Advertising

SAVE Act Would Hold Websites Criminally Liable for User-Generated Content

Lawmakers target classified ad sites

|

In my earlier roundup of the approximately half-bazillion human-trafficking bills passed by the U.S. House of Representatives this week, I somehow overlooked one of the scariest ones, known as the Stop Advertising Victims of Exploitation (SAVE) Act. Though steeped in good intentions, this is a bill that goes against legal norms we've been establishing for a few decades now when it comes to user-generated content and criminal liability. The legislation would amend federal criminal code to allow both those who post advertisements for sex with trafficked-individuals as well as websites that merely host the advertisements to be punished.

A large coalition of law professors, privacy organizations, and trade groups—including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Society of News Editors, and The Washington Post law blogger Eugene Volokh—object to the SAVE Act. "We share the vital goal of ending human trafficking," states the coalition.

However, the legislative proposals to create new federal criminal liability for online content hosts and publishers are overbroad, counterproductive, and would place unconstitutional burdens on the free speech and privacy rights of millions of Americans.

(…) We underscore the fact that existing federal law criminalizes not only trafficking, but also intentionally aiding or abetting a trafficking venture. But holding hosts of third-party content criminally responsible for content they did not create would be as counterproductive as it would be unjust."

Pursuant to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, websites that host user-generated content—think Craigslist, Reddit, every online publication with a comments section—cannot be held criminally liable for the substance of that content, with a few exceptions. Congress and the courts have generally realized that holding Internet service providers and websites accountable for third-party content would have a ridiculously chilling effect on speech, the press, and economic activity.

As a federal court noted in Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (1998): "The amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is . . . staggering. … It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings for possible problems. Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect."

Until now, perhaps. The SAVE Act, currently with the Senate, would criminalize not only advertisements for commercial-sex acts involving someone being "forced, defrauded, or coerced" but also any entity knowingly benefitting "financially or otherwise" from such advertising. Even if sites like Craigslist do not charge users directly for posting advertisements, it could be said that the site still benefits or derives value from its ads. Without classified ads, after all, Craigslist wouldn't have a reason to exist. And of course some classified sites, such as Backpage.com, do charge for user ads.

The "knowingly" part is our silver lining—and an update on a previous version of the SAVE Act from the Senate. With thousands of ads posted daily, it would be silly to suggest that a site like Craigslist knowingly hosts any particular ad. But that won't necessarily stop federal prosecutors from trying. Though the bill's sponsor, Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Miss.), says it would only affect those directly involved in advertising trafficking victims, she has also explicitly stated that her target is mainstream classified websites.

Advertisement

NEXT: Ronald Bailey Asks If It Is Immoral to Enable Men and Transgender Women to Gestate

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Isn’t this only a hair’s breadth away from what they’re doing with the silk road case?

    1. Looks to me like it is exactly the same thing.

      1. so, then, how can they prosecute if there isn’t already a law like this?

        Then, if there IS already a law like this, why do we need another one?

        1. The difference is they are claiming that Silk Road was set up specifically for the purpose of facilitating crime. Here, they are saying you have a duty to stop crime from occurring on a site created for an otherwise lawful purpose. Craigslist isn’t the Silk Road. This law is actually much worse.

          1. So someone could take out an ad on a website they hated, report it, and get the site taken down?

  2. In the same way that half wits like Sheldon Richman just can’t accept that someone could go to war and kill people and not feel bad about it without being a monster, these idiots just can’t comprehend that a woman would willingly sell sex for money. That is really all this is about. They can’t accept that people are willing to pay for and get paid for sex and don’t have a problem with it. So they convince themselves that any woman who is selling sex must not be doing it willingly and must be a victim of “human trafficing.” It is no different that Richman convincing himself that Chris Kyle is really Adam Lanza. In both cases, people convince themselves of preposterous lie to avoid facing some reality that upsets them.

    1. That does seem to be where they are heading with laws like this. Surely at least some people who support this realize that it won’t affect human trafficking at all. It will just discourage sites from hosting ads for escorts. The shady actors who do force women into prostitution will find other ways to get customers. Prostitution worked just fine before the internet.

      1. Actually, if my understanding is correct, the internet has largely “cleaned up” prostitution. It’s done a lot to obviate the pimps, who act much like (exceedingly violent) real estate or insurance agents.

        1. That’s my understanding as well. It does seem like it would make it a lot easier and safer for girls to work independently.

          1. Which betrays the fact that it isn’t really about protecting the wimmenz, it’s about ending prostitution. Maybe the feminists will team up with the pimps union to take down craigslist, both win; pimps get their business back, and feminists make prostitution more dangerous, thereby effectively deterring some women from doing it, and who really cares about the ones who do it anyway?

            1. Well, they’ll have a fight to take down backpage, which is run by The Village Voice. Their lawyers haven’t had a rabies shot in decades.

  3. What an amazingly bad idea. Section 230 pretty much saved websites from being sued out of existence each year.

  4. With thousands of ads posted daily, it would be silly to suggest that a site like Craigslist knowingly hosts any particular ad.

    I wouldn’t be so sure.

    According to provisions contained in the Model Penal Code, an individual is deemed to have acted knowingly in regard to a material element of an offense when: in the event that such element involves the nature of his or her conduct or the circumstances attendant thereto, he or she is aware that the conduct is of such nature or that those circumstances exist; if the element relates to a result of the person’s conduct, he or she is conscious of the fact that it is substantially certain that the conduct will precipitate such a result.

    IOW, Craigslist knowingly hosts all those sex ads because they are substantially certain that the way they run their business results in a bunch of sex ads.

    Really, knowingly for legal purposes can be very close to more of a negligence “know or should have known” standard.

    1. The legal terminology that might result in the kinds of protections that ENB is looking for isn’t “knowingly”, its “actual knowledge.”

      You’re welcome.

        1. So with how the bill would change the code, “Whoever knowingly (1) …. recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains, advertises, or maintains by any means a person; or (2) benefits, financially or by receiving anything of value, from participation in a venture which has engaged in an act described in violation of paragraph (1) … shall be punished”. Then it says that for all of those verbs except for advertises, “with reckless disregard to” is enough but for advertises, it must be “knowing.” FWIW …

          1. (But yeah, I suspected as much as what you said, just wasn’t sure)

          2. Elizabeth,

            “Knowingly” and “reckless disregard” are different standards.

            Knowingly is whether you knew or given what you did know reasonably should have known the site was for hookers.

            “Reckless disregard” is different. There it doesn’t matter if you reasonably should have known, you have an affirmative duty to make sure it doesn’t happen.

            Basically, the advertisers have to take a look and make sure no one is advertising anything that reasonably could be considered under age. The pimps, have to check IDs.

            1. Right, but reckless disregard is stricter, right? Advertisers are at least not theoretically being held to that standard…

              1. Frankly, it is terrible drafting. There must have been a real idiot son page writing this legislation. They used the wrong term. Reckless disregard is actually a higher standard. But they can’t mean that.

                What was probably going on was the web sites didn’t want to be held to the same standard the providers were. This is actually not much of a concern, since “should have known” is based on the knowledge you have. Since the providers have access to the girls, “should have known” for them is always going to impose a higher standard of care than it will for the web site operators. But they apparently didn’t get that. So to placate them some idiot put in “reckless disregard”, which really doesn’t make any sense.

                1. We’ll have to pass it to find out what it says.

                  /pelosi

    2. Pretty much that. “Knowingly” means “known or reasonably should have known”.

      1. “Knowingly” means “known or reasonably should have known If they weren’t lying under oath

        There is no reasonable standard for knowledge. Either you know, or you’re lying about not knowing. As far as I was taught, actual knowledge is required for everything but negligence. The only question is what you know, not whether you know.

        1. I am slack today. You are dead on. Known means known. The reckless disregard that ENB mentions now makes sense. They didn’t take any effort to know and they can be stuck even if they didn’t.

          1. All the state would have to do is prove that they knew of a significant risk of trafficking on their site, and they have the mens really for a conviction.

            In practicality, knowledge of a significant risk of sex trafficking on a Craigslist type site will be assumed. This will effectively be a strict liability crime.

            1. rea*

  5. Well this is just fucking awesome..

  6. They won’t stop until we’re in chains and living in hell.

    1. I told ya they’re puttin’ ya’ll back in chains!

      /Uncle Joe

  7. This is terrible, but I maintain the worst law you mentioned recently is the one that requires a man to prove he didn’t know the age of the prostitute he slept with.

    Because if there was one thing the Founders would have approved of, it’s a law that requires the citizenry to prove a negative.

    1. Affirmative defenses typically have to be proven up by the defendant, generally to the level of “preponderance of the evidence” (I think).

      This sounds more like an element of the prosecutor’s case, though, in which case the burden is on it, to the level of “no reasonable doubt”.

      1. I understand how affirmative defenses work, but in the case of saying ‘this person purchased sex from a seventeen year old’ you should have to prove they knew it was a 17 year old.

        It should be on you to prove they knew the age of the prostitute, not on them to prove they didn’t. The law also upped the standard of proof from ‘preponderance of evidence’ to ‘clear and convincing’ so if that is signed into law, a person actually has a higher standard of proof than they would for other affirmative defenses.

        Furthermore (and this is my favorite bit) the law criminalizes any prostitution with someone under 18 NATIONALLY. So if it’s legal in your state to sleep with a 17 year old, you can still face 10-15 years in prison if you pay that seventeen year old – who, again, is legal under state law.

        1. Yes Iris. See my post below. It takes knowledge and makes it an affirmative defense rather than an element. That is a big deal and will screw a lot of innocent people.

        2. what if you just buy her a lobster dinner first?

        3. It still seems to me that “I never met this person before” is pretty good proof that you didn’t know their age (assuming they don’t look obviously very young). Why would you know their age?

          Perhaps I misunderstand the standards of evidence.

          1. “Standards of evidence.” Hah, good one. Long since went the way “due process.”

      2. In a statutory rape case, lack of knowledge is a defense. The elements of the crime are

        1. the accused had sex with the victim
        2. the accused was over 18 or so many years older than the victim
        3. That the victim was under the age of consent
        4. That the accused knew the victim was under the age of consent at the time of the sex.

        You really can beat a statutory rape charge if you can convince the jury that you reasonably believed she was of age. Defendants have been acquitted in cases where they had sex with a victim who had used a fake ID to get into a bar and looked like they could be of age but where in fact not.

        What that law is doing is take knowledge and removing it as an element of the offense and making it an affirmative defense. That means instead of the prosecution having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you didn’t know, you have to prove by a preponderance that you didn’t know.

        In most cases knowledge is not much of a contested issue. The accused knows the victim and obviously knows how old they were. All changing that law will do is screw men who have a legitimate but perhaps not perfect claim that they didn’t know. It will just result in more close cases being convictions.

        Its an evil law.

        1. It’s almost like they’re doing everything they can to make sure as many men as possible end up in prison or at least have their lives ruined for fucking.

          1. This is what happens when you let Social Justice Warriors out of their cages.

        2. Um, statutory rape is usually a strict liability crime in the US. It doesn’t matter if you know their age.

          1. I’ll modify that to often, it appears to be about half of states. Don’t know what percentage of the population that covers, it certainly is here in Texas.

            Also, it used to be strict liability everywhere. The defense you mention is a newer legal phenomenon.

            1. MPC has the strict liability age at 10. Effectively, if the girl is 10 or under, we’re, by law, not buying your “I thought she was 18” defense.

              1. Yes, every state is completely different on statutory rape, from the age, romeo and juliet exemptions, strict vs not strict liability and when, etc.

                But the main point that sex with minors, whether paid or not, being treated differently for mens rea is not something new or revolutionary.

          2. i stand corrected on the position of some states.

    2. Not saying that they are necessarily just, but since statutory rape laws existed at the time of the founding of the United States and weren’t considered controversial to the best of my knowledge, I don’t think an appeal to the Founders works here.

      1. This isn’t about controversial rape laws, it’s about forcing a person accused of statutory rape to prove with ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that they didn’t know the girl’s age.

        Therefore, it’s forcing the defendant to prove a negative. Oh, and it’s a national law that overrides state laws. Therefore, if a state has an age of consent of 17, the law overrides that age of consent and makes it 18 in the case of prostitution.

        So yes, given that it requires the defendant to prove a negative and involves the federal government overriding local statutes, I think Jefferson might have had a slight problem with it.

  8. A large coalition of law professors, privacy organizations, and trade groups?including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Society of News Editors, and The Washington Post law blogger Eugene Volokh?object to the SAVE Act.

    But not included amongst their ranks is a certain aviation lawyer of whom it is alleged by some that this certain aviation lawyer engages in sodomitic acts with creatures that would be classified by biologists as part of the ovine family.

    1. Zing!

    2. Oh, so he/she is a speciesist, eh?

      If its not a sheep, its not good enough for him. Despicable.

      1. There once was a man named “WOK”

        His lawsuits were truly a great SHOCK

        Along came a Warty

        Who thought it rather sporty

        To chide him with his shiny DOOMCOCK

  9. Well, the republicans in the house and senate might be able to pass a bill, but we can be certain the president will veto it.

    1. This bill? I doubt it. Why do you think Obama hates women Kinnath?

      1. /sarc

        Was that really necessary?

        1. Some of us are denser than others.

          1. About the only think you have in common with gold.

            1. I wasn’t aware gold could think.

              1. Gold is dense, oh dense one.

                1. sarc, I have this great idea for a new joke. The setup is about what lesbians do for a second date, but I can’t think of a good punchline. Do you have any ideas?

                  1. Do you have any ideas?

                    Nope. Fresh out. Maybe you should ask your boyfriend when you see him on your second date.

                    1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                    2. The internal tension of someone having a boyfriend that he’s only ever had one date with is what really makes that joke pop, sarc.

                    3. But gay men don’t have second dates, as you well know. His comeback is like an onion. So many layers.

                    4. One of my roommates is gay, and (since he’s been dating someone for a while) lives vicariously through my (heterosexual) dating life. Every single time he asks about a date and I reply that it went well, he wants to know how much sex we had. If we didn’t, he’s confused how I could say that it had gone well. Every single time.

                    5. Man, sounds like being queer is fun. Maybe I should convert?

                    6. Who said it was a joke?

                    7. Speaking from lived experience then?

                      Can’t imagine why dudes wouldn’t be chomping at the bit for a second date. You seem so cheery.

                2. Sixteen times more dense than the water between your ears.

                3. You typoed the word. It is “thing I have in common”.

                  1. You typoed the word. It is “thing I have in common”.

                    So I John’d the comment?

                4. I have something dense for you…

                  1. Tell me more…

                    1. Well it’s for sarc, but I’m not at all opposed to an audience. How do you feel about being a topless critic of my technique?

                    2. You are the best Nikki. I don’t care what these monsters say about you.

                    3. Me neither, John. I mean, they’re monsters!

                    4. And in Episiarch’s case, really gay monsters.

          2. It is Friday, and there have been some really bad threads this week.

            I wondered if anyone would take the bait.

            1. You try to be a master-baiter and only catch John?

              You should hang your head in shame.

              1. Yes, I is so ashamed.

            2. Bad threads? Some of that shit is hilarious. Take this comment from the Sniper thread:

              “Typical communist lies from Libertarians and their alliance with communism and Islamism.”

              The guy’s name links to a blog comparing Libertarians to Trotsky. It’s just fantastic insanity.

              1. You didn’t link to it? What kind of humorless ass doesn’t link to something that hilarious???

  10. The “knowingly” part is our silver lining

    And when prosecutions fail because of it, it will be removed.

  11. SAVE is complete shit.

    One of the bills that passed the house creates a federal safe harbor law:

    One of the measures would establish new protections for minors who are victims of human sex trafficking by creating a universal safe harbor law that many states have adopted. The law would prohibit minors from being tried for prostitution if they have been forced into sex trafficking.

    That one sounds like it’s actually a good idea. That we need it codified is an indictment of our tuffgai-on-crime justice system.

    1. Yep, of the 12 bills they passed re: trafficking this week, that’s the only one I thought sounded good (and it’s only needed to rectify our other terrible laws…)

      1. I’m sure Maggie would have something to say about this and I doubt it would be pretty.

  12. So this will result in how many thousands of comments on Senators and Congresscritters webpages advertising sex with infants? That would teach them.

    1. I smell a job for Anonymous…

  13. Pursuant to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, websites that host user-generated content?think Craigslist, Reddit, every online publication with a comments section?cannot be held criminally liable for the substance of that content, with a few exceptions.

    And yet Warty still can’t inquire about the preferred species used in a particular person’s mating habits. Not even in the alt-text!

    (yes, I’m aware that was civil, not criminal)

    1. That wasn’t civil! That was hurtful!

      1. I’m not saying that Warty is a libeling bastard, I’m just asking, why hasn’t he ever denied it?

        1. Gotta keep dem bitches guessing, bro

    2. Besides, I was more interested in the age preferences of that one guy. Fuck that one guy.

      1. see my above limerick

  14. Every web site will have to hire a moderator and a lawyer! Job creation!

  15. SAVE Act Would Hold Websites Criminally Liable for User-Generated Content

    Sort of like how someone starts a website allowing users to buy and sell stuff, and the users start buying and selling illegal drugs, and the founder of said website is facing life in prison?

    1. It’s fucking masterful how the feds handled spinning the Ulbricht case. Everyone I’ve tried to talk to about it and explain why I think he didn’t do anything wrong just goes “Oh, but he hired hitmen to kill his enemies, didn’t you hear!?” And trying to explain that all those charges were dropped and that there’s not really any evidence on record of that just makes you look like you’re making excuses for a murderer.

      I mean…it is possible that all that stuff is true (see here), but they’ve spun this to such an extent that people can’t divorce in their minds their judgement of Ulbricht’s character from the question of whether Silk Road is an enterprise that needs to be outlawed.

      1. “Oh, but he hired hitmen to kill his enemies, didn’t you hear!?”

        And yet he hasn’t been charged with that.

        1. Right you are. As the link I provided shows, though, they’re presenting their evidence about it anyway, which confuses the hell out of me. IANAL, but if he actually did those things, they should charge him with *those* crimes and send him to prison for attempted murder. If they don’t have enough evidence of this stuff to charge him, how is bringing it up at all not obviously trying to prejudice the jury?

  16. This reminds me of Swedish hate speech laws. Swedish hate speech laws are so evil and totalitarian, that newspapers have gotten fined by the government for not being fast enough to censor allegedly racist comments in their comment section.

    It’s a law that not only censors free speech, but forcefully conscripts Swedish citizens to behave as censors on the state’s behalf if they don’t want to be fined themselves.

    1. It’s a law that not only censors free speech, but forcefully conscripts Swedish citizens to behave as censors on the state’s behalf if they don’t want to be fined themselves.

      I thought you Glibertarians wanted to privatize more government functions?

  17. “The amount of information communicated via interactive computer services is . . . staggering. … It would be impossible for service providers to screen each of their millions of postings…”

    Maybe the NSA could help?

    (Yes, I’m being sarcastic!)

    1. Like they can ever find anything. They will have it, but good luck with them finding it.

  18. Welp, it’s time to move some snow. Happy Friday!

    1. I’ll take a ki.

      1. + 80’s

  19. So the republican party rides a wave of economic despair into control of both houses of congress, and their highest priorities are abortion and sex trafficking.

    Fuck these people.

    1. Sex trafficking is the evil trinity of cops, feminists and bible thumpers. Everyone hates whores for some reason.

      1. After visiting the wasteland that is Germany, how could anyone disagree?

        1. I found the whores in Germany to be quite lovely.

        2. I’m surprised more progressives aren’t for legalizing prostitution, since Europe seems to be their guide for all things.

          1. Your wish. It’s just a posture.

          2. Prostitution in Sweden (heaven according to progs) is still illegal for men. I sense that’s where we’re going in this country soon too (they just went there in Canada).

  20. “Steeped in good intentions” is giving these assholes way too much credit, ENB. They don’t want their favorite call girls to have any other clients.

  21. Faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect.”

    Feature, not a bug.

  22. Pursuant to the Communications Decency Act of 1996, websites that host user-generated content?think Craigslist, Reddit, every online publication with a comments section?cannot be held criminally liable for the substance of that content, with a few exceptions.

    *Stage Whispers* I think she’s talking about us.

    1. Nothing says free speech like silencing political commentary by the proletariat.

  23. Clearly we need a National Internet Agency to approve any new or updated internet content. Otherwise, who will protect the childrenz.

  24. Nate Silver is an idiot.

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea…..bowl-ever/

    Note that four of the top five “strongest teams to play in the Super Bowl” by Silver’s estimation lost the game. Upsets happen sure. But that is more than a statistical quirk. How it doesn’t occur to Silver that that result puts his measurement in question is beyond me.

    The best however is Silver’s ratings of the “most exciting Super Bowls”. He has a formula for measuring that. The top two games are the 1989 49ers Bengals game and the 71 Colts Cowboys game. The 89 game, while wonderfully exciting at the finish, was three quarters of mostly boring play. Outside of the final drive, no one who saw that game would describe it as exciting. And the Cowboys Colts game is the most notoriously poor played and lack luster Super Bowl ever. Both teams had been also rans for years and were so desperate to win they both completely choked. No one who has flipped by an NFL game on cable would rank those games as the two most exciting SBs ever.

    Yet, Silver does because he is a fucking moron who can’t grasp that statistics are only as good as the assumptions behind them.

    1. THE Cowboys and Colts were bridesmaids not also rans. They were very good teams that always fell just short of a title.

    2. 1989 is a favorite for me, but mostly because it’s the first Super Bowl I ever saw.

      1. That is a perfectly good reason to like it. That however does not make it objectively exciting.

    3. Silver is a guy who never grasped the meaning of the fable about measuring the nose of the Emperor of China. Statistics are great if you have good measurements, but football is too complex to model and too much stuff happens to effectively model. All these games he plays with numbers are only good for fun at best.

    4. That final drive though in the 49ers – Bengals game… just fucking epic. I hadn’t really followed the ‘9ers prior to that, and that drive made me a Joe Montana fan.

      Before the first play of the drive, during the TV timeout he turned to his teammates, many of whom were nervous as hell, and pointed to the stands and said “Hey, check it out, John Candy’s here.” The biggest drive of his life and he’s completely calm, pointing out John Candy in the stands. That’s just plain bad-assery.

      1. What amazed me about that drive was that everyone seemed to have no doubt the 49ers were going to score. It was just bizarre.

    5. I’ll give him 07. The Pats losing that was amazing, but they should be the 1/5 not the 4/5.

      This is kind of like his Brazil World Cup ranking that I know you like to rant about.

    6. Jesus, he has an ‘excitement index?’

      Nate Silver is trying to measure how exciting a game is? That’s completely subjective.

      1. No, it’s extrinsic (varies from person to person). Whether is is also subjective (based on emotional rather than rational criteria) remains to be seen.

        1. By way of example, the question of how much a Nick Gilespie Bobblehead is worth is extrinsic. Some commenter would probably found it a much more valuable than others.

          We can however quite objectively measure these varying concepts of value in the form of the prices each person would be willing to pay for it.

      2. Also, that excitement index is idiotic. The godawful 2005 Super Bowl between Pittsburgh and Seattle is counted as the 19th best Superbowl.

        Even thought they won by 36, I think the Bears trouncing the Patriots in 85 would have been much more fun to watch than that ugly matchup between Pittsburgh and Seattle. It was a terrible game that ended up basically being decided by the refs, and Silver puts it in the top half of all Super Bowls.

        1. too bad there wasnt a super bowl last year…It bet it would have been exciting if they hadnt canceled it.

    7. Note that four of the top five “strongest teams to play in the Super Bowl” by Silver’s estimation lost the game.

      So the data from the field doesn’t line up with what the computer model says it should be?

      1. Maybe they just had a bad day.

        In sports like football where very few games are played every season, I always wonder how well the season really can sort out which team is best. When you typically only play once against each team it seems like bad luck can have a big influence on the outcome of a season.

        Of course it would take forever to play a playoff series in football. Basketball is bad enough.
        This is one of several reasons I still prefer baseball over the other popular American team sports.

        1. This is also the genesis of football’s parity myth. Weird shit happens in the first 16 games of a season.

      2. soo would this be CAGFW?

    8. I will have to go with the First NFL-AFL Championship Game. The two leagues had been playing separately and there was a lot of intrigue as to how the upstart AFL would fare against the staid NFL. There was considerable animosity as well. Since then the drama has never reached that level, although the ebb and flow of many games has been better.

  25. This is part of an ongoing war against backpage dot com by the anti-prostitution feminists. They have long claimed that backpage is a knowingly profiting from trafficking and have been trying to shut them down for some time. Much like the war on gun rights they are unable to attack the thing head-on, but chip away wherever they can.

  26. Glad those small-government republicans are in charge….

  27. I could be misreading something here, but it begins to sound akin to the following.

    General Motors is in the business of making and selling, through dealers, automobiles. Some meat head, having purchased a GM product from a local dealer has to much to drink, and while driving drunk, kills someone. GM, having made the automobile is held responsible. I’m no fan of GM, however fair is fair, there being a large problem here.

  28. This is not needed because conspiring to commit any crime is ALREADY illegal user generated content that is NOT protected by 230.

  29. FACT: Only people who support tyrannical government support the SAVE act.

  30. Does anyone else think these ‘human trafficking’ laws are going to end up being ‘Trojan horsed’ into making prostitution a on-sided illegal activity? That is, that they will be enforced in such a way that any woman caught in an act of prostitution will simply say she was being ‘trafficked’ so as to get off while the john gets charged not just with prostitution but with sex slavery (and of course cops a plea to avoid the felony count).

    This may not be the intention of the old fashioned GOP puritans, but it seems like precisely what the progs want, and they’re the ones who seem to be most avidly pushing the ‘sex slavery culture’ notion or whatever as the justification for more legislation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.