Slashdot Mirror


FBI Seizes Backpage.com, a Site Criticized For Sex-Related Ads (reuters.com)

The FBI has reportedly seized the sex marketplace website Backpage.com, according to a posting on its website on Friday. "The posting said the U.S. Justice Department would provide more information at 6 p.m. EDT," reports Reuters. "It said U.S. attorneys in Arizona and California, as well as the Justice Department's section on child exploitation and obscenity and the California and Texas attorneys general had supported the work in shutting down the website." From the report: Lawmakers and enforcement officials have been working to crack down on the site, the second largest classified ad service in the country after Craigslist that is used primarily to sell sex. The U.S. Senate passed legislation last month making it easier for state prosecutors and sex-trafficking victims to sue social media networks, advertisers and others that fail to keep sex trafficking and other exploitative materials off their platforms. The Supreme Court in January 2017 refused to consider reviving a lawsuit against backpage.com filed by three young women alleging the site facilitated their forced prostitution. But the site has since then faced a slew of other lawsuits alleging child sex trafficking. According to AZCentral, local FBI officials have confirmed "law enforcement activity" Friday morning at the Sedona-area home of Michael Lacey, a co-founder of Backpage.com. The raid comes amid what appears to be a shut-down of the website.

19 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. When does google.com get seized for the same thing by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Backpage had plenty of legitimate advertising, when does google and twitter and Facebook get shut down for the same reasons?

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  2. sex is bad by mSparks43 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Americans need to learn sex is bad, if you have sex you will have babies, and no one wants americans to have babies.

    1. Re:sex is bad by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Our gods are likely all the same, they just have a misguided view of the god. If God created humanity to derive pleasure from sex (as opposed to need it, a la Vulcan Pon Farr), then s/he meant us to enjoy sex. Thus, sex for pleasure between consenting adults is a good and godly thing, since s/he has given us a natural, cheap, relatively safe stress-reduction and enjoyment mechanism. We should get down on our collective knees and thank him/her for it.

    2. Re:sex is bad by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Who says everyone needs to "participate in the community" in exactly the same manner? Personal choice -- people should marry because they want to, not have marriage as their only option to satisfy a human need.

      Some people want to get married, settle down in a boring suburban hell, and have kids. Others may want to marry and not have kids. Still others might just want to sample the wares and maybe eventually settle down. Others might think there are more important things than marriage and kids, but contribute to society in other ways. Tolerance. There's room in the world for all lifestyles and all types of relationships between consenting adults.

    3. Re: sex is bad by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Funny

      America has no Puritanism left because America has no left. Bernie Sanders is on the moderate right and he's as left as America gets.

      If you think Bernie Sanders is on the moderate right, then you're so far left that Stalin might be right-wing. Nearly all of his views are to the left of the NDP and Greens in Canada. And we call the NDP "communist lite" for their views.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  3. Re:When does google.com get seized for the same th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When they no longer feed their congress critters money.

  4. Not signed yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    SESTA isn't in effect yet. It hasn't been signed into law yet.
    They've stated this siezure is the result of prior laws, they have been investigating this under already existing legislation for a while now.
    Which means SESTA wasn't even necessary to begin with.

    1. Re:Not signed yet by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      Of course SESTA is necessary. You just don't understand the big picture.

      Making ISPs and web hosting companies responsible for all illegal human trafficking related content that travels across their systems is the first step. Afterwards, that responsibility will be expanded to included copyrighted materials so that the big media companies can bankrupt anyone who doesn't help them enforce whatever draconian copyright protection schemes they choose to impose.

      This is the goal. It has always been the goal. It's the reason the MPAA and RIAA have quietly backed SESTA and FOSTA, throwing millions of dollars of lobbying money behind both bills.

  5. "sex marketplace website"?? Really?? by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "sex marketplace website"?? Really?? That's likes saying "Google, the pedophile search engine". Just because someone posted something inappropriate does not mean the entire website is devoted to only that.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  6. Think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Corrupt FBI won't investigate people threatening to shoot up kids in school, but they will spend all this effort on a "sex marketplace website". Not even sure why I'm surprised the FBI is so worthless.

  7. Sadomoralism by fafalone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is about punishing adult prostitution full stop. And it's going to make both providers and clients less safe (as every organization actually representing sex workers makes clear), and make it harder to track down the very small number of coerced women and slightly underage teenagers (they deliberately use language to make you think of actual children, not the 16-17 year olds doing it themselves, who are already legal for non-paid sex in 31 states, that make up 99.9999% of 'child sex trafficking victims' on backpage-- it's not that this is ok, but it's hardly the same as under 12 as the language implies), where Backpage was very helpful in assisting LE.
    But that's the point. To the right, selling sex is an immoral sin. To the left, any woman that chooses prostitution is suddenly without agency, and therefore being exploited, her opinion on it being irrelevant. Either way, it's not a decision that an adult should be free to make. So they punish these human moral failures by increasing suffering all around, all while grandstanding about how they're "saving" people when in fact they're doing the opposite. It's the same exact thing as the drug war. You take a dangerous activity that's conducted among consenting adults, prohibit it by force of law, and in doing so "send the message" that you stand against it and are fighting it, but you're actually greatly increasing the harm instead of decreasing it.
    It's called sadomoralism, and the left and right are both guilty of it, just with different justifications and trappings around the edges. No matter how many people you lock up, you're never going to stop it, and by going that route, you maximize the harm. But of course, regulating such things in a manner that actually reduces the harm means accepting that some people can then engage in the activity without being able to punish them for it-- and that's too high a price to pay no matter how devastating the alternative, whether it's hard drugs or prostitution, and whether you're talking about team (R) or team (D); because a utopia where drug abuse and prostitution vanish from the earth forever can always be achieved if we just refuse to give in and punish a little more.

    1. Re:Sadomoralism by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's called Puritan authoritarianism. Long ingrained in US culture, coming from both religion (R) and secular (D) do-gooders.

      Frankly, the US would have been a better place if the Mayflower had hit rocks and turned the zealots it was carrying into fish food. Canada was settled by the British and French for profit instead of by Puritan refugees, and it's a much more tolerant place than the US.

    2. Re:Sadomoralism by misexistentialist · · Score: 3, Informative

      They don't even care about prostitution, half of them are regular customers. It's really the reverse Larry Flynt logic--"If the First Amendment will protect a scumbag like me, it'll protect all of you"-- so they go after the scumbags to get to everyone else. Untaxed labor, unmonitored gatherings, unauthorized communication, that's what they really find obscene.

    3. Re:Sadomoralism by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Canada...
      (1) Is moving towards legalization of marijuana on a Federal level. Check.
      (2) Mostly legalizes or ignores prostitution among consenting adults. Check.
      (3) Has 15-20% of the incarceration rate (per 100,000 people) as the US. Check. NOT one of the world's largest jailers.
      (4) Got rid of the death penalty 50+ years ago.
      (5) Recognizes an explicit legal right to privacy.

      The US is moving backwards in many of those respects.

      Canada is only "intolerant" if you want to own powerful rifles or spout Nazi filth.

  8. Re:Slippery Slope by fafalone · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It doesn't make the "shopping" portion harder because LE is lying through it's teeth about there being child sex trafficking on Backpage. The reality is there were a few 16-17 year olds, voluntarily engaged-- even when nobody else is involved in any way, they're still labeled as 'trafficked', pretending to be over 18. In cases where police suspected that was the case, Backpage was very cooperative in helping to locate the individual, so this actually makes those 'children' less likely to be tracked down as the market is forced farther underground where no such cooperation will be forthcoming. It should make you uneasy at every level, not only because of the obscene overreach, but because absolutely no one is made safer by this, and a lot of people are made less safe.

  9. Re:5:1 Trump was a client by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

    And yet he is all over Twitter.

  10. Re: Tolerant. Lol. by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That was the 60s and 70s in Canada.

    The US sent kids to "youth centers" (basically like prisons) for minor crimes like mocking school officials less than 10 years ago. Judges responsible were eventually jailed, but don't think that such atrocities are only a Canadian thing...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  11. Brilliant idea! by gatfirls · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Hey FBI, here's this website that is like a honey pot for sickos so you can easily identify them and weed them out!"

    FBI: "No thanks, shut it down. We'd rather only find out about horrible exploitation after it has gone on for years and the victim finally gets away."

  12. Re:When does google.com get seized for the same th by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To add to your point - this seizure is global, backpage and its affiliates (cracker etc) have a global presence, including in countries where prostitution is legal ( e.g. New Zealand), and now those sites, escort categories and *everything* else, are gone.

    People here on Slashdot constantly rail against EU laws being enacted globally, and here we have a US law being enacted in just that fashion.