Sex Work

Nicholas Kristof Applauds Extralegal Harassment of Backpage.com Because 'Adult' Services Sometimes Involve Minors

The columnist thinks you should go out of business if some of your customers are criminals.

|

The Davis Enterprise

More than a month after it happened, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof notices the decision by Visa and Mastercard to stop processing payments for "adult" ads on Backpage.com. That decision resulted from extralegal pressure by Cook County, Illinois, Sheriff Tom Dart, who used his official position to crack down on speech he does not like. Kristof, an avowed defender of the First Amendment, thinks that's swell, because "some 100,000 minors are trafficked into the sex trade each year in America."

How does Kristof know that? He doesn't. As the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center warns, estimates of how many underage prostitutes there are in the United States are "mostly educated guesses or extrapolations based on questionable assumptions," and "none are based on a strong scientific foundation."

Whatever the actual number, Kristof says some of these teenagers are exploited by pimps who take out "ads in which they sell 15-year-old girls as if they were pizzas." How many of those ads have appeared on Backpage.com? Kristof doesn't know that either, but he wants us to think it's a lot. "Almost every time a girl is rescued from traffickers," he avers, "it turns out that she was peddled on Backpage." He mentions two examples. He wisely does not include the source who claimed to have been advertised on Backpage before it existed.

After creating the impression that Backpage specializes in serving kipnappers and rapists, Kristof admits halfway through the column that's not really true. "My guess is that a majority of sex ads on Backpage are for consenting adults," he says. "But a significant minority are for sex with children or with women who are coerced."

Taking Kristof's guesses at face value, he is condemning Backpage because some of its customers are criminals. Would he apply similar logic to the carmakers that produce getaway vehicles, the sporting goods stores that sell baseball bats occasionally used in vicious beatings, and the cellphone companies that help terrorists communicate with each other? Probably not.

Kristof complains that "Backpage is allowed to operate because of a loophole in the Communications Decency Act." He presumably is referring to Section 230 of that law, which says "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Among other things, that means a website such as nyt.com generally cannot be held legally responsible for content posted by third parties. Without that "loophole," The New York Times would be implicated in crimes hatched by readers in its comment threads, and it could be successfuly sued for libel based on things its readers said, even if it was not aware of them. But Kristof wants to scrap this principle, which would wreak havoc with Internet publishing and commerce, because he's offended by the ads on Backpage.

Barring that, Kristof is hoping Backpage goes out of business thanks to Dart's meddling. He quotes an activist who says, "If it's down for six months, that's six months of children who aren't raped." Writing tip for Kristof: When you approvingly quote someone saying something ridiculous, the fact that you used quotation marks does not make you any less ridiculous.

By the end of the column, it's clear (as usual) that Kristof's concern is not underage prostitution or coerced prostitution but prostitution in general, including every time one adult has consensual sex with another and money changes hands. He criticizes Amnesty International for daring to suggest that legalizing such transactions would bring them out of the shadows, making sex workers more secure and less vulnerable to abuse. That won't work, he says, because whenever it's tried "a parallel underground market emerges for underage girls." By the same reasoning, alcohol should be prohibited because of the parallel underground market serving minors, all sexually explicit material should be banned because some of it involves children, and housework for pay should be forbidden because rich Saudis have been known to beat domestic workers and hold them against their will.

Kristof is the sort of acute observer who, upon witnessing plantation slavery, decides that farming must be abolished. The fact that he has consistently proven incapable of understanding where his prostitution arguments lead suggests he has some sort of hangup about this particular occupation, as opposed to all the others that can involve elements of fraud, coercion, and violence, especially if politicians are stupid enough to make them illegal. But Kristof cannot credibly pose as a friend of sex workers as long as he insists that they and their customers be treated as criminals.

NEXT: Let the Punishment Fit the Crime

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. If it wasn’t for the laws banning drugs teens would be using them too,

  2. That whole idea sounds kinda crazy to me dude.

    http://www.Goin-Anon.tk

  3. Taking Kristof’s guesses at face value, he is condemning Backpage because some of its customers are criminals. Would he apply similar logic to the carmakers that produce getaway vehicles, the sporting goods stores that sell baseball bats occasionally used in vicious beatings, and the cellphone companies that help terrorists communicate with each other? Probably not.

    He probably would.

    1. If only the US were more like China, our government officials could regulate what people put on the Internet more effectively and mandate commonsense baseball bat control. If it just saves one child, it would be worth imposing a totalitarian regime.

  4. Kristof complains that “Backpage is allowed to operate because of a loophole in the Communications Decency Act.”

    Have you read the Bill of Rights? I mean, really read it? That whole thing is just one loophole after another.

    1. It was written by rich ,white guys.Some of them owned slaves. That makes it null and void.

  5. “…every time one adult has consensual sex with another and money changes hands.”
    See: marriage.

  6. Ill bet cash money that within 5 years, Kristof gets busted for soliciting prostitution or some kind of underage sex scandal. The guys that talk endlessly about this stuff are usually doing on the side, and their protestations are meant hide it.

    1. DING! DING! DING! We have a winner! I’ll take the under on that five years, btw.

  7. Kristof is the sort of acute observer who, upon witnessing plantation slavery, decides that farming must be abolished.

    Oh, that is an excellent analogy. I’ll definitely be making use of it from now on.

  8. What can you expect from the scumbag who falsely accused an innocent man of being the anthrax letter mailer. In a more just world, he would have been fired and bankrupted for that shit.

    1. He is also responsible for promoting the bogus charity work of Somaly Mam.

  9. Taking Kristof’s guesses at face value, he is condemning Backpage because some of its customers are criminals. Would he apply similar logic to the carmakers that produce getaway vehicles, the sporting goods stores that sell baseball bats occasionally used in vicious beatings, and the cellphone companies that help terrorists communicate with each other?

    If Kristof’s reasoning were correct, Preet Bharara would also shut down Reason.com for its facilitation of a criminal conspiracy to feed federal officials into woodchippers.

  10. “How does Kristof know that?”

    He probably just added up the number of underaged hookers he slept with and extrapolated from there.

    1. Legal note: This is speculation, not allegation, therefore not defamation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.