Are Tech Firms Liable For What Their Users Post? (mercurynews.com)

Thursday Texas police officers arrested the CEO of Backpage.com, a web site allowing escorts to post classified ads, on a felony charge accusing him of pimping. Slashdot reader whoever57 writes: It is likely that the charges will not stick because of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, under which publishers are protected from liability for the postings of their users. However, this could just be the first shot in the battle to weaken section 230. This could endanger other sites, such as Craigslist, and ultimately, any site with user-written content.
Backpage calls the prosecution "frivolous," arguing that the site's classified ads for escorts are protected by the First Amendment. But a law professor at the University of Santa Clara suggests prosecutors may argue that the site had been "optimized to facilitate online prostitution ads," establishing some level of complicity.

Comments

What about Banks

[Herkum01]

Well they have been going after the Backpage for 10 years, so I guess at this stage they are just throwing it against the wall and hoping for a judge that will let it stick.

Besides considering how complacent they have been with banks and money laundering drug money and tax evasion, it seems that this is just low hanging fruit by comparison.

This is why I hate Jury trials

[rsilvergun]

this won't be decided as a matter of law, but a matter of feelings.

Re:Shouldn't involve the internet

[Rockoon]

Nobody is responsible for what anybody else does.

Translation: Men shouldnt be responsible for the children that women choose to have.

Careful what you wish for.

Re:Shouldn't involve the internet

[eis2718bob]

You see, a pimp's webpage is very different from that of a square.

Covered this already

[Anonymous Coward]

This already made the rounds at Ars. The current spat has nothing to do with Section 230. The warrant states that BackPages was complicit in editing ads to hide their illegality befor posting. That makes them complicit. Section 230 won't protect you if you edit the stuff your users post.

Anyway, the formal charges are here. Pimping is defied in teh CA Penal Code as profiting off of someone else's prostitution. I'd like to note that further reading of the Ars thread brings to light that things like Overt Act 9 are not nebulous "some child", but rather, that they have children who are testifying.

tl;dr: this is about section 230. This is about a company taking an active role in prostitution and sex trafficking.

What does the user agreement say?

[pesho]

If there is a clause in the user agreement that they own all user generated content, then these are their posts and they should be liable.

Re:Shouldn't involve the internet

[Zontar The Mindless]

There are cases where a woman have chosen to get children without the consent of the man. The case were a woman gave a man a blowjob and then saved the semen and impregnated herself with comes to mind.

Please provide a cite that isn't a film title.

Only if complicit

[goodmanj]

"Are [publishers] liable for what their users print?" No, unless they knowingly help their users commit a crime. Which Backpage allegedly did.

Re:Only if complicit

[execthis]

They probably have staff who are paid to edit ads to remove explicit pictures which is a standard thing on many websites. Its disingenuous to equate that with deliberately pimping out kids.

Re:Shouldn't involve the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's one: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/

A big thank you to the Texas Attorney General

[Macdude]

I wanted to send a big thank you to the Texas Attorney General, I hadn't heard of this site before.