamic: The authorities, if they suspect trafficking/underage, I would think could often use these adds to find or track the guilty persons involved. This shit happens and tracking "sketchy" adds can help with investigations and the arrest of real trafficking perpetrators. The case took 3 years to investigate, and the charges indicate that they found 9 (NINE) minors in all that time. doesn't seem to be a hub for underage trafficking at all. and it didn't say whether or not one of those are the fake ad that L E posted on the site. they clearly used the site to find these 9 actual victims, regardless of how few there may be, clearly the site itself led to the discovery and 'rescue' and i assume arrest of real traffickers. But i've also seen voluntary underage sex workers posting their own ads, and having a friend or someone helping them end up getting arrested just for being near them. also other sex workers, like a 20 year old gets arrested because she may not want her 17 year old friend to work alone. all those get thrown into the stats they claim they rescued. In the US, 'rescue' usually means arrest or detaining them. CL was never shut down, they removed the adult section as a form of protest, and learning lesson for all the Attorney Generals. They said, the ads will appear somewhere else, and they were right. Ads were on backpage all during the time of the CL erotic services and adult section postings. Here is an additional article that shows a few of the background investigation and documents they used to make the arrest in the first place, and the charges. there were no charges for 'trafficking', that was a media spin. http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/07/charges-against-backpage-ceo-listed Additional Comments: Reminds me of the Seattle board getting shut down, and hobbyists being arrested simply because they posted reviews online, AND discussed it in a restaurant during their weekly lunch meetings with each other. No one was caught during an encounter - just posting reviews and discussing their encounters in public. http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/07/fbi-helps-shut-down-seattle-sex-work-rev And i think someone recently reported that a couple of these guys, the charges are being dropped altogether. it is either this case or a case linked to a sting. in the meantime, the two guys got fired from their jobs, because they were tried in the media. US LE gives out names and photos to the news, who then post all that info and all the charges. the problem with that is they are just charges, not convictions, and most of the time there are no convictions. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phaedrus 209521 Report post Posted October 13, 2016 There's actually an interesting legal fight brewing over this one. Warning: legal nerdery follows. On one side, you've got the usual lot of abolitionists and puritans who want anything to do with the sex industry shut down. On the other... Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter, Microsoft, and most of the tech industry. The reason for this is the principle that under US Federal law, no website is held responsible for things other people post on it. This is set out in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and it has become one of the cornerstones of the Internet as we know it. This law is the only reason sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc can continue to exist: without it, they'd be liable to be prosecuted by any state actor who didn't like something posted there, and sued by any private citizen with a similar objection. That would obviously destroy the viability of their businesses. And that same law protects Backpage: there is no requirement for them to police the ads that are posted there and ensure that the posters are who they say they are, or are of legal age, or anything else. I really hope they fight it; I suspect they'll win if they do. Unfortunately the AGs who are driving this have sufficient resources at their disposal to make someone's life a living hell even if they have no case at all, and there's a distinct possibility of a settlement just to make it all go away. Such is the power of coercion when wielded by the government... which is ironic, given what the case is claimed to be about. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fortunateone 156618 Report post Posted October 29, 2016 i have a feeling backpage pockets are deep, probably far deeper than the AG of two states. And Prop 60 in California is getting a lot of media attention as porn people are protesting it, lobbying against it, and making sure people get the information that is hidden inside the mandatory condoms in porn scenes highlight. it's going to look more like a moral crusade against adult entertainment for consenting adults and less like rescue/saving missions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrackRat 1010 Report post Posted November 3, 2016 Watching this story closely. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
