Why free speech advocates oppose a law to battle sex trafficking

The 1996 law Section 230 is widely seen as a foundation of the Internet economy.

Read the whole story

 

[Lagrange]

In Canada, there is a law that allows prostitutes to accept money, but makes it illegal for someone to buy sexual services. The theory is that this would reduce the number of potential customers, and so reduce the amount of trafficking, because traffickers can't get enough money to make it worth the risk. At the same time this gives people who do want to sell sexual services a means of legal income so they aren't afraid to approach cops if they are being abused. Perhaps something like this should be implemented everywhere.

That's basically the Nordic model and there are three main problems with it:

1. It's idiotic
2. It doesn't work
3. It's completely illogical

I still can't wrap my head around the idea that it's the law's business what consenting adults get up to in the bedroom. If they want money to change hands in return for sexual activity then who cares? Attempting to ban it just means that instead of visiting a prostitute and paying the going rate, you now have a 'girlfriend/boyfriend' who you buy expensive gifts for or help them out with their living costs. Nothing has changed and nothing has been achieved.

On top of that, where is the logic in prosecuting the buyer and not the seller? Nobody would suggest that drug users should go to jail while dealers get off scot-free but for some reason that's seen as a good way of dealing with the sex industry. I suspect that it relates to the misconception that sex workers are by definition exploited, and because female sex workers are viewed as helpless victims with no agency rather than adults who have made a choice about how they earn a living.

We need to remove as many barriers as possible that get in the way of people reporting trafficking and other crimes. Imagine someone visits a sex worker and suspects that they have been trafficked or that they're being controlled and abused by a pimp. Which legal situation is more likely to prevent them reporting their fears to the police:

1. Buying and selling of sexual services is legal between consenting adults
2. Buying sexual services is illegal, even when all parties are consenting adults

In the second scenario, you're asking the client to go to the police and admit to a crime in order to report their suspicions of another crime. Given how the cops work, they're likely to go for the easy arrest of the buyer rather than the more difficult job of following up the claims of a sex worker being abused. It's the exact opposite of what we want when you introduce a massive disincentive to report a serious crime.

 

[Frosty Grin]

Kamala Harris is desperately trying to be the new face of the Dem party, and she thinks that, since this is the issue that got her into the Senate to begin with, it'll make her a Hillary replacement.

Meanwhile, her efforts are poorly thought-out, make fighting sex trafficking more difficult, and amount to pointless grandstanding.

Here's hoping the Democrats come to their senses and realize that they can do better.

Didn't happen over Hillary, isn't going to happen over her replacement. As you say, it got her into the Senate.

 

[JBanister]

Sounds like Backpage, like Trafficking is just the PR for this law. The article states that the majority of ads on Backpage are for illegal services, whereas the law is written so that a site can be prosecuted over *any* instance of such an advertisement. If they want a law for sites like Backpage, they could put a lower limit on traffic for the site before the law applies, and also a lower limit on percentage of advertisements which are shown to be for illegal activity. That ought to be sufficient to push sites like Backpage offshore. Having a law where they can prosecute any site for a single advertisement means that to punish any site at all, they'll just only have to place an advert for a "lampshade" where the operator of their "sting" testifies that using the quotations around the word is a clear indication of selling the services of a trafficked minor child. If they want to have a law of this nature, they need to demonstrate that they have created a law that is actually resistant to abuse by unscrupulous people in government, not just one that purports to prevent an activity that 98% of the population thinks should be prevented.

 

[SymmetricChaos]

On top of that, where is the logic in prosecuting the buyer and not the seller?

Because its currently illegal to be a victim of human trafficking in many places and people think that's sick and insane.

 

[JPan]

Lagrange[/url]":27ek30tm]

In Canada, there is a law that allows prostitutes to accept money, but makes it illegal for someone to buy sexual services. The theory is that this would reduce the number of potential customers, and so reduce the amount of trafficking, because traffickers can't get enough money to make it worth the risk. At the same time this gives people who do want to sell sexual services a means of legal income so they aren't afraid to approach cops if they are being abused. Perhaps something like this should be implemented everywhere.

That's basically the Nordic model and there are three main problems with it:

1. It's idiotic
2. It doesn't work
3. It's completely illogical

1 and 3 I am completely with you. Not completely sure about 2. They are pretty successful in terrorizing their citizens into not doing things they think are bad through laws, taxes, and public shaming. In many ways Scandinavia is awesome but in some areas its perhaps the most oppressive society there is. Also the reasons Norwegians for example go absolutely BONKERs when they leave the country and finally can get normal prized alcohol. But I am pretty sure there is less prostitution in Scandinavia than in Germany overt and covert combined. So on some level their system "works" ( as idiotic as it is )

 

[thatanonymouscoward]

Sounds like Backpage, like Trafficking is just the PR for this law.

It is a PR stunt & opening the faucet for hundreds of civil lawsuits to bankrupt the company.
Its very hard to look at a 15 yr old who was pimped out & not feel anger toward anyone you can remotely blame for it. The pimps (if even caught) don't have deep pockets, BackPage has deep pockets and totally should have to pay them.

They just want to tweak the law in this one case, and totally wouldn't try to use it in other areas.
The **AA's would never like the ability to sue Google for a user having uploaded a copyrighted thing, oh wait... they would. They want as much Google cash as they can get, and joe user who uploaded the video with a song on in the background isn't a big cash cow. Getting 230 opened up in 'just a few places' will harm the internet. We have courts ruling that US law applies in foriegn countries so trying to move a site offshore is out, we have domain banning with open ended orders they can just keep adding names to.

Imagine the internet of the **AA's where you can only see super locked down content after 15 different logins & verification's, and may only leave positive comments.

 

[JPan]

SymmetricChaos[/url]":3aefcgzt]

On top of that, where is the logic in prosecuting the buyer and not the seller?

Because its currently illegal to be a victim of human trafficking in many places and people think that's sick and insane.

Ah the logic. They could just exempt people who are pressured into it. But I assume your argument is the going one in Scandinavia.

Paraphrased I have heard before ( and I am not kidding ):
"Nobody could ever want to be a prostitute" therefore "even if a woman herself should think that she does it willingly she has been forced into it by society" therefore "all prostitutes are victims" therefore "the clients who are despicable guys anyway are the aggressors" therefore "we need to criminalize the clients"

Obviously that COMPLETELY removes all agency or self-determination from all women, which seems to be a recurring theme in modern feminism ( two drunk people have sex -> the guy raped the girl ). If some of the old feminists who fought for women to have equal rights, sexual freedom and self-determination would see what happened to their successors they would kill themselves.

( Not saying that there aren't situations where women are pressured into prostitution and should get help getting out of there but you can't generalize that. )

 

[Droiddest]

Let's just block the ads and hide the problem. It seems to be working so far for us.

/s

 

[Falos]

Shutting down the Mafia's favorite bar doesn't really slow their activity.

That said, sure, let's get a grip on backpage anyway. Preferably without "logging into the switch and 'messing around' with the config".

Hearing that we already wrote a law for this makes me think further mucking is superfluous, if not an outright mistake. Even if the "think of the children" is more genuine than usual.

 

[camaro]

I swear 99% of people have no idea how that "internet thingy" works. You can make all the laws you want it won't stop it.

 

[O/Siris]

"The bottom line is the interests that are facing off here are economic versus human protections," Vardaman says. "It's protection of children. We can't fathom a world in which we place economics over the protection of our children."

Wrong. So very, very wrong.

Free speech is a human issue.

Look, I oppose child trafficking. Make it illegal in every way possible. Good.

But the ability we have to discuss even troubling issues like this is important... nay, vital... to our fundamental liberties as citizens of (ostensibly) a free country, and every impingement upon those liberties hurts us just as badly (even if more subtly) as the crimes that advocates of these bills want to halt.

Does Backpage deserve to face prosecution? I don't know enough about that, but IF it's been facilitating child trafficking, then I say yes. If the 2015 federal law is an avenue to that, then let's use what we have. We've done enough destroying our own freedoms without adding more to it.

 

[SymmetricChaos]

Free speech is a human issue.

Right now companies are given blanket protection against prosecution due to people making illegal use of their site. The only effect that has on free speech is that it prevents people from using their free speech to sue those companies. If the only goal is really freer speech then we should get rid of Section 230.

 

[emcee_08990]

I keep hoping the "think of the children" argument will go away. I guess it never will. backpage is not even in the top 10,000 problems faced by children in the USA. Backpage would be somewhere *far* below "threats to free speech by do-gooders" on the list of problems faced by children in the USA.

 

[DaveSimmons]

The War on Sex is as counterproductive as the War on Drugs. Prohibition does not work. Legalize, regulate and tax both sex for sale and drugs. Use the tax money for education, addiction treatment, and health care for the sex workers.

In Washington state, despite the "think of the children!" hysteria from the prohibition fans, legalizing recreational marijuana sales has NOT increased use by children. It has brought in a nice amount of tax revenue, reduced enforcement expenses, made using the drug safer, and taken money away from criminals. Win-win-win-win.

Legal, regulated prostitution would make it harder for the criminals to find demand for their slave workers. Of course I'm only talking about legalizing adult sex work.

 

[castleblanc]

I'm just curious to know why people choose to make their living this way. That is, selling ads for illegal activity. The operators of backpage know what's going on, they edit the ads. They're not forced to take the ads--are they? Are there gangsters in the background with guns pointed at them? What amount of money would be worth dealing with this? Why be a conduit for sex trafficking? There are a lot of other ways to make a living.

 

[Exomorph]

That's basically the Nordic model and there are three main problems with it:

1. It's idiotic
2. It doesn't work
3. It's completely illogical

4. It doesn't actually exist

Sweden and especially Norway still have repressive laws against sex workers. Anything that might be constructed as "advertisement" is illegal. Renting a flat to a sex worker (no matter whether customers are received there or not) is illegal or at least used as a pretense for police harassment. It's just the same old story, those filthy harlots have to be set right and if they die of exposure in the process, at least their soul has been saved.


As for the article...

Disturbingly, Backpage allegedly took the same approach when it received ads for sexual exploitation of children. Rather than rejecting these ads outright, the Senate report claimed, Backpage's software would strip terms like “lolita,” “little girl,” “school girl," and “amber alert” out of ads before posting the rest of the ad online.

Seriously, "lolita" or "school girl" are supposed to be reliable indicators that underage persons are involved? I guess the sponsors of that bill also believe that every porn actor billed as "Teen" is 18 or 19, everything that says "MILF" involves only women who have had at least one child, and that the guy coming to lay some pipe is indeed a licensed plumber...

 

[Lagrange]

On top of that, where is the logic in prosecuting the buyer and not the seller?

Because its currently illegal to be a victim of human trafficking in many places and people think that's sick and insane.

But isn't that a separate issue to the legality of sex work? Most sex workers aren't trafficked and most trafficked people don't end up as prostitutes.

The problem with trafficking and illegal immigration is that countries need some kind of immigration laws but those same laws will tend to dissuade victims of trafficking from coming forward. There's no easy solution because if you had a blanket amnesty for trafficked people, anyone could claim that they came into the country via that method and it would be difficult in many cases to prove otherwise.

 

[Andara]

I mentioned it in an earlier post, but I've never actually seen evidence that Backpage did this.

I'm working from memory, but I believe someone from Backpage basically stated straight up that they alter some posts to ensure they don't contain anything that would be illegal. However, I'm not sure how this would be interpreted by a court, because I don't think it's actually been tried as such, but if so, it would be protected by 230(c)(1).

I don't see why we need new laws. Shouldn't Backpage have already lost their immunity from prosecution when they started editing the ads? You can't really say it's just user generated content when you're helping generate the content.

They likely have protection under 230(c)(1). I'm not sure they should for their use case, but there's no legitimate way to make it less exploitable while retaining the function that makes it absolutely vital.

There is an argument to be made on the other side that pushing the sites to the dark web means that a lot of people can't or won't go looking for them, and will therefore decrease the number of active seekers, though one assumes it won't decrease the desire. Whether the costs are worth the benefits, who knows. It certainly seems more measurable if you keep the majority of the traffic where law enforcement can monitor it easily.

But not a good argument.

It's not enough of a roadblock to the perpetrators to actually slow them down much at all, but changing the law will make it exponentially more difficult to find and catch then and/or rescue those minors that are being trafficked.

It will also have a massive chilling effect on the Internet at large which will harm us all.

Among the things that would suddenly be liable to prosecution for user-provided content? Comment threads on publications. Every forum ever. User reviews (Yelp, Amazon, Steam, etc). Every chat feature in existence. YouTube. Facebook. Twitter. Twitch. etc, etc, etc...

Could it be they changed the title?

There are always two titles when Ars publishes an article. The A headline is also the URL, while the B is not. Within 10 minutes, they collapse it down to the more clicked-on headline, which in this case was the B.

You can tell because the URL includes "why-free-speech-advocates-oppose-a-law-to-battle-sex-trafficking" which was the A headline.

We need to remove as many barriers as possible that get in the way of people reporting trafficking and other crimes.

Think Of The Children: Legalize Prostitution

 

[notnotknot]

Wait till they find out all the "models"on Instagram are actually prostitutes & Facebook, Snapchat, & Instagram "traffic" 1000 times more people than backpage their heads will explode.

People can get jobs that require them to run into each other at full speed & knock themselves bloody & stupid but a sovereign human being can't sell their love.

Bizzaro friggin world wouldn't be a broke unemployed man on the planet if they could post an ad & get hundreds of replies with 2-5 if em offering 100+ an hour to suck some tatas till the milk squirt.

Sex not dirty people are sex doesn't give you a disease a lying person does.

Meanwhile they have no issues with Uber being legal when 80% of the trips are modern day slavery, coerced blank contracts that if drivers don't accept their fired if they do free labor. As drivers lose money in every ride 7-10 miles

 

[Anon_64]

Because activists want you to think they're trying to save kidnapped 12 year olds, when the truth of the matter the small percent of underage girls who used Backpage, most trafficked themselves and posted the adds themselves. Even in actual "trafficking" situations, it's usually something like a 17 year old runs away with her 19 year old boyfriend.
They can't bust the underage girls themselves, because it'd be seen as victim blaming, even if they're only victims of their own choices.

 

[rabish12]

I mentioned it in an earlier post, but I've never actually seen evidence that Backpage did this.

I'm working from memory, but I believe someone from Backpage basically stated straight up that they alter some posts to ensure they don't contain anything that would be illegal. However, I'm not sure how this would be interpreted by a court, because I don't think it's actually been tried as such, but if so, it would be protected by 230(c)(1).

My understanding is that 230 protections cease to be extended when you start exerting that kind of direct control over the messages being posted, but IANAL. I'm not sure how it's applied when the alterations are completely automatic. That said, my issue isn't so much with the broader claim that they do that kind of editing (they've admitted that they do, in the case of some language that's used for prostitution) but the more specific claims that they do it for terms that are specifically associated with child sex trafficking.

 

[goglen]

EDIT: Correct some words because posting on a phone ducks.

I like ducking under my phone as well; it blocks the rain from my eyes.

 

[Andara]

They can't bust the underage girls themselves, because it'd be seen as victim blaming, even if they're only victims of their own choices.

Legally, they cannot be victims of their own choices, as they are not deemed sufficiently mature enough to be able to make said choices and thus it is up to their guardians to ensure that the appropriate decisions are made.

There could be an argument (and there are many) that the age of maturity needs to be adjusted, or perhaps there needs to be more variability for different situations, but as it stands, those who make immature decisions who are legally immature are not at fault for reasons of immaturity.

That said, my issue isn't so much with the broader claim that they do that kind of editing (they've admitted that they do, in the case of some language that's used for prostitution) but the more specific claims that they do it for terms that are specifically associated with child sex trafficking.

I'd love to see a ruling on where the line is where moderation crosses from protected into becoming a de facto publisher of content, but as far as I know, that particular case has never been brought.

 

[rabish12]

They can't bust the underage girls themselves, because it'd be seen as victim blaming, even if they're only victims of their own choices.

Legally, they cannot be victims of their own choices, as they are not deemed sufficiently mature enough to be able to make said choices and thus it is up to their guardians to ensure that the appropriate decisions are made.

There could be an argument (and there are many) that the age of maturity needs to be adjusted, or perhaps there needs to be more variability for different situations, but as it stands, those who make immature decisions who are legally immature are not at fault for reasons of immaturity.

That said, my issue isn't so much with the broader claim that they do that kind of editing (they've admitted that they do, in the case of some language that's used for prostitution) but the more specific claims that they do it for terms that are specifically associated with child sex trafficking.

I'd love to see a ruling on where the line is where moderation crosses from protected into becoming a de facto publisher of content, but as far as I know, that particular case has never been brought.

It's come up at least a few times, but never in a case specifically like this where certain phrases are being automatically altered without anybody at the site ever seeing the contents, let alone directly manipulating them.

 

[yet_another_wumpus]

The DOJ is all over Backpage and their owners and they could not gather evidence to move ahead with a lawsuit so let's just approve a law to make it possible, right? This is Police State right there at work.

This is just stupid grandstanding pandering to collective hysteria. And like most things done in this environment it will cause a whole load of bad. Remember how the US is putting law enforcement inside of schools to protect the children? How did that go? Oh, we are arresting kids and ruining their lives? For the children!!!!!!

No seriously, terrorists don't need to worry. The US will implode under its own weight without the need for bombs.

Anyone want to claim how Backpage is different (from a legal perspective and ability of the DOJ to bust) than Grokster? Both supplied information needed to commit a crime, and both made money by including ads for illegal services (and were certainly aware of said content).

Maybe they simply have wildly more compentant council than the EFF (who doesn't), but it looks like SCOTUS is unlikely to support Backpage. Of course, that stops the politicians from posturing about burning a witch and having to hunt down actual trafficers.

- for trafficing directly, what type of sanctuary exists already and needs to exist now to make trafficing vastly more difficult? I'd assume that those under control tend to have the ability to go to their John's, and could escape if they had somewhere to go. You would think the ICE would at least deport those in desparate need of it, but it isn't clear that they would have better lives back home. I'm also wondering if the daughter in question had no intentions of returning to the mother, and that she likley had the option (not always the case).

- note that while the above "free to move about" isn't always true, when it isn't the locals *always* know which is the whorehouse: the Johns going in and out make it obvious. I'd be shocked silly if the cops don't know, but community relations isn't a big thing for US cops (motto: "open fire").

 

[infernallexicon]

This is just so the same politicians that are actually involved in human trafficking can look like they're opposed to it, even though they're profiting from it in their own backyard.

 

[Arkleseizure]

Maybe I'm old school, but a publisher should be responsible for what is published.

OK, Twitter will go bankrupt overnight and youtube comments may become a (thankful) thing of the past, but there are some communities (this one included) that show that it's possible to have a polite comments board with very little work for any would-be-needed moderators.

Free speech isn't affected, bullshit speech and the profits of multi-billion dollar companies are.

 

[rabish12]

Maybe I'm old school, but a publisher should be responsible for what is published.

OK, Twitter will go bankrupt overnight and youtube comments may become a (thankful) thing of the past, but there are some communities (this one included) that show that it's possible to have a polite comments board with very little work for any would-be-needed moderators.

Free speech isn't affected, bullshit speech and the profits of multi-billion dollar companies are.

Youtube comments wouldn't become a thing of the past. Youtube would become a thing of the past. So would Ars Technica's forums, since anybody could expose them to litigation by posting illegal content to them. So would basically every web host, unless they started vetting the contents of every single website before those contents went up. Yes, that sounds extreme, but that is the exact kind of thing that section 230 was created and is used to defend against.

Just to give you a really solid idea of how important this law is: Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore. A woman's child downloaded pornography at a public library. The woman took the city to court because the library provides internet access to minors. That is insane, but it happened and section 230 is what was used to quash it.

Maybe the law could place more of an onus on content providers to deal with illegal content when they're aware of it. Probably they could. It's still a really important law, and completely removing it so that content providers are responsible for everything they publish - for all of the content that passes through their pipes - is not a good solution.

 

[xiaomao666]

Ah yes America.

Want a gun? Under no circumstances do we prevent gun ownership or the waving around of your gun in public. Want to kill? Just claim you were standing your ground.

Want to fuck? Fuck you, its arrest time, public shaming, and maybe a permanent sex offender registry.

Does this make sense? No, this does not make sense. If Chewbaka, an 8 foot tall Wookie, lives with 3 foot tall Ewoks, then you must acquit.

It is time legal prostitution spread out from Nevada. Cops would be forced to stop oppressing women and a lot of wasted resources from the war on women would be freed up for a legitimate war on child molesters. Hell maybe they would start to notice catholic priests fucking little children and do something about it instead of needing newspapers to force them to do it.

Paid rape is a vast human rights violation, perpetrated by entitled, predatory men.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/ ... usa.gender

http://prostitutionresearch.com/

 

[xiaomao666]

There's a lot of talk about legalizing sex workers on this forum, so I thought I would give my two cents. In my college debate class, the topic of our first debate was legalized prostitution. By coin toss I got the pro legalization position. At that time in my life, I was almost violently against legalizing anything that didn't agree with my conservative upbringing. Having to debate for the legalization of it actually changed my opinion for real. To make a good case, I had to research how big the problem was, the harms associated with the underground nature of it, etc. In the end I came to the conclusion that the prohibition was causing society more harm than the prostitution itself. Shortly after that I came to the same opinion about cannabis. I think conservative types tend to think that if they don't violently ban something then they are condoning it. I hate abortion too, but I fight to keep it legal because of the massive harms associated with banning it. In the end I respect a person's choice to live their own life absent my meddling. This is counter to the conservative ideal of legislating morality.

You are wrong.

https://nordicmodelnow.org/

http://prostitutionresearch.com/

 

[Deleted member 14629]

Legal prostitution is just like legal drugs. Dramatically preferable to the alternative. You will never stop drug use or prostitution, but you can manage their risk through regulation.

 

[jodyleebruchon]

There's a lot of talk about legalizing sex workers on this forum, so I thought I would give my two cents. In my college debate class, the topic of our first debate was legalized prostitution. By coin toss I got the pro legalization position. At that time in my life, I was almost violently against legalizing anything that didn't agree with my conservative upbringing. Having to debate for the legalization of it actually changed my opinion for real. To make a good case, I had to research how big the problem was, the harms associated with the underground nature of it, etc. In the end I came to the conclusion that the prohibition was causing society more harm than the prostitution itself. Shortly after that I came to the same opinion about cannabis. I think conservative types tend to think that if they don't violently ban something then they are condoning it. I hate abortion too, but I fight to keep it legal because of the massive harms associated with banning it. In the end I respect a person's choice to live their own life absent my meddling. This is counter to the conservative ideal of legislating morality.

You are wrong.

https://nordicmodelnow.org/

http://prostitutionresearch.com/

That "prostitution research" website tries ON THE FRONT PAGE to position sex robots as follows: "They’re I-Like-Rape-Robots not Sex Dolls." Are you serious? Your sources are shit. Just on the sex robot topic alone plenty of situations where a sex robot can be greatly beneficial. Quoting from that page:

* Those who have severe physical deformities that make it difficult for others to consider them as sexual partners.
* Those who have been widowed and who are not yet ready to seek another life partner.
* Those with psychological problems relating to intimacy and for whom a sex robot could be a form of therapy (as amusingly and sensitively explored in the movie Lars and the Real Girl).
* Those with highly-contagious sexually-transmitted diseases.
* Those who have destructive fantasies they are trying to control and who can find a catharsis with a sex robot.
* Those who just want to get laid and whose usual strategy is to pretend to be interested in someone so as to get sex but then use-and-forget them.
* Couples who have occasional fantasies of introducing a third person into their sexual life but fear the harm that jealousy could do to their relationship.

Reality's at the door and isn't buying what you're selling. Take your loaded language ("paid rape") somewhere else. No one is buying that "PIV is always rape, ok?" stuff here.

Here, have some uncomfortable facts instead. The Washington Post - Lies, damned lies and sex work statistics.

 

[Matthew J.]

Time to write your congressman, folks.

This is one case where I can all but guarantee that it won't help. It's far too easy for them to present themselves as protecting children from being trafficked for sex, and it's far too easy for them to dismiss any and all critics as supporting child sex trafficking. This is an extremely emotional subject, and that makes it easy for them to score political points by targeting it even when a minority of their constituents recognize how problematic their actions are.

Your vote just isn't as valuable as the political capital they can get from pushing this kind of thing through.

Don't know if it well help or not, but it seems it can't hurt -- so I wrote all three (2 senate & 1 house) representatives.

 

[Abhi Beckert]

What are the actual changes being proposed?

The way I see it, website operators should be forced to take reasonable steps to keep illegal content off their website.

The key is defining "reasonable" and writing that into a clear and concise law with minimal unintended consequences.

 

[Abhi Beckert]

Maybe I'm old school, but a publisher should be responsible for what is published.

OK, Twitter will go bankrupt overnight and youtube comments may become a (thankful) thing of the past, but there are some communities (this one included) that show that it's possible to have a polite comments board with very little work for any would-be-needed moderators.

Free speech isn't affected, bullshit speech and the profits of multi-billion dollar companies are.

Are you saying Ars should face criminal charges if somebody posts a sex trafficking ad in this discussion thread?

Surely not as long as they quickly delete the post.

 

[plateshutoverlock]

Why not just say nothing, leave the ad up for 5 minutes so the poster does not suspect anything before removing it or maybe subtly corrupting the content so it stays up but is useless, then forward the original to law enforcement? This could save many lives. Yes, it will work for only a short while before the evil doers catch on, but it would be worth it.

 

[plateshutoverlock]

Legal prostitution is just like legal drugs. Dramatically preferable to the alternative. You will never stop drug use or prostitution, but you can manage their risk through regulation.

I agree that prostitution between 2 willing and consenting adults should be legal, but there
is a huge sex/human trafficking industry that is exploiting women, children and even men, and
in those cases where the poster does not get sloppy and give out hints of the illegal and life
destroying nature of their activities, you don't know if the prostitute you are getting is being
forced into it or not.

Law enforcement really needs to scan these ads and be aggressive in pursuing the people
behind these ads. One of these trafficking ring victims could be your son or daughter someday.

If you go to a major tansportation hub, such as an airport or a rail station, you will usually see
a sign talking about human trafficking and what to look out for in a potential victim.

 

[GreenGestalt]

What's next; Could I sue a major website if through it's ad service a lockdown virus got installed on my computer?

Oh, actually what's next is no more internet.

 

[Redhunt]

everyone who's not fishing for page views would rightfully understand that Backpage and it's advertisers would be in alot more trouble if these allegations were true.

so it's once again a question of 'might, maybe,perhaps,suggests,hypothetically, morally just, being-ever-vigilant, ..." , and FUD, by holier-than-thou, publicity seeking self-styled protectors of children's angel wings, and whom are most likely aggressive conservative Christians, out to wreck the world so that it becomes a true nanny state.

 

[Redhunt]

Legal prostitution is just like legal drugs. Dramatically preferable to the alternative. You will never stop drug use or prostitution, but you can manage their risk through regulation.

I agree that prostitution between 2 willing and consenting adults should be legal, but there
is a huge sex/human trafficking industry that is exploiting women, children and even men, and
in those cases where the poster does not get sloppy and give out hints of the illegal and life
destroying nature of their activities, you don't know if the prostitute you are getting is being
forced into it or not.

Law enforcement really needs to scan these ads and be aggressive in pursuing the people
behind these ads. One of these trafficking ring victims could be your son or daughter someday.

If you go to a major tansportation hub, such as an airport or a rail station, you will usually see
a sign talking about human trafficking and what to look out for in a potential victim.

it's only a huge problem because
1. police are abusive towards those involved in the trade, for force or by will.
2. i-know-better politicians love to shame and punish all involved in this morally reprehensible act ( by their conservative Christian standards). Quite near impossible for them to change their character, and yet the amount of alternative candidates which can be voted for is extremely narrow because
2a. insufficient funding from secular folks and millennials whom has lost faith in politics
2b. those whom actually want to do good for the community and country find politics to be the antithesis of these goals., so they never got into higher level of politics
3. these Eastern European countries are extremely corrupt because if they were gone, so will the greatly beneficial deals for foreign investors. And this feeddrip of corruptions flows from the politicians all the way down to those whom did a 'favor' to get him elected.