Slashdot Mirror


Backpage Founders Charged With Money Laundering, Aiding Prostitution (theverge.com)

Federal authorities have charged the two founders of classified site Backpage.com, along with five other employees, with laundering money and facilitating prostitution. According to The Washington Post, the Justice Department claims Backpage took "consistent and concerted action" to knowingly allow ads for illegal sex work. The indictment alleges that "virtually every dollar flowing into Backpage's coffers represents the proceeds of illegal activity." The Verge reports: Law enforcement agencies seized Backpage's servers last week, and co-founder Michael Lacey was charged in a sealed 93-count indictment, which has now been revealed. Lacey, as well as his co-founder James Larkin, were already charged with violating California money laundering laws, although a judge threw out state-level pimping charges. Beyond Lacey and Larkin, the Backpage indictment includes charges against the site's chief financial officer, operations manager, assistant operations manager, and marketing director. It also charges the executive vice president of one of Backpage's parent companies. Backpage CEO Carl Ferrer, who was previously charged with pimping in California, was not charged in this indictment. The Justice Department claims Backpage's owners tried to cover up the fact that most of its "adult services" ads involved prostitution, and that Backpage allowed child sex traffickers to keep ads on the site as long as they deleted age-related keywords. The indictment also claims that Backpage disguised payments for illegal services by having customers funnel money to foreign bank accounts or apparently unrelated companies, or by transferring funds into cryptocurrency. These federal chargers are reportedly unrelated to the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, a bill that would make website operators liable for illegal content posted to their sites. The bill is currently awaiting Trump's signature.

256 comments

  1. 93 counts by john+of+sparta · · Score: 1

    better plea down, because at least one of the indicted will 'turn', and examples will be made.

    1. Re:93 counts by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      The American "justice" system for you -- punishes you for daring to seek a jury trial.

    2. Re: 93 counts by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Coerced false confession FTW!

    3. Re: 93 counts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's right, though. If you're on the hook for something that might send you to prison for decades, taking a plea for a few years starts to look very attractive no matter how certain you are of you innocence. Our criminal justice system has issues.

    4. Re:93 counts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? If you're probably guilty, a plea bargain will give you a lighter punishment than a trial by jury. If a jury finds you guilty, they'll throw the book at you.

      But in the 'American' judicial system, a person must agree to a plea bargain. It's not forced on them.

    5. Re:93 counts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American "justice" system for you -- punishes you for committing crimes..

      Fixed that for you.

    6. Re:93 counts by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      But in the 'American' judicial system, a person must agree to a plea bargain. It's not forced on them.

      But it sure feels that way after a few months in jail with no trial date in sight, and you can't afford a legal team as good as what the prosecution has.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  2. Backpage Charges by rsmith-mac · · Score: 0

    Prostitution and money laundering? Whelp, they're fucked.

    1. Re:Backpage Charges by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Don't drop the soap!

    2. Re:Backpage Charges by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      They will be heros in prison.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  3. Some bad by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Money laundering: bad
    Child sex trafficking: bad
    Prostitution: not bad. Get with the times USA, It's legal elsewhere.

    1. Re:Some bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The money laundering is probably because they were 'knowingly' accepting dirty money from the prostitutes for ads

      As far as child sex trafficking goes, that has become the rallying call of the new anti-prostitution racket because whenever we punish adults for doing adult things... it is 'for the children'

    2. Re:Some bad by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Money laundering: bad

      Money laundering is "bad" only if the money came from harmful sources. Otherwise it is just another tool of government oppression.

      Child sex trafficking: bad

      "Child sex" and "trafficking" are very frequently appended as additional charges, even when there is no plausible justification. They carry severe penalties, so can be used to coerce plea deals when the government otherwise has a weak case, and they mean extra federal dollars targeted at these crimes, even when there are no convictions. So your tax dollars are paying for malicious prosecutions.

      Prostitution: not bad. Get with the times USA, It's legal elsewhere.

      It is also legal in some American jurisdictions, such as some counties in Nevada. So I am surprised that "facilitating prostitution" is a federal crime. I thought the feds stayed out of prostitution enforcement.

      Is Stormy Daniels on Backpage?

    3. Re:Some bad by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2, Informative

      Money laundering even of legal income is still an issue when used as part of a larger tax evasion scheme.

    4. Re:Some bad by AbRASiON · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Money laundering is welcome in Canada and Australia for Chinese locusts, snapping up all available property.

    5. Re:Some bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The child sex trafficking might just be tagged on to the prostitution. With laws requiring strict and easily verifyable age checks for certain occupations, a lack of these (since prostitution isn't legal) automatically implies exploited children.

    6. Re:Some bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a shame.
      It sold lots of other things - these now down too - so a win for ebay methinks.

      Why did they not have legal entities in the way. No bank director ever gets pinged like this. On the plus side, it will grow new companies outside the USA

    7. Re:Some bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS, money laundering is always bad. It is used as a method to intentionally evade laws or hide income for tax purposes or to make income appear to have come from legitimate means. please provide one example where money laundering isn't bad?

    8. Re:Some bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We went past the "for the children" crap when Republicans put their support in Roy Moore.

    9. Re: Some bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prostitution is not allowed elsewhere. I live in Sweden where it's even illegal to go abroad to solicit sexual services.

    10. Re: Some bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prostitution is not generally illegal in Sweden, what is illegal there is the other side, namely paying for sex. Nevertheless the law drove many sex workers into illegality or extreme poverty when they were deprived of their income. Anyway, Sweden's puritanic and nonsensical laws are a big exception, prostitution is pretty much allowed for both sides (buying & selling) in most of the rest of Europe and large parts of the rest of the civilized world. Women and men should be allowed to do with their body whatever they want. Human trafficking and coercing people into sex work is illegal everywhere, of course.

    11. Re:Some bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do some reading on the backpage sex trafficking, ShanghaiBill. It was rampant. The evidence for it is overwhelming.

    12. Re:Some bad by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      ... I am surprised that "facilitating prostitution" is a federal crime.

      It's not, nor was Backpage charged with that.
      The summary of the article tries to imply that it is, but that's just the usual bullshit media distortion.

    13. Re:Some bad by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 1

      "Money laundering" isnt even a crime on its own. Its a bull shit pile-on crime latched on to a normal crime.

      * stealing
      * breathing while stealing
      * having a heartbeat while stealing

      > Child sex trafficking: bad
      > Prostitution: not bad. Get with the times USA, It's legal elsewhere.

      If the feds suspected this why are the arresting website owners and not the sex traffickers?

    14. Re:Some bad by MDMurphy · · Score: 2

      I am curious about the money laundering part. There have been issues in the past with porn sites and other "naughty" companies being able to accept credit cards or Paypal for payment. That spawned a set of companies to act as middlemen to "launder" the payments to keep the anti-porn companies from seeing who the money is going to.

      So I'm wondering whether BP was accepting payments for ads from companies that had their money with these alternative processors, or doing laundering in the traditional sense. It feels to me similar to someone who sold something on Ebay, accepted Paypal, then paid for something else from their Paypal balance.

    15. Re: Some bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evading unjust laws isn't bad

    16. Re:Some bad by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      If the feds suspected this why are the arresting website owners and not the sex traffickers?

      Well, see, in Neo-America, charging someone with a crime that they, personally, never committed is par for the course.

      Kinda like when a cop shoots a thief, and they charge the thief's accomplice with murder.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    17. Re:Some bad by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

      Nope. Politicians have a longstanding tradition of raging hypocrisy.

    18. Re:Some bad by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      All who participated in the violent felony are responsible for all deaths as a result. This includes other criminals shot by police or even bystanders accidentally shot by police shooting at the criminal.

      Don't wanna be charged with murder? Don't commit a crime with the risk of death.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    19. Re:Some bad by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So I am surprised that "facilitating prostitution" is a federal crime

      This is like "facilitating sex" or "facilitating an abortion".... it should be Unconstitutional for the same basic reason that Roe v. Wade. Rejects criminalization of abortions. Prostitution between consenting adults is as private a matter as sex which the state has no compelling interest in restricting; similar to the way in which they cannot restrict sexual acts based on biological gender.

    20. Re:Some bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is however heavily regulated with limited licensing in NV, making it VERY expensive. Some counties also ban it. This leads to NV having a black market anyway

    21. Re:Some bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is simply prosecutorial overreach (IMHO), where they follow a line of logic where the prostitutes want to spend the ill-gotten (and untaxed) gains on backpage ads, and backpage, by accepting payment, is 'laundering' the prostitutes money.

      Hopefully a judge will kick this out of court before prosecutors get the chance to go after anybody who rents of sells a service to a prostitute

    22. Re:Some bad by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Legal earned money is already 'laundered' otherwise it would be legally earned ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re:Some bad by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      It is most certainly a crime if I launder YOUR money for you.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re:Some bad by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Confusing terminology, but the point should be clear: Even if you didn't do anything illegal to earn the money, you might still want to keep it hidden from the government so you can avoid tax. You might even want to launder it into appearing to come from another, less-taxed source.

    25. Re:Some bad by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      All who participated in the violent felony are responsible for all deaths as a result.

      Theft isn't a violent felony; theoretically, a cop shooting a criminal who shot at him isn't a felony either.

      Don't wanna be charged with murder? Don't commit a crime with the risk of death.

      In Neo-America, merely interacting with a police officer can carry the risk of death; ask the estate of Philandro Castille.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    26. Re:Some bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When anyone dies as a result of a police interaction - it is not the fault of the officer who did the murdering.

      Where have you been the last 20 years?

      Duh

    27. Re: Some bad by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      So every married man in Sweden is hiding from the cops?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    28. Re:Some bad by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You might even want to launder it into appearing to come from another, less-taxed source.
      Yeah, I agree, that makes sense. I just wonder how much you need to earn and how complex such a scheme would be that it is worth the efford.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. Mixed up bullsnot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The prosecutors want to claim that the Back Page people were enabling the exploitation of children, but it is regressive laws on prostitution that allow abuse of sex workers in the black market.

    When is our society going to crawl out of the dark ages and provide a safe workplace for sex workers? It is only when the trade is out in the open that people who exploit others can be removed through laws that protect sex workers instead of marginalizing them.

    Back Page was actually providing a way for sex workers to operate without criminals managing them.

    1. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      - and why would the government want that exactly?

      So they can tax it. Some politician somewhere is looking at the legal pot tax dollars and putting two and two together. It's only a matter of time.

    2. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by CRC'99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Up next, eBay gets charged for facilitating the sale of stolen goods...

      --
      Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing an editor and a MTA.
    3. Re: Mixed up bullsnot by Reverend+Green · · Score: 2

      In Soviet America, the law violates you!

    4. Re: Mixed up bullsnot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The taxes on workers are minuscule and of zero influence.

    5. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by Nidi62 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      When is our society going to crawl out of the dark ages and provide a safe workplace for sex workers?

      Because sex outside marriage is bad and a horrible sin, unless of course you are a political or religious figure, in which case it is a simple human failing worthy of forgiveness. Heaven forbid (see what I did there?) we realize and embrace the fact that humans are sexual creatures. Oh well, at least we can have all the guns we want! Just work out all that sexual frustration the American way, at your local shooting range.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2

      Because sex outside marriage is bad and a horrible sin, unless of course you are a political or religious figure, in which case it is a simple human failing worthy of forgiveness. Heaven forbid (see what I did there?) we realize and embrace the fact that humans are sexual creatures. Oh well, at least we can have all the guns we want! Just work out all that sexual frustration the American way, at your local shooting range.

      Do you realize you're simultaneously arguing for and against self determination?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    7. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's what this law means. It's really a matter of the will to actually go out and enforce it to that extent. Do we really want to live in a society where what is allowed and what is not is at the discretion of the cops and prosecutors?

      CAPTCHA: satanic

    8. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can have all the sex you want in the U.S. You're just not allowed to pay for it.

    9. Re: Mixed up bullsnot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Putin's Russia, rule of law is unreliable.

    10. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. If you are for prostitution you must be against guns, obviously. Never ever could someone be for the right to do both.

    11. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by jythie · · Score: 1

      I read it as making fun of they hypocrisy in the right's view of self determination. Freedom freedom freedom, till it comes to women controlling their own bodies or sexuality, then it is evil evil evil.

    12. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Nope. If you are for prostitution you must be against guns, obviously. Never ever could someone be for the right to do both.

      I think you misunderstand. I think both should be legal--though I'd never say I was "for" prostitution--because they both come down to an issue of self-determinism. I was pointing out the GP's inconsistency.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    13. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      I read it as making fun of they hypocrisy in the right's view of self determination. Freedom freedom freedom, till it comes to women controlling their own bodies or sexuality, then it is evil evil evil.

      You realize of course, both "sides" have this problem. They both want different sets of things to be forbidden, and other things to be mandatory. Neither one truly supports freedom in any meaningful way.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    14. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      Nope. If you are for prostitution you must be against guns, obviously. Never ever could someone be for the right to do both.

      I think you misunderstand. I think both should be legal--though I'd never say I was "for" prostitution--because they both come down to an issue of self-determinism. I was pointing out the GP's inconsistency.

      I am actually pro both prostitution and guns, as long as both are properly regulated. Another poster was right, my comment was a statement of the hypocrisy of current American society where something natural is abhorred and something potentially deadly is lauded; where children must be protected from anything sexual while many people are trying to increase children's' exposure to weapons in places they don't belong, such as in schools.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    15. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      You realize, of course, that only one "side" is claiming to increase freedom.

      The left is fully aware that their policies limit libertarian version of "freedom" in order to accomplish a policy goal.

    16. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sort of. It's highly disingenuous to claim equivalency. Both sides "do it" and "have it" but the american conservatives are so much farther down that path that is comes close to lying to try and claim simply "the both do it".

    17. Re: Mixed up bullsnot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yay, rule of lawyers! Fuck you, proles, that's why!

    18. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Back Page was actually providing a way for sex workers to operate without criminals managing them.

      It was also providing a way for criminals that "manage" sex workers to more efficiently sell them. And it's not just regressive laws that allow pimps, it's also the fact that it is cheaper and easier to coerce the vulnerable with drugs/threats/violence than to deal with people that demand their rights.

      Why can't we get it in our heads that the real world does not operate according to a narrative. BackPage was both empowering for independent sex workers (a good thing) and empowering for violent pimps (a bad thing). It was neither wholly good nor wholly evil.

      I'm all for legalizing prostitution, having rigorous protection for sex workers and the whole progress shebang, but I'm not at all convinced that the majority of what happened on BP was above-board.

    19. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Nah. People typically work out sexual frustrations by stuffing food down their neck.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    20. Re:Mixed up bullsnot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the president of the united states has paid for it, though.

    21. Re: Mixed up bullsnot by kenh · · Score: 1

      I sit here, with bated breath, awaiting politicians on the Left stepping forward declaring Backpage a national treasure, an example of technology empowering women and enabling financial independence for women with no commercial skills, just orafices men will pay to insert body parts into...

      --
      Ken
  5. Re: Iâ(TM)ve got a boner by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 0

    No, you should see Backpage.... Oh wait, they're gone, so now you'll have to buy some meth and put a sentence that includes the words "go fast" in a personal ad.

  6. Prison society by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Insightful

    So where is the first amendment protection exactly? The right to free speech is destroyed by the government completely, the right to free association, the basic idea that you own your body, your property, your labour, all of it is absolutely destroyed and this shit started back in the early 1900s when the Sherman act was passed, when the income taxes were set up, when the gold dollar was turned into paper, all of this crap led to this total destruction of individual rights and liberties.

    Where is the freedom, freedom to do anything at all that humans should be able to do on this planet? We live once, only one fucking time. There is no fucking god, there is no fucking afterlife, there is no fucking anything after you are dead, you live once and the so called 'society' is a prison and the government is the warden and the cops and the military are the jailers, prison guards.

    There is no freedom, there is nothing left, the money is fake, the economy is fake, the Constitution is fake, the society is fake, the judges are fake, the laws are fake.

    A woman or a man (and anything in between) must be able to sell their labour, their services, whatever those services must be. They must be able to keep the fruits of their labour without any society infringing upon these rights that should be protected simply because it makes sense to protect those rights for others so that your rights can be protected too.

    Rights are not something somebody gives to you, it is what the oppression cannot take away that you created or provided.

    WHO WANTS THESE LAWS? Which ones of you are actually for this shit, I want to know?

    1. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Michael Lacey ran the Phoenix New Times when it grew from a kitty-litter liner to a nation-wide progressive news source that eventually purchased the Village Voice

      He is an accomplished journalist, skilled editor and adept businessman. This trial should be interesting once that you realize that it is really an attack on a progressive news source.

    2. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roman.Mir isn't insane. He's just a dumbass fraud who got hit on the head by a collection of Ayn Rand books and ended up babbling his nonsense by obssesion on Slashdot.

    3. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Character attacks are the lowest form of rebuttals in an argument. Attack the idea if you disagree not the person saying it.

    4. Re: Prison society by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      The fact is, these people are individually human scum. They don't keep their word. They don't respect others. They connive, cheat, and otherwise mess up lives.

      He won the electoral college vote fairly. You need to get over it, snowflake.

      Wait, who are we talking about?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Progressive voices? Please, they've been money-grubbing hacks since the 1980s.

      Any scam they could make a buck from was fair game in their books or rather papers. Didn't matter to them any more than it did to Heffner or that Hustler guy.

      The only dumber paper in America was Ron Paul's newsletter, and even that wasn't by much. Remember the News Frontiersman from Watchmen? Think that, but lower editorial standards.

      You'd be better off reading the toilet paper and using their papers to wipe your arse instead.

    6. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry to differ, but having grown up in Phoenix and read the rag for decades, I find your opinion to be inaccurate.

      Look at the investigations into Governor Symington (eventually jailed on fed charges), or any of the republican state representatives involved in raiding the state's Clean Air monies (to big stories in the '90s) and you will see how they rose to prominence, and probably why they were singled out by this administration, while Sinclair (a right wing media outlet) is allowed to grow grotesquely

    7. Re: Prison society by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The fact is, these people are individually human scum. They don't keep their word. They don't respect others. They connive, cheat, and otherwise mess up lives.

      Yet we allow cable companies to keep their websites running.

    8. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good work, Billy! Another $0.50 has been deposited in your Shareblue account.

    9. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off Progressive fascist scumbag.

    10. Re: Prison society by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Remember when Americans used to *value* freedom? I do...

    11. Re: Prison society by inking · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I remember! It's when Americans kept slaves, right?

    12. Re: Prison society by Reverend+Green · · Score: 0

      Go fuck yourself, Ivan.

    13. Re: Prison society by inking · · Score: 1

      Can't. Be serf, must plow field for landlord.

    14. Re:Prison society by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      So where is the first amendment protection exactly?

      The first amendment has never applied much to commercial speech. There are laws against false advertising, restrictions on advertising cigarettes and booze, etc.

      the basic idea that you own your body,

      Self ownership has never been part of American law. We have always had laws against prostitution, and have long had drug laws, laws against suicide, laws against self-harm, restrictions on informed consent, etc. The AMA is trying to ban people from sequencing their own DNA. Congress unanimously banned human cloning, even though the constitution gives them no authority to do so.

    15. Re: Prison society by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Remember when Americans used to *value* freedom? I do...

      When was that?

    16. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And? People paid money for it? So who is So are?

      Push comes to shove this is an attempt to criminalize speech and control consenting people's behaviour. That the media isn't screaming from their high towers demonstrates that free speech is dead and buried.

    17. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Prostitution isn't illegal everywhere so try again.

      This is an attack on free speech using a site that people won't defend because "politically incorrect".

      It is hardly over the top to point out that individual freedoms to do whatever consenting adults want to do is dead and buried. Hope your happy in your prison.

    18. Re: Prison society by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      Phoenix new times was one of the sharpest papers in the country. Steve Lemons investigation of the almost comically corrupt sherif arpaio is the stuff of legends.

      To call it a hack paper frankly betrays a very poor understanding of what the press actually is supposed to do

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    19. Re: Prison society by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Funny

      Good work, Billy! Another $0.50 has been deposited in your Shareblue account.

      Excuse me, but I'm management. I get $0.75, plus an extra $0.25 whenever I can trigger an Anonymous Coward.

      And that's not counting quarterly bonuses or benefits.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    20. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To call it a hack paper frankly betrays a very poor understanding of what the press actually is supposed to do

      To ignore their profiteering pursuit of money through a flagrant disregard for any ethical standard in their commercial endeavors reveals a complete lack of understanding of how papers get printed.

      Moving on, or rather back, since while you keep ignoring the problems with their behavior, idiots like you want to praise them for something, I'll address it:

      Phoenix new times was one of the sharpest papers in the country. Steve Lemons investigation of the almost comically corrupt sherif arpaio is the stuff of legends.

      LOL, and yet Arpaio was what? Oh yeah, in office for years and years. Elected six times. Good show, dumb-asses. Their accomplishments were nothing, and even his "conviction" was met with a "pardon" rather than any kind of recalcitrance.

      Yeah, let me know when you find when they do something that meant anything.

      Might as well be praising Pulitzer and Hearst you fucking posers.

    21. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to differ, but having grown up in Phoenix and read the rag for decades, I find your opinion to be inaccurate.

      That's nice, so what? Maybe I find your opinion to be grossly inaccurate, and I wonder whether you were out in the sun so long that your brain melted.

      Look at the investigations into Governor Symington (eventually jailed on fed charges), or any of the republican state representatives involved in raiding the state's Clean Air monies (to big stories in the '90s) and you will see how they rose to prominence, and probably why they were singled out by this administration, while Sinclair (a right wing media outlet) is allowed to grow grotesquely

      You mean the conviction that was later overturned? Funny you don't mention that bit. Or how he was pardoned by Bill Clinton. Or how none of it had anything to do with his service in office, all arising out of his prior business. And the same thing happened with Evan Meacham too. Except you'd have to admit it was the Arizona Republic behind that one.

      Azscam was pointless, a few low-end legislators nobody cared about went away, the business didn't change, and of course, Arizona today, they were happily suing the EPA against new regulations until the new sheriff made that irrelevant, working to prevent people from using solar, and finding new ways to dump public money into private coffers, so...good show?

      But none of this matters to their own rampant greed. Singled out by this administration? Backpage has been a target for years, and the only thing surprising is that Trump lets an actual investigation into a real crime keep going, even when there's no way to tie it to Hillary Clinton.

      At least not yet. He'll probably find a way to convince himself she's behind it.

    22. Re: Prison society by jythie · · Score: 0

      Never? America has always been 'freedom for those with the most power to restrict the freedom of lesser people'. Seriously, many of the original colonies were specifically founded because people's home countries were not cracking down on other groups enough for their tastes. They couldn't handle the multiculturalism or religious freedom (for others), or couldn't handle all those 'workers are people who can vote' stuff getting in the way of businesses. So they wanted a place that would be safe for oppression.

    23. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I belive that, overall, it's the period before Eisenhower's warning to us to "Beware the Military-Indutrial Complex"

    24. Re:Prison society by DarkOx · · Score: 0

      So what is your point. If there is no God, than you are just an accident, like many other accidents. You are of no intrinsic value, once you are gone you will no longer matter; you don't actually matter right now either.

      It does not matter how the government treats you; because you are just an animal. Seriously without God that is all there can be to it. There is exactly no reason any of us have to not just live entirely for the moment, and that includes killing and oppressing others if it furthers our own hedonistic desires.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    25. Re:Prison society by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      To be logically more precise, you don't need to have a god to live forever (or strictly speaking, to have morals).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re:Prison society by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Please enlighten me! Lets set the live forever thing aside for moment and just to to justify using logic the any moral system - besides "might makes right".

      See I don't think there is one without God. All arguments and philosophies which argue for morals without God boil down to "I am important because I say so."

      If my response is "I don't agree and I don't care" then YOU don't matter. On there other hand if there is a creator God who does care, things are very different.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    27. Re: Prison society by datavirtue · · Score: 2

      The world has always been 'freedom for those with the most power to restrict the freedom of lesser people.

      Fixed that for you.
      No matter the failings, American freedom is unique. I know that disgusts you but it is a fact that can be easily proven. I wonder why people in forums get so worked up in their hate of American principles and values that, despite the interference from the people who ignore and complain about them, continue to live on. So pessimistic, and it is really getting old. To people like you there is nothing good in the world.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    28. Re:Prison society by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      "There are laws against false advertising"

      You really have to bone something up or be an underdog to garner that charge. It is pretty much laissez-faire for advertising in America.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    29. Re:Prison society by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      This rubbish has been invented by modern theologists when they ran out of arguments for converting people to their respective faith. It's a well-known fact that those values of Christianity that we consider positive nowadays come from enlightenment and the humanist ideas that started in the 18th and 19th Century. Before that, it was fine to have slavery, commit genocide, support feudalism and absolutism, burn witches, and so forth. The values preached by your particular cult, whatever it may be, are changing every century and you're deluding yourself if you believe that there is any correlation between our modern enligthenment values and religious prescriptions.

    30. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which states have laws forcing the EC to vote with the party under threat of fines or imprisonment?

    31. Re:Prison society by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Congress unanimously banned human cloning, even though the constitution gives them no authority to do so.
      And which part of the constitution does it violate?
      Or other way around: what special extra authority would be necessary in the constitution?

      What is next? Requirements of driving licenses are unconstitutional?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    32. Re: Prison society by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oh, enlighten you? For one thing, "there are no deities in Zen" as a Zen priest once said. If you choose to be an awful person, karma will still get you though. In another way no man is an island and "you are me and I am you" so if you hurt me, you are also hurting yourself.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    33. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American freedom is actually the least free freedom I've ever encountered, people in forums don't get worked up in their hate of American principles and values because they are jealous of your "freedoms" they get worked up because you invade them and try to force your freedoms on them (which almost exclusively reduces their actual freedoms)

    34. Re: Prison society by kenh · · Score: 1

      Would this be the law that makes it illegal to use federal funds to pay for cloning, but are mute when it comes to private funding?

      --
      Ken
    35. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American freedom that lets police shoot blacks down in the streets and get off scot free? That freedom? The freedom that lets the rich get richer and tell the poor to fuck off, we're doing more free trade, fuck your jobs? The freedom that lets America bomb the piss out of country after country without any official ever going before the Hague for war crimes? That freedom? American exceptionalism is a stupid idea and nobody but right-wing brainwashed Trumptards believe in it.

    36. Re:Prison society by DarkOx · · Score: 0

      I am just taking things to their logical conclusions. Without God I don't see how any moral philosophy really holds up. Without God we are both accidental and finite. Therefore our individual experience and selves are worth nothing in the universal sense - whatever we did or had done to us will no longer matter as we will be gone as will everyone who remembered us.

      If that is the case it matters not if we our oppressed or act as the oppressor, if we are killed or act as killer. There is no moral case to be made for freedom, or even justice as we commonly understand it.

      My thesis there are only two possible causes for moral behavior;
      1) We have no free will, we are simply playing out the chemical script inherent in our make up. Nothing is really bad or good at all we just perceive it that way, because we are wired to do so. The serial killer is no worse than your or I he's actually just different although neither you or I will owning to our nature ever be able to accept that.

      2) There is a God, he is eternal, he offers us eternity if accept his bargain; which includes morality. Because he is eternal and we are eternal things actually do matter. We have free will and can cause our own destruction or not through our choices; our decision to know him or refuse him.

      I for one don't believe the atheists who insists on both free will and morality without God. That is a man who either has not really examined fully his philosophy of life, secretly believes in a god, or is a sociopath and as a function of that wants to keep it secret. You can have morality or free will without a god but not both.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    37. Re: Prison society by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No idea.
      Why would the constitution forbid to make laws that forbid private funding for cloning?
      As long as a law is not contradicting the constitution it is valid, so what is your point?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    38. Re:Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a fucking moron.

    39. Re:Prison society by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The constitution is not a restriction on the Federal Government. It is the basis of it. Therefore, the Feds have no legal power that is not specified by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has made some decisions I disagree with on implementing this, but that's the idea. There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the Feds can ban human cloning, as long as it isn't interstate commerce.

      Congress does have the power to tax and spend for the general welfare, and a lot of Federal laws are related to that. The Feds get most of the tax money, so that gives them a lot of power to influence the states.

      Most of the specific laws area passed by States, which are limited only somewhat by the US Constitution. (They can't favor a particular religion, abridge free speech, etc.) I believe the requirements to have a license to drive on public roads are state laws, and I believe they're in place in all states. A lot of criminal law is fairly common between states. We can talk of first-degree murder because all states have similar murder laws. There's no requirement that a state make murder illegal, but all do.

      That's how it works in this country, and some people like it that way. Other people would rather have more uniformity in their law.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    40. Re:Prison society by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why do you think there is a moral system with God? Isn't "morality is handed down from God" an unsupported moral statement? Doesn't it suffer from the problem that God doesn't clearly outline to each and every one of us what God wants us to do, and so most of us have to get our moral systems from one of a number of people who claim to know God's will, but disagree with each other?

      All statements about morality ostensibly based on God's will boil down to "I am right because I say so". We can't even agree whether there is a God (whatever definition we use), and atheists appear to act about as morally as theists.

      Moral theories like utilitarianism don't claim that anyone is particularly important.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:Prison society by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Without God I don't see how any moral philosophy really holds up

      In which I suggest that you broaden either your philosophical education or your imagination, or both. You're taking a particularly limited view of morality, and automatically rejecting that which you don't understand. In fact, lots of atheists act morally by what your standards probably are. Why?

      I for one don't believe the atheists who insists on both free will and morality without God.

      Don't worry, I don't believe your excursions into moral philosophy, so we're even. The only way you're going to convince me is with good arguments, and your lack of understanding or belief don't constitute a good argument.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    42. Re: Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So offer any explanation at all as to why an atheist would act morally. Gen suggested a reason, no free will.

      Please if you think DarkOx is wrong offer any example at all of a system that allows for free will and predicts morality for a reason other than it altruistic behavior makes us feel good, which isn't a justification for moral behavior just an explanation. His example of the killer or the sociopath under that explanation are not really bad as he explained just different.

    43. Re:Prison society by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The constitution is not a restriction on the Federal Government. [...] Therefore, the Feds have no legal power that is not specified by the Constitution.
      The congress can do any law that is not explicitly forbidden by the constitution.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      However they mostly gladly do let the states do their own thing ...

      After all they attempted to ban human cloning several times on federal level: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    44. Re:Prison society by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Your first cites doesn't support what you claim. Yes, there are federal crimes. No, there are things that can't be federal crimes.

      Your second refers to a potential ban on research using federal funding. It mentions that any law banning cloning entirely would face difficult constitutional questions.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    45. Re: Prison society by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Empirically, atheists act morally about as much as other people do. This is a general observation, and shows that arriving at a conclusion that theists are moral and atheists aren't is untenable.

      Free Will is a very slippery concept. We know from psychological studies that people sometimes make decisions before they're aware that they're making decisions.. Its relationship to determinism is more complicated than it looks. Suppose I'm offered two entree choices. Depending on what they are, someone who knows me well enough would be certain that I'd pick the fried chicken over the stuffed green peppers, for example. This is pretty much certain. I'm predictable that way. Am I exercising free will in asking for the chicken? I don't feel any outside force pressuring me one way or another. Studies have also shown that willpower is a limited resource in individuals.

      The problem with "free will" is that people toss it around like it meant something specific. We all feel like we have free will (most of us, anyway), whether or not we're right. We typically act as if we do.

      The moral issue is that some people think that determinism preempts morality, that, unless there is free will, everyone is acting as they're preprogrammed to do, and everyone is therefore amoral.

      The most obvious contradiction is that it implicitly assumes that we have a moral requirement or a free choice to consider someone not evil by means of determinism, and that doesn't make sense unless I'm assumed to have free will and that serial killer over there is assumed to lack it. (I've seen this sort of reasoning far too often, in various forms.) If we're all amoral because of determinism, then it is the laws of physics that dictate I write about morality.

      So, if we assume we have free will of some form or another, we still don't necessarily assume that there is a God (and that's also a slippery concept). We can assume that we have free will and agree that some form of utilitarianism is the theoretical definition of morality, although very difficult to use in practice. There's no contradiction there.

      Also, if a feeling of altruism isn't a justification for moral behavior, how about instructions from God? Doing something under a threat of eternal torture is not actual moral behavior.

      I'm not sure I've explained what you want, since I don't fully understand what you want. Feel free to ask more questions or ask me to expand on some topics.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    46. Re:Prison society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the most devoutly religious person on slashdot - who rarely writes a single message here that is not an attempt to bring more people to his religion and more people to worship his chosen savior - is again trying to tell us he's an atheist. why do you keep trying to sell us this lie?

      you can haz downmod, sir. you make a solid argument for slashdot adding a "nonfactual" down mod; in this case "offtopic" will have to do as your lying about being an atheist is certainly offtopic.

  7. Brilliant job morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They also forced down Preferred411, the site that reviewed sex workers and verified the johns. The site kept things safer for everyone - the customers got to avoid scams and muggings, while the girls could verify their clients weren't psychopaths or serial killers.

    Now it's much worse for everybody, don't be surprised if violent crime goes up. Thanks for saving us politicians.

    1. Re:Brilliant job morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      b.. b.. but it's for the children!

      How long is middle-America gonna let themselves be controlled with that reasoning?

    2. Re:Brilliant job morons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now it's much worse for everybody

      That's the point. Risk is being used as a deterrent.

    3. Re:Brilliant job morons by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      "Now it's much worse for everybody, don't be surprised if violent crime goes up."

      Win for law enforcement and government. They get more stuff to protect us from and justify their existence.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  8. Reported to the FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... child sex traffickers to keep ads on the site ...

    I suppose such confessions are properly meant to be reported to the FBI. That will teach brothels to remove age-related words anyway and then BackPage won't know that underage prostitutes are advertised on their site.

    ... "virtually every dollar flowing into Backpage's coffers ...

    This propaganda, commonly used in the USA, is another way of saying it's Backpage's fault their customers committed a crime.

    1. Re:Reported to the FBI by omnichad · · Score: 1

      "virtually every dollar" is intended to prove that they absolutely knew they were facilitating a crime. I'm sure you know that aiding and abetting a criminal is also a crime.

    2. Re: Reported to the FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So plea bargaining down a drug dealer to flip on the supplier should be prosecuted right? That's "aiding and abetting" by your definition.

    3. Re: Reported to the FBI by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The crime had already occurred by that point. How are you getting that idea?

  9. Due Process by Teppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So they've charged them with various crimes, and a jury may or may not convict them. But the trial hasn't happened yet - what right does the government have to take down their website and business just in case they get a conviction? Isn't the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty" that you get your day in court before any punishment happens?

    1. Re:Due Process by supernova87a · · Score: 0

      So, you're saying if the Feds with probable cause and warrants raid some organized crime's money-laundering front company, that company should be allowed to keep on operating until the case has gone to trial and the responsible individuals are found guilty?

      I don't think Due Process means what you think it means.

    2. Re:Due Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RICO statutes allow for civil forfeiture before there is any conviction.

    3. Re:Due Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in the current legal climate "due process" means:
      "due" - you owe the government some licks cause you're guilty until proven innocent
      "process" - the government will take as long as bureaucratically possible to deliver them or to delay being proven you are innocent and losing face about it

    4. Re:Due Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are crazy if you think “innocent until proven guilty” still stands. It is now “guilty when accused”. #MeToo

    5. Re:Due Process by omnichad · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's called a preliminary injunction.

    6. Re:Due Process by gravewax · · Score: 1

      innocent until proven guilty has not now nor has it ever meant you get to keep operating what they consider an illegal enterprise. Should it be later found in court they were operating legally then the government would need to make restitution but it does not need to wait till then to get a court order to take down the site.

    7. Re:Due Process by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 2

      > So, you're saying if the Feds with probable cause and warrants raid some organized crime's money-laundering front company, that company should be allowed to keep on operating until the case has gone to trial and the responsible individuals are found guilty?

      Yes. Why should they get to destroy a legitimate business based on a hunch?

      Do we issue the electric chair to murderers before they are found guilty?

    8. Re:Due Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying if the Feds with probable cause and warrants raid some organized crime's money-laundering front company, that company should be allowed to keep on operating until the case has gone to trial and the responsible individuals are found guilty?

      So, you're saying if the Feds with innuendo and a sympathetic judge raid some legitimate company's business, that company should have all its assets forfeited and the trial delayed a ridiculous period of time to effective crush any chance of near any nominally sized company from surviving that assault? Or are you under the impression that those involved will get anything approaching a "speedy trial"? I mean, unless you think having a trial 100 days from your arrest to be "speedy". God help you if you're in a State court.

    9. Re:Due Process by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      You don't understand what you are talking about. This isn't civil forfeiture, this is direct criminal forfeiture where the assets will have to be returned if the fed's get a conviction.

      Civil forfeiture uses the civil courts and the person holding the property doesn't even have standing in the case to challenge the seizure and there are only a handful of states that require a criminal conviction in civil forfeiture.

    10. Re: Due Process by Reverend+Green · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Alas my bother, you're daydreaming. That "innocent until proven guilty" trope is a pure fairy tale. A story, like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, that we tell to little kids.

      Unless you've been living under a rock, you know we have by far the largest Gulag in the world. Some people claim it's second only to Stalin's Gulag as the largest prison population in all history - but I have not verified that claim. And by Uncle Sam's own statistics, well over 90% of the souls interred in our prison and torture camps were coerced into giving false confessions ("plea bargaining").

      In Soviet America, accusation is guilt. The accused may well be smarmy hacks. But unless they have a LOT of money, you can be damned sure they won't get a fair trial.

    11. Re:Due Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that you are confused when you say, " this is direct criminal forfeiture where the assets will have to be returned if the fed's get a conviction."

      lol, they get the assets returned when convicted, hilarious

      Here is how Civil Forfeiture is used: Civil judicial forfeiture is a judicial process that does not require a criminal conviction and is a legal tool that allows law enforcement to seize property that is involved in a crime.

      And now we are all smarter :)

    12. Re:Due Process by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the government would need to make restitution

      Upon failure to convict, the government returns the physical property, but is under no obligation to "make restitution". They can return the computers with their drives wiped, or even disassembled. The do not pay for, or repair, anything damaged in seizure or storage. Plenty of innocent people have their businesses and lives destroyed in spite of acquittals.

    13. Re: Due Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes they should. It's called innocent until proven guilty. The confiscatio n of property under RICO laws is out of hand, That's a slippery slope that hit the bottom long ago.

      Completely innocent people are having their property confiscated and never charged. Feel free to Google it, its not uncommon and it's entirely because we've lost the concept that it's better to let 9 guilty people go free than convict 1 innocent person. That and we keep criminalizing consenting behaviour between adults (gambling, Prostitution, drugs, etc).

    14. Re:Due Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't quite correct, the government can be forced by courts to make restitution if the charges really are proven to be BS. If they don't make good you are entitled to sue them. Remember Acquittal also doesn't mean innocent, it just means they could not prove beyond doubt that you personally did it, All they have to be able to show for the seizure though is that the business/goods/assets were used in the crime, which is a completely separate issue as to whether you personally can be proven to have committed the crime.

    15. Re:Due Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are raiding and shutting down the business they aren't just going by a "hunch" they have to have sufficient evidence to convince a judge to sign off on the order and should it prove later the evidence doesn't exist then the business has the right of restitution.

    16. Re:Due Process by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      what right does the government have to take down their website and business just in case they get a conviction? Isn't the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty"

      I believe the trick is in claiming that property (website, hardware, cash, etc.) does not get those rights. So you are innocent until proven guilty but your seized property is not afforded the same rights. And if you need that property/cash to defend yourself or keep the business running ... too bad.
      Oliver had done a great coverage on civil forfeiture.

    17. Re:Due Process by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lmao only 100 days? it will be much longer than that.

    18. Re:Due Process by jythie · · Score: 1

      *nod* I think it would be more accurate to say that an acquittal can lay the foundation of a lawsuit for restitution.

    19. Re: Due Process by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      In Soviet America, accusation is guilt.

      I thought that was a good thing?

      #metoo !!

    20. Re:Due Process by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Seizure. Not just for epileptics--law enforcement uses it to get paid. It is considered a civil matter. Even if you win your case you still have to sue to get your shit back.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    21. Re:Due Process by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      #MeToo

      You have been preliminarily injuncted.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    22. Re:Due Process by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      This is not twitter. If you want to use stupid fucking hashtags, go there.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    23. Re:Due Process by omnichad · · Score: 1

      *injoined

  10. Not sure how to feel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the one hand, politicians have had it out for Craigslist and Backpage for pretty much ever... On the other hand, I haven't seen any of the evidence, or read the complaint, but with 93-counts, odds are they've got something more than a political axe to grind.

    1. Re:Not sure how to feel by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      A moral-panic axe to grind? Never underestimate the power of do-gooders on a mission from G-d.

    2. Re:Not sure how to feel by Troy+Roberts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One of my favorite quotes seems appropriate here:

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

        C.S. Lewis

    3. Re: Not sure how to feel by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand the motivation of deranged anti-sex Progressives... but I don't believe God is a part of it.

    4. Re:Not sure how to feel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." C.S. Lewis

      "Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil." C.S. Lewis

      Speaking of omnipotent moral busybodies...

    5. Re: Not sure how to feel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Throughout the world, prostitution is linked to human trafficking and sex slavery. This includes countries where prostitution is legal. Australia data shows that since prostitution was legalized, human trafficking has dramatically increased.

      If you believe in empirical evidence, the case against legalizing prostitution is strong. If you believe in some kind of moral thought-experiment, yeah legalize it.

    6. Re: Not sure how to feel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is false on Australia. It is actually since legalisation the VISIBILITY of illegal trafficking has increased as due to the legal part being completely out in the open the trafficking is much easier to pick up on. Trafficking itself is suspected to be down but impossible to accurately measure.

    7. Re:Not sure how to feel by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      ... but with 93-counts ...

      93 counts for things that should have never been illegal in the first place.

    8. Re: Not sure how to feel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good work, Billy! $0.50 has been deposited in your Shareblue account.

    9. Re: Not sure how to feel by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      I don't really understand the motivation of deranged anti-sex Progressives... but I don't believe God is a part of it.

      Anti-sex is a conservative thing, mostly stemming from the Christian fundamentalism the same as anti-gay, anti-anything-not-like-me which is the call sign of the Christian conservative movement. I'm not sure how anyone could get that so wrong.

    10. Re: Not sure how to feel by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      There is some bleedover. The former Morality in Media rebranded a few years ago into the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, and switched the political alignment of their rhetoric - dropped the religion and all the talk of family and morality, and started talking about protecting women from objectification. None of their actual positions changed - they still campaign to force racy TV programs out of production and demand the government do more to imprison distributors of pornography. The leadership just decided that they could better achieve their goals if they sought allies on the left rather than the right, and rebuilt their facade accordingly.

    11. Re: Not sure how to feel by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Have you been living under a rock the past decade? And did your rock have no internet service?

    12. Re:Not sure how to feel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important." C.S. Lewis

      Hmm. Schrödinger's Christianity?

    13. Re: Not sure how to feel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False. Human trafficing was reduced.

      The REPORTING of human trafficing became a lot better tho.

    14. Re:Not sure how to feel by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      One of my favorite quotes seems appropriate here:

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

      C.S. Lewis

      Pretty sure that Lewis was against legal prostitution. Just sayin. He wasn't libertarian.

    15. Re: Not sure how to feel by jythie · · Score: 1

      Past decade? The anti-sex wing of progressives is mostly a left over from the mid 19th century and has been slowly dying off. They are having a bit of a last-hurrah as their membership are now getting close to the peak of their political power and end of careers, but their support has been dwindling among progressives for decades now.

    16. Re:Not sure how to feel by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      93 counts for things that should have never been illegal in the first place.

      Then change the laws. Until then, they are illegal.

    17. Re:Not sure how to feel by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      There are no do-gooders here. Political entities are always on the hunt for justification of their existence. If people stopped committing crime today, tomorrow would not be pretty as law enforcement and government in general thrashed around looking for the next boogie man.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    18. Re: Not sure how to feel by kenh · · Score: 1

      Because, really, who could come up with 93 baseless accusations?

      --
      Ken
    19. Re: Not sure how to feel by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Have you been living under a rock the past decade? And did your rock have no internet service?

      Nothing you say here adds anything to the discussion so can only assume you have no point...

    20. Re: Not sure how to feel by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      Redundant comment is redundant.

      Call me when your start contributing anything at all, progtard.

    21. Re:Not sure how to feel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      93 counts for things that should have never been illegal in the first place.

      Then change the laws. Until then, they are illegal.

      In this case, it's the laws that are illegal. The USA has a hierarchy of law, with an open-ended Bill of Rights - including any rights the people choose to asserted as being "retained by" or "reserved to" them - that supersedes the authority of government at all levels. Any portion of any law that comes into conflict with the Bill of Rights - including any rights the people choose as being retained by them - is rendered null and void, and enforcement by government is illegal. Think about the Nuremberg Precedent.

      The US Bill of Rights, however, is routinely violated by government. Lots of illegal laws exist. Government officials routinely choose to enforce these illegal laws in violation of the Bill of Rights, and of their oaths of office, and the Constitutional requirement of "good behaviour".

      Under US federal law, the infringement of fundamental rights "under the colour of law" is a criminal offence. However, in practice this law too is routinely violated. It's a classic problem that has recurred throughout human history: how do you keep government from breaking the law? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Literature across many cultures and eras is filled with stories about such matters, such as the Robin Hood stories. But for some reason we seem to have trouble learning from the mistakes of the past.

      All this, of course, greatly undermines the legitimacy of government - and gives the public little interest in supporting it. For many major social issues, government is viewed as part of the problem, not part of the solution. The whole situation is a huge mess.

      A lot of this ultimately comes down to the problems the US has with legal ethics: it's in the interests of the legal profession to have laws that create a demand for the services of their profession. Economists have estimated that half the income of the US legal profession comes from unethical practice of law. Sometimes this means innocent people go to jail, or otherwise have their lives destroyed - more victims of greed. It's not an accident that the USA today has one of the highest incarceration rates in human history. The fact that the politicians are receiving huge campaign contributions from associations of legal professionals doesn't help matters.

      As you would expect, when you have corrupt politicians selecting judges, you get judges that will uphold even an illegal status quo. The study of US court decisions shows a large percentage of decisions ignore legal ethics issues: US legal history is filled with legal ethics problems.

      You can test this for yourself: pick up a book on Constitutional Law, open to a random page, and read until you reach the text of the decision for some case. Examine the decision for legal ethics issues: if you know how to spot them - and you keep an open mind - the odds are good you'll find legal ethics problems that were ignored in the ruling. Hint: look for conflict of interest, think about whether the decision increases the demand for the services of legal professionals, or whether it decreases that demand. The right to ethical practice of law can be asserted as an universal and inalienable right in any society based on the rule of law: is the decision consist with this right? Also, does the decision introduce contradictions (or even the appearance of contradiction) into the law: contradictions are always unethical practice of law. Also, consider things from the perspective of an educated member of the public - anything that might surprise them probably involves unethical practice of law at some level.

  11. Re: Iâ(TM)ve got a boner by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

    Only if it persists for more than four hours, or if you already have an affair with the doctor.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  12. what does this mean for.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck does this mean for Adult Friend Finder, Tinder, Grindr, and/or fuckfest.cum?

    fucking stoopid.
    u

  13. The Crime of "Supervising or Aiding a Prostitute" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police are reaching out:

    https://www.shouselaw.com/supervising-aiding-prostitute.html

    Backpages was not pimps

  14. i loved AFF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One year I fucked 6 women within 4 months. I wish we had this around when I was in the 5th grade.

    1. Re:i loved AFF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking 6 women within 4 months is some sort of accomplishment?! Good God, Billy!

    2. Re: i loved AFF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm. Try college... You'll do better... Until the Feds shut them down too.

  15. Big fuck you to the first amendment by rahvin112 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This case is a big fuck you to the first amendment. Yea their business model involved allowing a site where prostitutes could advertise their services. But that's called free speech, either we have it or don't. To try to force on them the charges for people posting on the site is a broad overreach and attempt to punish a website owner for the actions and speech of others.

    I hope to god these guys can afford good lawyers and get this case thrown out for the broad overreach that it is. Talk about a political prosecution, congress punched a hole in the law to target these guys, a hole that's going to be used to go after a hell of a lot more site operators.

    Everyone should be shocked by what the Trump administration and Congress is doing here.

    1. Re:Big fuck you to the first amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It has nothing to do with the first amendment. You have never had freedom of speech when it pertains to aiding and abetting illegal activity. This is not to say I agree that this should be a crime or that prostitution in general should be criminal, but it is and hence this falls squarely under those laws, freedom of speech does not apply.

    2. Re:Big fuck you to the first amendment by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      But I thought the First Amendment was invalid? It's been widely derided as an obsolete, extremist way to think about free speech. The only people who ever claim its protections are racists. Now suddenly it's valid again and part of something we should fight for? I don't get it.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Big fuck you to the first amendment by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      Everyone should be shocked by what the Trump administration and Congress is doing here.

      We are shocked but what can we do. You can't argue with stupid people, and in a democracy they have a seat at the table.

    4. Re: Big fuck you to the first amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's illegal in an ad service? Will you close a newspaper over an ad printed in it?

    5. Re: Big fuck you to the first amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are not allowed to profit from illegal activity, by knowingly selling ads for an illegal service they have illegally profited, it is pretty simple really.

    6. Re: Big fuck you to the first amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a bs. A good fraction of backpage business was done in the countries where prostitution is not criminalized. There are also states in US I believe where it is nit criminalized.

      Your illegal is like, illegal in Saudi shithole country .

    7. Re:Big fuck you to the first amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You act as though the case against the defendants is brought up without merit. It's not infringing on free speech. Backpage itself is not obligated to close its doors.

    8. Re:Big fuck you to the first amendment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "congress shall make no law"

    9. Re:Big fuck you to the first amendment by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      many have been saying that the 2nd is just as obsolete. it's just that there's a well funded organization fighting it. unlike the First and fourth

    10. Re: Big fuck you to the first amendment by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I believe prostitution is only legal in the US in some counties in Nevada. The laws differ by state, and Nevada pushes the decision down to the county level.

      There is a distinction between "legal" and "not criminalized". If an illegal act will get you a fine and doesn't go on your criminal record, it's generally considered not criminalized.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  16. Wrong analogy by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    It's more like the feds raid some organized crime boss' Italian restaurant and shut it down because gangsters hung out there. The business itself hasn't been declared illegal.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Wrong analogy by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Actually the business HAS been declared illegal, there business model was profiting off illegal activity and money laundering according to the article.

    2. Re:Wrong analogy by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Next week we learn how criminals are using Facebook ads to launder money. Everything is illegal.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  17. Money laundering? Aiding Prostitution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How bogus can this be? Whaddya think the republican and democrat national committees do? In fact that is their singular function. What bullshit! Every goddamn 503(c) is a money laundering operation. That's what 503(c) means!

  18. Due Process Just Means the Process that is Due by SeattleLawGuy · · Score: 0

    There are lots of places to defend violated civil liberties. This isn't one of them.

    So they've charged them with various crimes, and a jury may or may not convict them. But the trial hasn't happened yet - what right does the government have to take down their website and business just in case they get a conviction?

    Every right. They shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. But "due process" is just "the process that is due under the circumstances." If I see you shooting your wife, I can lock you up even though you haven't been tried yet. That doesn't mean I have to let you out to shoot your neighbor until you get a trial.

    Isn't the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty" that you get your day in court before any punishment happens?

    No. "Innocent until proven guilty" is also a presumption, not a fact--courts don't find people innocent, they find people "not guilty," which does NOT mean they're innocent. It just means that either the state failed to make their case or the jury wasn't listening. Juries don't always pay attention. Occasionally a person is actually innocent. The system is very bad about helping people who are actually innocent.

    The point of innocent until proven guilty is basically the intuitive belief that it is better to have ten guilty men go free than to send one innocent man to prison. Effectively, we have a very strong belief that people should never be sent to prison unless they are actually guilty. (We are either "retributivists" or "side-constrained consequentialists," but the side-constraint of "must actually be guilty" is there for pretty much everyone.) But it's not an absolute prohibition on denials of life, liberty, or property, because you can't just let people go around murdering or stealing or money laundering while you're waiting for the trial.

    Most or all of the people in this story are guilty, with an extremely high degree of probability. In the process of getting rich off of a massive criminal conspiracy, they got kids raped. They're lucky they're not put up against a wall and shot.

    --
    Real lawyers write in C++
    1. Re:Due Process Just Means the Process that is Due by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      the intuitive belief that it is better to have ten guilty men go free than to send one innocent man to prison. Effectively, we have a very strong belief that people should never be sent to prison unless they are actually guilty.

      When DNA sequencing first became admissible, the Innocence Project used DNA to show that about 10% of people convicted couldn't possibly have committed the crimes. That doesn't mean the other 90% were all guilty, just that the floor on false convictions was 10%. There is little reason to believe that we are doing much better today. Plenty of innocent people go to prison, and Americans accept and tolerate that.

    2. Re:Due Process Just Means the Process that is Due by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      "Juries don't always pay attention."

      Then society (jurors) have decided that the crimes you are accused of by the government are not that important. This is the role of the jury and is really our only hope of a decent judicial system. Juries are allowed to free anyone they wish for any reason. Judges and the judicial system in general totally lose their shit when the jury does this and juries are often berated by judges for not ruling the way they were told to rule. The really cool thing about our western judicial system is that citizens are allowed to ignore the law when in a jury box. Thank god.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  19. Much as I hate to say it by rsilvergun · · Score: 1, Informative

    it's not free speech when it's a crime. That's called 'aiding and abetting'.

    That said, Trump was elected partly by the evangelicals. This is him doing the bidding of those folks. So you're right, we shouldn't be surprised. Though I am a bit surprised how much power evangelicals wield in 2018, especially given how small a percentage of the population they are...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Much as I hate to say it by fafalone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Like SESTA being passed 97-2 in the Senate, this is a massively bipartisan attack on liberty. The campaign against Backpage in particular was predominantly led by Kamala Harris, the (D) CA AG (now Senator), who is a hero to the progressive left, who fully supports this nonsense just as strongly as the religious right (for different reasons, but the outcome is the same: women are not permitted to make this choice). There's a laundry list of things to pin on the right, but like the surveillance state and war on drugs, this massive violation of liberty is brought to you by bipartisan consensus because both (D) and (R) are branches of the Authoritarian Party.

    2. Re:Much as I hate to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That said, Trump was elected partly by the evangelicals.

      True. Sadly, though they were relegated to the bottom of the heap after the disaster that was Bush, the Republicans haven't managed to excise that cancer fully.

      However, they're far more concerned with making sure dudes in dresses aren't in your daughter's bathroom. This isn't pandering to evangelicals. This is actual bipartisan legislation, and it fits with Trump's promise to crack down on sex trafficking.

    3. Re:Much as I hate to say it by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I despise Trump as much as anyone, but the blame for this cannot be pinned on him. It's a law that is promoted as a tool to protect children from abuse - it's a guaranteed pass, truly bipartisan, regardless of how badly-written it may be. Some things are just politically unopposable, which is why they make excellent excuses to achieve a less popular agenda. Like making sure prostitutes cannot organise and ply their trade in safety. Events would have played out no differently were Hillary in the oval office.

      Not everything bad in American politics is Trump's fault. A lot of it is. But not everything.

    4. Re:Much as I hate to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also the fact that commercial speech, like posts selling child sex slaves, enjoy far less protection than ordinary speech.

      If you want to say that selling child sex slaves should be legal, you're free to advocate that. If you want to actually sell them, however, Chris Hanson would like to have a word with you over there.

    5. Re:Much as I hate to say it by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      The tax-free, money laundering evangelicals? Money Talks.

    6. Re:Much as I hate to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't wield that power alone. The other side of the political aisle has much the same goals and is just as puritanical. Their arguments differ (e.g. sexism and women's rights instead of religious morality) but the results are the same.

    7. Re:Much as I hate to say it by jythie · · Score: 1

      I will actually be curious to see what happens when the law come up in court since the actual forward to it makes it really explicit that it is intended to be applied to forced prostitution of children. A good lawyer could argue that trying to apply it to self employed sex workers using a service is a gross misapplication of it.

    8. Re:Much as I hate to say it by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      I would argue that the surveillance state is the responsibilityof both parties, as Obama and Clinton both heavily expanded it. Not saying the Right is good, they aren't, just that they're both equally bad.

    9. Re:Much as I hate to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? More Clinton blaming? Look... for worse or for better, she was never president. Want to criticize Obama for taking GWB's NSA ball and running with it? Great. It's a 100% valid criticism and a huge disappointment from his presidency. But what happened during the Obama years was his responsibility, not Clinton's. And yes, I know she was Obama's secretary of state. That makes her part of Obama's administration, executing his policies and serving at his pleasure; with the ultimate responsibility being, as always, in the Oval Office.

    10. Re:Much as I hate to say it by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      "Though I am a bit surprised how much power evangelicals wield in 2018,"

      It is easy to grok. You have mega-churches with pastors who are very politically involved, with parishioners who will gladly accept being told who to vote for, in fact they expect it. All of them vote religiously (sort of a pun). So when you are a politician you count on these people because their vote can swing a county or state and all you have to do is gain the support of one person to lock down hundreds or thousands of solid votes. This is typically reserved for republicans/conservatives but the pastors dangle this power over everyone's head and it is certainly not exclusive to them. Pure gold for a politician.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    11. Re:Much as I hate to say it by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      If you despise Trump then he has been successful in winning you over. He thrives on people despising him. The guy is literally a genius at self-promotion and marketing. Way above the talents of anyone in those fields.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    12. Re:Much as I hate to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't agree with Kamala Harris on all issues, but I'll take her over any GOP fucktard you care to muster up.

    13. Re:Much as I hate to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really despise this cult like mentality of Trump hatred, as if you have to gather in front of the telescreen and have an hour of hatred while yelling insults at a picture of Trump, and to be in the socially popular and trendy in group and to be socially accepted you have to be a proven Trump hater. Then we wonder why civility is out the window. The trump hating mania is insane.

    14. Re:Much as I hate to say it by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Who were the last two D presidents? Think hard...

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  20. So in other words... by theblkadder · · Score: 1

    What they have been charged with is facilitating consensual acts between adults. Not enabling pedophiles (whom they appear to have been reporting to authorities) or "human trafficking." Congratulations idiots, you've really struck a blow against actual pedophiles and child traffickers by pushing their activities outside the margins of visibility where the Bill's and Hillary's (and Epsteins) can operate unimpeded by public scrutiny.

    --
    Earth is a single point of failure.
  21. Re:It's unfair competition for the undocs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    god dammit, this is what happens because /r/thedonald was shut down.

  22. If anyone wants to know how Iran got to be.. by nightfire-unique · · Score: 2

    .. the way it is today, this is it. This is what a theocracy looks like in its infancy. Be afraid, my fellow humans, and fight while you have the opportunity.

    30 years passes in the blink of an eye.

    --
    A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    1. Re:If anyone wants to know how Iran got to be.. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      .. the way it is today, this is it. This is what a theocracy looks like in its infancy.

      What are you talking about infancy? From the outside, the USA has always been a theocracy. In god we trust? One nation under god? How does a grown adult say that shit with a straight face?

    2. Re:If anyone wants to know how Iran got to be.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iran?

      No, Iran got that way because the USA overthrew the country's democratically elected leader and gave them a king. The king was overthrown after 25+ years. In its place is not a theocracy, although it may look like it, but no, it's a military dictatorship.

      Has it been good to the people of Iran? I'd say, yes. It's managed to not be invaded (yet) by the USA, nor has it been torn apart by a foreign-funded civil war. As evil as they may see to you, the Iranian gov. has kept its people safe, from you.

    3. Re:If anyone wants to know how Iran got to be.. by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 0

      .. the way it is today, this is it. This is what a theocracy looks like in its infancy. Be afraid, my fellow humans, and fight while you have the opportunity.

      30 years passes in the blink of an eye.

      Um, no, it isn't how Iran got to be the way it is.

      You don't actually have to have legal prostitution to avoid sharia.

      You do, however, have to actually avoid sharia. You're right, 30 years does pass in the blink of an eye. Demographic change is fast, when you import those who are more fecund than you.

    4. Re:If anyone wants to know how Iran got to be.. by jythie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sad thing is, the theocratic elements of the US are actually pretty new, part of an anti-communist revivalism only dating back to the mid 20th century. The original colonies were mostly theocracies, but each colony had problems with oppression of their people when living in other colonies and thus the problems of theocracies were very recent in their minds. I would say today we are mostly in the toddler phase of theocracy, about a half century in with the power of the theocrats waxing and waning.

    5. Re:If anyone wants to know how Iran got to be.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .. the way it is today, this is it. This is what a theocracy looks like in its infancy.

      What are you talking about infancy? From the outside, the USA has always been a theocracy. In god we trust? One nation under god? How does a grown adult say that shit with a straight face?

      "In God We Trust" was adopted in 1956. "One nation under God" was added in 1954. We haven't always been this way. And, looking at trends in religious beliefs, we won't always be this way.

    6. Re:If anyone wants to know how Iran got to be.. by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      I would say today we are mostly in the toddler phase of theocracy, about a half century in with the power of the theocrats waxing and waning.

      We're importing lots of theocrats, quite mature ones. And the people who claim to be most worried about theocracy are the ones enthusiastically doing and supporting this importing.

    7. Re:If anyone wants to know how Iran got to be.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Nope. The US largely turned to enacting laws based on Protestant theology for some time. The number of Christians has been going significantly down since, say, the 1950s, and so that consensus is largely going away. This means that would-be theocrats have to be more vocal and energetic, and hence more visible.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  23. Like snitches get stitches... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make corrupt politicians sleep in ditches. Set an example to them by leaving the bodies in the swamp.

  24. Hello boys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I work as a high class escort in the UK. I'm somewhat puzzled by the US as it is a very appearance and sex driven country while being incredibly puritanical.

    The UK legal position is that Parliament lacks the power in common law, on which the authority of Parliament is based, to pass a law outlawing prositution. The worst Parliament can do is outlaw lots of activities relating to prostitution. The evidence is mounting that not only are current laws harmful but serve no real purpose other than to make a lawful activity more difficult.

    UK sex trafficking law is incompatible with EU single market law because it bans a prosititute offering services across borders.

    One of the advertising sites I am signed up with is UK owned and actually based in Russia of all places simply to avoid prosecuting abuses. To avoid impersonation and sex trafficing the site has identity and age verification measures in place. While the majority of escorts are UK citizens a proportion are American or Asian.

    If a client abused me there is nothing stopping me visiting the police and reporting this, and there are community produced alert systems in place to warn of abusive clients.

    I am more than happy to take Americans money, and generally enjoy the company of American men, so if Americans visit the UK on holiday or business and decide on the spur of the moment they want to fuck me I'm not protesting. I live close to motorway and rail and airport links and can get to your hotel within half an hour or quicker if need be, or you can visit for tea before we make our way to the bedroom and I spread myself semi-naked on my bed for you. For the right client we can negotiate reasonable rates for a special traveller package of a few days or even a week of intimacy.

    If this tickles your fancy gimme a call.

    1. Re:Hello boys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Slashdot. Even if any of us would be interested in sex, you forgot to give us an anonymous remailer email address using a fancy crypto protocol (we get hard-ons from those...).

    2. Re:Hello boys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no interest in placing an escort ad on Slashdot. If Americans visiting the UK decide when they are there they are in the market for escorts they will know or discover where to look and will call. In these post Brexit times I just want the world to know that British escorts legs are open for business.

    3. Re:Hello boys! by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      I work as a high class escort in the UK.

      This comes straight in at Number One on my "sentences I never expected to read on slashdot" chart.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Hello boys! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Yeah, agreed, but (s?)he mysteriously forgot to include her number ;)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Hello boys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "High Class" means not to anyone on this site

      Captcha: diseased

    6. Re:Hello boys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry but no UK escort who wants to stay in business has unprotected sex and gets monthly checks atthe local sex clinic. Escorts have more to be concerned about with clients who may be unsafe with others. This is just how it is.

  25. Re: How so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you read, the child accusations were thrown out?

  26. AmyMojo needs your help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give him some charitable service or else he will outlaw cars, prostitution and peeling knives.

    1. Re:AmyMojo needs your help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think I'm letting Trump fuck me forget it. He's not worth the bother no matter how much money he has and I have chatted about this subject with other escorts with similar or even more negative views.

  27. Re: How so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can you point me to that? The summary says that the state-level pimping charges were thrown out, there are still a ton of indictments left, including ones at the federal level. I see nothing that leads me to conclude that they don't still stand accused of this.

  28. Prior charges dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    From wikipedia:

    On October 6, 2016, Harris announced the arrest of Backpage CEO Carl Ferrer on felony charges of pimping a minor, pimping, and conspiracy to commit pimping. The arrest warrant alleged that 99% of Backpage's revenue was directly attributable to prostitution-related ads, many of which involved victims of sex trafficking, including children under the age of 18.[107]

    On December 9, 2016, a superior court judge dismissed all charges in the complaint.[108] On December 23, 2016, Harris filed new charges against Ferrer and former Backpage owners Mike Lacey and Jim Larkin for pimping and money laundering.[109] In January 2017, Backpage announced that it was removing its adult section from all of its sites in the United States due to many years of harassment and extralegal tactics.[110][111] ... I wonder if they've learnt from the takedown and prosecution of sfredbook about how to "get these guys"?

    1. Re:Prior charges dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's like the Clinton Foundation?

  29. Slashdot associated with backpage? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There seems to be a lot of news regarding backpage going on here? Is this because Slashdot is somehow associated with backpage or that Slashdot is a resource considered highly valued by Slashdot readers?

    I donâ(TM)t think Iâ(TM)ve even heard of backpage in 10 years. And back then it was because backpage would show up for some weird results like âoecookie recipesâ on google.

  30. Re:How so? by jythie · · Score: 1

    One of the key points is that the site serviced a broad base of sex workers, the majority of which were not children nor being trafficked. The claim that the site worked to help child sex slavers is a bit like claiming uber is helping uber drivers assault passengers. It happens, and the company should probably be doing more to stop it, but it isn't something they are trying for.

  31. Then why was he not charged with trafficking? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    If sex trafficking on Backpage was so rampant, why was the back page founder not actually charged with sex trafficking?

    What sources do you have to prove this? Yes there were a lot of ads for sex on Backpage, but how many of them were really trafficking? There are a lot of perfectly independent sex workers these days.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Then why was he not charged with trafficking? by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      according to the puritans in charge. anything sex related that's not for reproduction is criminal

  32. No it's not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Still available for me

  33. It's time to legalize prostitution by trevc · · Score: 1

    Prostitution among consenting adults should be legal.

  34. Re:SESTA and trump.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd best not mess with the sestas or Helena will open up a can of crazy bitch whoop-ass on yo' ass!

  35. bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is such bullshit. Craigslist does the same thing, it's just listed in different sections.

    The same thing appears in newspapers.

    Puritanical extremism. This will not protect the anything, just get some cheap votes.

    Idiots.

  36. Your president, hard at work for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    “Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court,” Trump said. “You could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”

    ~ Donald Trump

  37. George Carlin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    George Carlin said it best, of all the things you can to do someone, is giving them an organism really the worst?

    1. Re:George Carlin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ]If that "organism" is multi-drug-resistant super-gonorrhea, yeah, that's a pretty bad thing to do to someone.

  38. Re:MODDOWN! creimer sock puppet post again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chris' case is getting worse, he spends all day replying to himself as AC on /. and now, on YouTube in order to grab attention!

    The tests we ran on Chris have shown that Chris has the intelligence of an ameba:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    So, technically, he is able to conceive some kind of agenda but it will be silly or impossible to follow on a human scale.

    For example, Chris had an agenda to post anything he felt like on Slashdot which did not work well because it was based on his false beliefs that he had an infinite number of karma points as he wrote here several times.

    Several people here explained to Chris that karma maxed out at some level like 50 or so but Chris kept on insisting that his python script had confirmed that he had millions of karma points!

    Oh well, as I wrote before: "It isn't Chris' fault if he is the way he is. We do the best we can do with him and he is partially integrated into society. We try to cure his abnormal need for attention but he is kind of stubborn and won't listen to anybody."

    For the valuable /. users that might already have read the following, please note that there is an important update.

    IMPORTANT UPDATE:
    Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education has invested money to buy Chris a new chair:
    http://www.keynamics.com/image...

    Information about Christopher Dale Reimer and autistic people:

    Autistic people have obsessions about things normal people don't care. For example, one of our autistic patient went haywire when he realized that there was a penny missing in his pocket change.

    To calm him down, one of our educator pretended to have found it on the floor and gave a penny to him.

    The autistic patient condition went even worse because he realized it wasn't the same penny!

    Chris has an obsession with budgeting every penny. He doesn't understand that most people do not budget to the penny and have a flexible amount they allow for miscellaneous items.

    I am Nancy Guerrero and I am Director of Special Education for the Santa Clara County Office of Education. We use Chris' (a.k.a. creimer,cdreimer) picture in our document because he is the hardest case we have ever had to handle:
    http://www.sccoe.org/depts/stu...

    Our artists were inspired by the low carb diet that Christopher follows scrupulously for the small lunch box and by the picture linked below for the rest. I am sure that you will notice the similarities such as the bump on the side of his chest and more:
    https://ibb.co/gVad65

    Please be easy on Christopher although, I am aware that some of our staff handling Chris post joke comments here and obvoiusly, the Santa Clara County Office of Education disapprove that behavior vehemently:
    http://ibb.co/mRVSaG

    But it isn't Chris' fault if he is the way he is. We do the best we can do with him and he is partially integrated into society. We try to cure his abnormal need for attention but he is kind of stubborn and won't listen to anybody.

    Thank You dear users,
    ---
    Nancy Guerrero
    Director
    Special Education
    Santa Clara County Office of Education

  39. Re:MODDOWN! creimer sock puppet post again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sound bitter, nipple dick.