Backpage: The Monumental Free Speech Case the Media Ignored
The mere act of publishing sex ads online is enough to send most potential free speech allies scurrying for the exits.
HD DownloadAfter a dozen years of legal tussles, seven years in the crosshairs of ambitious prosecutors, and five-and-a-half years fighting a federal case that saw his business forcibly shuttered, his assets seized, and his longtime partner dead by suicide, alt-weekly newspaper impresario Michael Lacey was found guilty Thursday on just one of the 86 criminal charges levied against him in connection with the online advertising platform Backpage. But the government's fanatical pursuit of Lacey and his four other Backpage co-defendants is far from over.
Lacey, an award-winning investigative journalist, was found guilty of international concealment money laundering, which could land him in prison for up to 20 years, and not guilty of international promotional money laundering. But after a week of contentious deliberations, the jury could not come to agreement on the other 84 charges, prompting U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa to declare a second mistrial in this case. That means Lacey could face a third federal trial essentially for the crime of running a classified ads site that knowingly enabled and profited from illegal, if consensual, transactions involving sex.
Thanks to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, the speech and conduct of website consumers is considered to be the legal responsibility of the speakers themselves, not the owners of the platform. This has been a thorn in the side of politicians and other would-be censors ever since. In 2013, Kamala Harris and 46 other state attorneys general sent a joint letter to Congress urging a rollback of Section 230; the letter started like this: "Every day, children in the United States are sold for sex. In instance after instance, state and local authorities discover that the vehicles for advertising the victims of the child sex trade to the world are online classified ad services, such as Backpage.com."
Seven weeks before her election to the U.S. Senate, Harris, along with her Texas counterpart Ken Paxton, brought the first criminal case against Lacey, his partner Jim Larkin, and other executives at Backpage, who were paraded in a Sacramento courtroom cage wearing orange jumpsuits. That case was tossed out by a judge who pointed out: "Congress did not wish to hold liable online publishers for the action of publishing third party speech….It is for Congress, not this court, to revisit."
But just three days before leaving the A.G.'s office for the Senate, Harris filed yet another Backpage case, which was yet again thrown out (partially) because of Section 230. Once in Congress, Harris helped push through the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, or FOSTA, which does peel back Section 230 to make websites liable for the "facilitation" or "promotion" of prostitution by their users, even though prostitution itself is not a federal crime.
This latest retrial did not rely on FOSTA, but the defense was barred by the judge from even bringing up Section 230, on grounds that the law is only applicable to state crimes, not federal crimes. That was one of many odd bench rulings in the case; the defense filed five unsuccessful motions for a mistrial, with a sixth still pending over possibly exculpatory material withheld by the prosecution until after closing arguments had been made.
As part of the jury verdict Thursday, former Backpage executives Scott Spear and John Brunst were found guilty of conspiracy to facilitate prostitution, as well as on over 20 counts apiece for money laundering, plus an additional 18 prostitution counts for Spear. The two men could very easily spend the rest of their lives in prison. The other two defendants, Andrew Padilla and Joy Vaught, were found not guilty on their 51 prostitution counts, with Vaught's attorney Joy Bertrand saying after the verdict, "My client should have never been in this case. She was charged and pressured to cooperate and assist the government, and she had the courage to say no," and also, the case "should never have been brought…[because] it's an offense to the First Amendment." Bertrand also added, "They come after this platform, they come after other platforms next….This affects everybody."
This precedent, in combination with FOSTA's degradation of Section 230, means that publishers of websites that include user-generated content are considerably more vulnerable to being held criminally liable for the conduct of their customers. It will chill speech, by design. Politicians wanted first Craigslist, and now Backpage, to get out of the online sex-ads business; now that activity has moved to more shadowy areas of the black market.
This has had bad consequences for sex workers, sex consumers, and vice cops alike. When Backpage was still active, the federal government praised it in detail for assisting law enforcement in identifying sex traffickers and other criminals. In 2021, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded in a report that the FBI's ability to identify victims and sex traffickers has decreased significantly because, "with backpage.com no longer in the market, buyers and sellers moved to other online platforms, and the market became fragmented."
All of this heavy-handed prohibitionism has come in the name of fighting underage sex-trafficking, yet literally none of the criminal charges against Backpage during these many years has had anything to do with the stuff. In fact, the unsubstantiated accusation that the company was a party to sex trafficking is why the first federal case was declared a mistrial in 2021—prosecutors couldn't stop using the phrase.
Mike Lacey and the late Jim Larkin, with nearly a half-century between them fighting free speech battles against intrusive politicians, both insisted from the outset of their legal odyssey that the Backpage prosecutions were an attack on the First Amendment. Yet this case, and the lives prosecutors have wrecked, has received scant national attention from journalists and free speech advocates. Decades ago, gleeful smut-peddlers like Larry Flynt were hailed as First Amendment heroes and given the Hollywood biopic treatment; these days, the mere act of publishing sex ads online is enough to send most potential free speech allies scurrying for the exits. Lacey and Larkin deserved more from us, and the government deserves to do much less.
Music Credits: "Blue Beings" by Tamuz Dekel via Artlist; "Im on Your Side" by IamDayLight via Artlist
Photos Credits: Jose Luis Villegas/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Hector Amezcua/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Joel Lerner / Xinhua News Agency/Newscom; US House TV via CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News Photos/Newscom; Associated Press
- Video Editor: Justin Zuckerman
- Graphics: Adani Samat
- Graphics : Paul Detrick
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
You think Lindsey Graham had a backpage?
I Am Earning $81,100 so Far this year working 0nline and I am a full time college student and just working for 3 to 4 hours a day I've made such great m0ney.I am Genuinely thankful to and my administrator, It's' really user friendly and I'm just so happY that I found out about thisI worked Here ══════►►► http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
Hunter Biden for sure.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
Beta test for the Trump prosecutions?
It was indeed a Trump prosecution.
https://www.justice.gov/media/945546/dl?inline
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1725771191644758037?t=E2ZlBGZ0uJWu-tI4F4b-Wg&s=19
The split second court opens on Monday, X Corp will be filing a thermonuclear lawsuit against Media Matters and ALL those who colluded in this fraudulent attack on our company
Their board, their donors, their network of dark money, all of them …
[Link]
Media Matters' bosses own too many judges, but if Musk can sue them into the dirt it would be the second great thing he's done for free speech (and will probably guarantee his assassination).
Also Jeffy would be literally hardest hit, because I'm pretty sure they're the ones he's paid by.
Pluggo will be hard hit too. He claims Media Matters is the most non-partisan, neutral, unbiased news organization he's ever seen.
Yup, because he'll lose a major link source, but I think some Open Society branch writes (wrote) Pluggo's paychecks.
I've been assured by shrike that media matters is non partisan.
Better get that out, first thing, before people get distracted by Musky's "the actual truth"...
Fifty-center's hardest hit. If Media Matters loses it's your livelihoods.
I think it's safe to assume that if anyone is a "fifty-center", it's people like you, who seem to have nothing better to do with their time.
Sqrlsy says these guys deserved it and that it's not an example of website owners being prosecuted for what others posted on their site.
Sqrlsy also insists he's libertarian.
“Sqrlsy says these guys deserved it…”
TOTAL fucking evil lies, unapologetic and EVIL slut and whore for the Evil One! Servant and Serpent of the Evil One!
Section 230 HELL yeah, go 230 go, PROTECT us from this type of shit! That 230 has NOT worked in THIS case is NOT the fault of 230 as it is written! Shit is YOU, Perfectly Botched-up Bitch, who keeps on loudly lusting after TEARING DOWN Section 230, so that YOU (Punishment Whore) can PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH people for twat OTHER people wrote! Get some THERAPY, please, for Your Perfect Twin Addictions to PUNISHMENTS FOR UDDERS and for INJUSTICE!
From the article:
"This latest retrial did not rely on FOSTA, but the defense was barred by the judge from even bringing up Section 230, on grounds that the law is only applicable to state crimes, not federal crimes."
S-230 thwarted by power pigs! And Marxist Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer is doubtlessly creaming Her Perfect Twat, wishing that SHE could help PUNISH all of the BAD people, by blaming them for what UDDERS wrote! NO udders are EVER ass frighteously Righteous ass Mammary-Fuhrer's Udderly Perfect Udders!
You lying fuck.
I used these guys as an example when you demanded "proof" of government prosecuting webmasters for what others posted on their site, and you handwaved it away saying that they deserved it.
This is what happens when you don't fucking understand what you're endorsing and opposing.
"...and you handwaved it away saying that they deserved it."
Citation please, lying Serpent of the Evil One! I never even got vaguely CLOSE to saying that, with respect to S-230 intersection with the sex trade! My body, my choice! My web site, my choice!
If you ever come around to wanting to work on your affliction, EvilBahnFuhrer, start here: M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie, the Hope for Healing Human Evil
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonmagazinea-20/
People who are evil attack others instead of facing their own failures. Peck demonstrates the havoc these “people of the lie” work in the lives of those around them.
I never even got vaguely CLOSE to saying that, with respect to S-230 intersection with the sex trade! My body, my choice! My web site, my choice!
It’s exactly what you said. This is what happens when you don’t actually read shit, Shillsy.
If I knew you were going to reverse course and lie about it I definitely would've bookmarked the five or six times you said that about the Backpage owners and Julian Assange.
Backpage owners and Julian Assange are COMPLETELY different animals! How about the time that YOU Perfectly said that people who adamantly REFUSE to Properly, Patriotically fuck the many moose in CanuckiMooseFuckistanistanistanistan? That they are the EXACT same thing, You Perfectly said, ass the mass-murderers of Sacred Fartilized Human Egg Smells! And that ALL of these VILE VIOLATORS should be put to DEATH? How about THAT, Patriotic Moose Fucker?
I used those examples together everytime, and I know that you remember. Once you even linked to some Salon Magazine bullshit about the Backpage guys in response.
You're so fucking dishonest.
Salon is on the side of FREEDOM from Government Almighty power pigs on THIS one, Perfectly LYING Bitch!!!
https://www.salon.com/topic/backpage
In defense of Backpage.com
NOAH BERLATSKY
Power Pigs LIE to defend OTHER power pigs!!! TWAT a surprise!!!!
The lies about sex trafficking that brought down Backpage
Powerful myths about sex work are behind the war against Backpage
By NOAH BERLATSKY
"Once you even linked to some Salon Magazine bullshit about the Backpage guys in response."
An infinite supply of lies! Twat a surprise, Perfect Twat!
"Marxist Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer" is your drag name?
We should have it put to sleep.
https://twitter.com/Babygravy9/status/1725860566315536690?t=XUySCyuP5Ghmk4JkEcVv1g&s=19
Google is operating cover on the man who "debunked" Pizzagate because he's just been arrested in an egregious child pornography case.
[Link]
Imagine that. How surprising. Literally nobody expected that.
I wonder if he'll get the same judges that handled the Epstein cases.
Speaking of Epstein, want:
https://agorathreads.com/products/edkh-xmas-ornament?_pos=2&_psq=edkh&_ss=e&_v=1.0
Lol.
Would those be the judges at the Clinton Foundation?
He must have clicked on SPB's infamous link...
Which one of you is next?
Is Pluggo his intern?
https://twitter.com/Culture_Crit/status/1725846628198662158?t=cZW0cteP5DujEk_Hp25BSA&s=19
Wikipedia is weaponized.
[Link]
https://twitter.com/TRHLofficial/status/1725682846113677685?t=GuvOxNfreObAiit30tMqTg&s=19
Oh look, Collusion.
[Link]
https://twitter.com/pepesgrandma/status/1725889816787603746?t=3PT1H2fUh7-KejA60BriMg&s=19
Navy Seal Who Spoke for Parental Rights at School Board Gets Probed for ‘Extremist’ Ties
Chief Special Warfare Operator Bryce Henson is under an active Navy investigation for being an, “extremest”, for running a parent advocacy group. And because some proud boys hung around and he spoke to them.
Conveniently a local photographer was stalking him and took photos and videos of him speaking with members of the Proud Boys at parental rights protests.
Who was this photographer and why did they set out to do this? How did the Navy get those photos?
[Link]
Most of the upper echelon of the FBI and DHS need to be arrested.
And then buried in a deep hole.
Deposited in landfills. Then pave over the landfills. Lord knows we need more parking lots.
The mere act of publishing sex ads online is enough to send most potential free speech allies scurrying for the exits.
People pick their battles.
Of course, so does Reason: if it can take a pointless, outrageous position vaguely and superficially related to libertarianism, it will do so, particularly if it causes outrage among conservatives.
Authoritarianism is nowhere near the enemy that the Mises Caucus is for TeenReason.
Paleolibertarians are so icky.
"Paleolibertarians are so icky."
And Mammary Farter-Fuhrer and Spermy Daniels are BOTH soooo sticky!!!
(Has anyone ever seen both Mammary Farter-Fuhrer and Spermy Daniels in the same room together, or both on live TV at the same time? Is there cumthing strange going on here?)
Deranged.
“MothersLamentbad”
Stupid fuck doesn’t even understand who or what a paleolibertarianism or the Mises caucus is. I posted something so he’s got to troll it. That’s all he understands.
I firmly understand twat the fascist-authoritarian caucus is. And that is YOU, Perfect Power-Pig Bitch!!!
You resent the hell out of the fact that many other people are flat-out, better, more honest people than you are, right? More “live and let live”, and WAAAY less authoritarian?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201706/why-some-people-resent-do-gooders
From the conclusion to the above…
These findings suggest that we don’t need to downplay personal triumphs to avoid negative social consequences, as long as we make it clear that we don’t look down on others as a result.
SQRLSY back here now… So, I do NOT want you to feel BAD about YOU being an authoritarian asshole, and me NOT being one! PLEASE feel GOOD about you being an evil, lying asshole! You do NOT need to push me (or other REAL lovers of personal liberty) down, so that you can feel better about being an asshole! EVERYONE ADORES you for being that asshole that you are, because, well, because you are YOU! FEEL that self-esteem, now!
“I firmly understand twat the fascist-authoritarian caucus”
If you’re calling it “fascist-authoritarian” you don’t understand fuck all. How the fuck is it “fascist-authoritarian”? Give us a real, concrete example, and don’t retreat into name-calling and 500-word heckler’s vetos. Give us a real, concrete example.
I say again... I firmly understand twat the fascist-authoritarian caucus is. And that is YOU, Perfect Power-Pig Bitch!!!
Hypocritical, hateful, self-righteous, Self-Adoring political extremists of ALL kinds? YOU represent them OH so well, Mammary-Farter-Fuhrer!
“We must PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH, and then KILL some abortion doctors, to SAVE the fartilized egg smells!!!”
AFTER one presents the facts (and the well-reasoned and ethical “right thing to do”), and the stupid and evil still resist… Because they are stupid and evil… Then one has to shrug, and say to oneself, “all that is left to me now, sad to say, is to warn others that we are dealing, here, with stupid and evil people”. John the Baptist AND Jesus had to deal with the same thing. Or do you think that THEY were stupid and evil, stupid and evil one?
https://biblehub.com/matthew/23-33.htm
You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.
So nothing but name-calling and bullshit heckler’s veto. Exactly what I expected.
"Give us a real, concrete example."
What, of You being a Perfectly EVIL hypocrite? Easy!!! You are ALL lovey-dovey on the Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells... Yet You Perfectly urge others to SUICIDE!
Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death, will now SPEAK! HARKKK silently and RESPECTFULLY, all ye lowly heathens, as She Directs Death, and announces WHICH few of us MIGHT deserve to live, and WHO all deserves to DIE-DIE-DIE!!!
https://reason.com/2022/01/25/did-these-three-officers-willfully-deprive-george-floyd-of-his-constitutional-rights/?comments=true#comment-9323626
“You should really join ᛋᛋqrlsy, ᛋᛋhrike. You two goosestepping fascists offing yourselves would definitely be a mitzvah.”
-Quote MammaryBahnFuhrer the "Expert Christian Theologian", AKA Mother’s Lament, with a head full of cement
So Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer, Supreme Demonic Director of Decay, Destruction, and Death... WHEN are You going to STOP stealing the IDs of Your victims, and then posting kiddie porn in THEIR names, and then blaming THEM?
Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!
And now you're trying to redirect.
Pretty pathetic, Shillsy.
I always redirect the readers' attentions to YOUR Perfect Lies, Perfect Liar! Like a laser, I focus on Your Perfectly Evil Lies, to warn others about Your Perfectly Udderly Pathetic LIES!
AFTER one presents the facts (and the well-reasoned and ethical “right thing to do”), and the stupid and evil still resist… Because they are stupid and evil… Then one has to shrug, and say to oneself, “all that is left to me now, sad to say, is to warn others that we are dealing, here, with stupid and evil people”. John the Baptist AND Jesus had to deal with the same thing. Or do you think that THEY were stupid and evil, stupid and evil one?
https://biblehub.com/matthew/23-33.htm
You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.
I see a lot of grey boxes. It must be babbling incoherently again.
Has it devolved into copypasting that Tim the Enchanter bullshit again?
Gibberish.
Liver-fish!
We should hunt it down and kill it. SQRLSY obviously isn’t human, and most likely doesn’t qualify as any form of life that has legal protections. So I’m pretty sure whatever we do to it is completely legal.
Am guessing that family visitation day at the institute was once again lonely; he has some spare time to copypasta you.
I order if SQRLSY can be dissolved using acid?
And unmedicated on weekends.
"Mammary Farter-Fuhrer"
That's SQRLSY's drag name. And it fits.
Thank God the site didn't allow memes to be posted.
Bidenflation update - Lithium price crashes.
Lithium Price Crash Could Trigger Shortages From 2025
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Lithium-Price-Crash-Could-Trigger-Shortages-From-2025.html
HAPERINFLATION! MAH CHEESY POOFS IS TOO EXPENSIVE!
Still trying to pretend commodities pricing is tied to inflation I see. Open Society was right to can you.
If the USD were truly effected by "money printing" then it would be reflected in commodity prices - see oil and gold in the 1970s.
Uncle Buck is strong. I know you anti-Americans hate it.
USA! USA! USA! USA!
Take that you America-hating Canuck.
And we still don't want your filthy tar oil.
"If the USD were truly effected by “money printing” then it would be reflected in commodity prices"
Here you go folks. Everything Buttplug understands about the commodities market in one post.
Remember to bookmark this one for later.
The #1 rule in commodities is "The remedy for high prices are high prices", you moron.
I know supply and demand mean nothing to you. You put high prices all on how the US president is yapping.
The saw goes 'The best cure for high prices is high prices', and it's got absolutely nothing to do with your retarded claim that the Lithium price is proof inflation isn't happening.
You're not going to get your job back with that level of shilling.
It’s surprising that he’s really this stupid.
If the USD were truly effected by “money printing” then it would be reflected in commodity prices – see oil and gold in the 1970s.
Actually, no. One argument against the gold standard is that when the value of the dollar was tied to the value of gold, the value of the currency would go up or down depending on how much yellow metal was pulled out of the ground. They say it wasn't fun.
So if tying the value of currency to a commodity isn't a great thing, then comparing inflation with currency values seems like a lousy measurement.
You have to remember that shrike is an idiot.
Which, one would think, should tell one about the rest of Shrike's arguments.
Obviously. Even Sarc is shredding his idiotic arguments.
THE TIKTOK IS TURNIN' OUR CHILREN INTO COMMIES!
Why do so many conservatives want to ban TikTok?
.
According to the app’s right-wing critics, TikTok is threatening national security by spreading ‘woke’ ideology
For many conservatives today, TikTok provides a convenient narrative. Any time you arrive at an opinion they don’t like, it’s because you have been brainwashed by the Chinese and their deliberate efforts to pollute the minds of young people with radical propaganda. This conspiracy to destroy the West is the only plausible explanation for why you might have arrived at crazy notions like “minority groups deserve rights” or “war crimes are bad”. The idea that conservative viewpoints are out-of-touch and unpopular, or that you might’ve come to a different conclusion based on evidence and your own principles, is way too far-fetched. You have been duped and hoodwinked by a video-sharing app, which means all of your opinions are void.
https://www.dazeddigital.com/life-culture/article/61350/1/why-do-conservatives-hate-tiktok-ban-communism-woke-ideology-china
Nothing to do with the fact the app installed spyware on government and industry employees phones, huh?
Without your talking-points you're just crashing and burning, aren't you?
Let's be real fucking clear about a TikTok ban.
.
It's all about the fact that there is a large quantity of trans youth, LGBTQ+ youth, finding themselves and people like them there.
.
Republicans want this. The Heritage foundation wants this.
.
It's part of their same stupid goal.
— Erin Reed (@ErinInTheMorn) March 24, 2023
You use TikTok to cruise for those youths?
I thought he used a windowless panel van and chloroform.
"Nooooooooo! Ignore the industrial spyware!
They hate it because they're racist against pedophiles!"
You and your ideological pals are essentially cartoons now, Buttplug.
You Cons just want to ban anything that doesn't reflect proper admiration of your Trump Cult Leader. Social media must be forced to praise Him as needed.
Private company? They must be forced to follow your Party Dictate.
Still refusing to acknowledge that companies and governments are banning TikTok because it installs CCP spyware, rather than it being a
JewishXtian plot against pedos.Is there any evidence that they want to ban TikTok because of LGBTQ issues?
Their stated reasons are (1) it's Chinese spyware and (2) it propagates pro-Hamas propaganda. #1 is debatable and #2 is not a good enough reason (free speech and all). I haven't seen any of them actually campaign against it for LGBTQ reasons and they aren't exactly shy in expressing their disapproval of LGBTQ issues lately.
I still haven't figured out why people say TikTok is spyware. As far as I can tell it collects the same data that Google, Facebook and every other "free" web service collects. And sells. So what is special about TikTok? What is it collecting that it couldn't buy from any of the others that aren't banned? What am I missing here?
Last year, TikTok quietly updated its privacy policy to allow the app to collect biometric data on U.S. users, including “faceprints and voiceprints”
.
The policy language was vague as it didn’t clarify whether it was referring to federal law, state laws or both, nor did it explain why, exactly, this information was being collected or how it might be shared.
.
This related to an independent privacy researcher’s finding, released in August, which claimed the TikTok iOS app had been injecting code that could allow it to essentially perform keylogging.
https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/14/tiktok-claims-its-not-collecting-u-s-users-biometric-data-despite-what-privacy-policy-says/
"Once data hits China, they have a national security law there that compels all of those entities there to assist them in espionage activity," Carr said.
.
Although TikTok has denied that it is giving Americans' information to the CCP, Carr said that on the app, "there’s an awful lot of data that’s being pulled from your device, and apparently sent back to China. Underneath that, it’s pulling biometrics, including face prints and voice prints; keystroke patterns and rhythms; search and browsing history; location information."
https://justthenews.com/government/security/tiktok-collects-americans-biometric-data-china-influences-what-they-see-fcc
The lawsuit filed in a Californian court last week claims TikTok "clandestinely... vacuumed up and transferred to servers in China vast quantities of private and personally-identifiable user data".
.
It alleges the data could be used to identify, profile and track users in the US "now and in the future".
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50640110
What is spyware?
Spyware is a type of malicious software -- or malware -- that is installed on a computing device without the end user's knowledge. It invades the device, steals sensitive information and internet usage data, and relays it to advertisers, data firms or external users.
Could have just said biometrics. .
Fuck off pedo.
OK, so he's gay.
He is still a white man.
No where near enough boxes to tick when railroaded by a black chick.
Blackish
Look, VP Cackles knows what is best for the state, and that certainly does not include people and enterprises who resist The Narrative. Besides, child prostitution is only for inner circle elites.
Proportional representation is back.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1194448925/congress-proportional-representation-explainer
That’s all well and good till card carrying Nazi’s and Communist’s get in there. Or even worse, actual Libertarians!
Whutabout the Alabama/Alternative für Deutschland fon Mises Caucasians? Their business of putting Libertarian party cards into the paws of international and nationalsocialist looters has spread to the caudillo republics. Tight now an anarco-fascist mystic is watching to see if voting at gunpoint will enable him to subject pregnant women in Argentina to the involuntary servitude of reproduction at gunpoint.
NPR and the Democrats are trying to undermine US democracy and turn it into a Mao-style "democracy".
Fortunately, it's not going to happen.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf
Here's the ruling from the ballot access case in Colorado. Short version: Court concluded that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the office of President, so Trump remains on the ballot.
But there's a longer version, in that this all plays very conveniently for the judge. She wrote a 105 page ruling on this case, in which she concluded that Trump definitely engaged in insurrection. Which shouldn't be surprising, since she donated to a political group promising to target all the January 6th insurrectionists. She had decided an insurrection existed before the hearing happened, and that's a big part of why this hearing survived an order to dismiss.
Because she ruled on whether she had the authority by law to even make this ruling. Normally that sort of ruling comes BEFORE a hearing or trial, and you don't just have the trial and then decide afterward the law doesn't apply. Everything she needed to know to make this legal determination was handled in pre-court filings. From the horse's mouth:
The Court reserved the issues of whether Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to Trump and whether Trump engaged in an insurrection for its ruling following trial.
This all works out very conveniently for her, since she doesn't get the type of blowback and protests that would accompany a ruling to block Trump from the ballot in a state where 1.3 million people voted for him in 2020. She still gets to call him out as a dangerous protestor.
She also has to twist herself into all kinds of ridiculous logic pretzels to determine that Trump was an insurrectionist. Trump's team argued that he can't have engaged in insurrection because all of his "involvement" in the insurrection is 1st Amendment protected activity-ie, speech. And the way she overcomes is by relying on the Petitioners' "expert," who was a sociologist with expertise in "right-wing" extremism, who basically said that Trump's speech was full of dog-whistles. So when Trump said "Go peacefully," he didn't mean it. She found "evidence" that Trump has a history of courting extremists and endorsing political violence as legitimate and proper, therefore, he failed the Brandenberg test. She doesn't cite specific evidence, really, she just makes conclusory statements.
Trump’s history of reacting favorably to political violence committed at his rallies or in his name, as well as his cultivation of relationships with extremist political actors who frequently traffic in violent rhetoric, is well-established. Trump has consistently endorsed violence and intimidation as not only legitimate means of political expression, but as necessary, even virtuous. Further, the Court has found that Trump was aware that his supporters were willing to engage in political violence and that they would respond to his calls for them to do so.
It's just known that Trump has all these extremist supporters who will do violence, so of course he's talking to them specifically when he says, "We have to fight." Nevermind how common it is for politicians to say "fight" when they're campaigning.
And how does she conclude there was an insurrection? By using a definition from Webster's dictionary in 1828!
...the Court holds that an insurrection as used in Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment is (1) a public use of force or threat of force (2) by a group of people (3) to hinder or prevent execution of the Constitution of the United States.
Yes, insurrection is that broad. You just more than one person, publicly using force OR THE THREAT OF FORCE that hinders execution of the Constitution of the United States. So, say, an unruly crowd outside of a Federal courthouse? Or outside the Supreme Court? Or people climbing over fences near Capitol Hill? Anyone group that throws rocks at the National Guard or any federal authority? Those are ALL insurrectionists.
She's just relying on creating this overly broad standard and trusting it will NEVER be leveraged against people she doesn't favor. It's of course a terrible ruling, but given the results, Trump's team won't be appealing it.
The Petitioners, on the other hand, might be considering an appeal on the grounds that Trump does qualify under the 14th Amendment. In which case, if he does qualify, since the lower court already established that he engaged in an insurrection, then this could still result in Trump getting kicked off the ballot, forcing another appeal.
The ruling was kind of wild in how far the judge had to bend herself to get the result she wanted.
Yeah, it's a pretty crazy thing all together.
It's made all the more amusing that they are trying to keep a politician off the ballot so that a significant portion of the country simply can't vote for him, which is amusing since...who does she think those people will vote for instead? A democrat? A more moderate republican? Not bloody likely.
The mental gymnastics required to say that isn't disenfranchisement is amusing. Technically, it isn't since you still are allowed to cast a vote it's just that the only people you can vote for are approved by the state in advance.
Functionally, it's the same damn thing. By this measure, Russian elections where you can vote for 'Putin' or 'Putin' are just fine. It's just that nobody else survived to the general election, that's all!
The 14th Amendment also bans aiding and abetting enemies.
The Taliban were the enemy.
Brandon left behind materiel for them.
He's disqualified.
does anyone think that if Nixon left behind F-14s and ICBMs for the Ho chi Minh, he would NOT have been impeached?
So, just out of curiosity, what do supporters here think are the redeeming aspects of Backpage?
They don’t need to have any. People who want to enter mutual contracts to buy and sell don’t need to justify that the product being exchanged is a good for society. I think tobacco products, for instance, have an unmitigated negative impact on the world and they should be 100% legal to buy and sell.
^This.
They can sell all the meth, dildos and pussy they want for all I care, just as long as they're not pushing them on kids.
Had backpage been pushing on this on kids, they'd be called Stunning and Brave.
Right. I'm not arguing against the legality or freedom of it. I'm simply asking what Backpage supporters actually support, and why.
I mean, (hopefully) nobody's naive here about the reality of the sex trade. Sure, first world culture may be rife with eager porn stars and willing prostitutes and debased chicks looking for simps - but that's not really what Backpage is about. And we all know it.
If you're trying to blur the line between the two, let me stop you right there. Backpage is about human trafficking and exploitation of minors. So, again, I ask you: what do supporters here think are the redeeming factors of that?
Backpage is about human trafficking and exploitation of minors.
I think that’s stealing a base there. The main purpose of it is clearly sex based, but that’s simply not the same as saying they’re selling minors and human trafficking victims. I don’t think any of the federal lawsuits against back page have ever found them guilty of selling children.
I don’t have to like women selling sex online to think women should be allowed to, if men are willing to pay for it. And it’s hardly the website’s fault if they’re making good faith efforts to keep minors off the site and can’t catch them all. You know that pimps can exploit minors in the complete absence of a site like Backpage, right?
Back page was actually working WITH law enforcement to prevent trafficking, and some memos came out noting things like they were extremely responsive to law enforcement requests and often proactively reported ads to the FBI that looked to be trafficking or underaged sex work.
Not only is "exploitation of minors" stealing a base, it's demonstrably false. Here's a reason link, but I've read it elsewhere, too. https://reason.com/2019/08/26/secret-memos-show-the-government-has-been-lying-about-backpage/
There's a reason that, after a decade and multiple retrials, the best they could put together was some sort of money laundering.
Yeah, this.
Fuck Harris. And Maggy Krell, and Cindy McCain, and all the other totalitarian nanny cunts.
The main purpose of it is clearly sex based, but that’s simply not the same as saying they’re selling minors and human trafficking victims.
They're certainly enabling it, or at the very least turning a blind eye.
You know that pimps can exploit minors in the complete absence of a site like Backpage, right?
Of course. But that's side-stepping the question I asked. We know what Backpage is doing and what they're enabling. What is it you support about that?
Do you honestly believe that the majority of what you found on Backpage was consenting women offering their body for trade? Don't be ridiculous. Those phone numbers didn't go to some girl who took some nudes and posted them online hoping to make a quick buck on her back. It was pimps sampling their wares. Trafficking.
Again, what do you support about that?
They’re certainly enabling it, or at the very least turning a blind eye.
Show me where that has been proven.
"Trafficking" according to Herbert Hoover appointee Harry Anslinger, 100% of all state and federal prosecutors and looter politicians meant passing a joint, twig or seed. Holy War Bush demanded the death sentence! Then Clinton "didn't inhale" and California repealed a law. But after Gary's 4 million pro-choice votes spoilered machine results in 13 states, the stampede was on to repeal weed laws and hire christianofascist infiltrators to take over the libertarian party as damage control.
Right. I’m not arguing against the legality or freedom of it. I’m simply asking what Backpage supporters actually support, and why.
You literally answered your own question here, so methinks you're just trying to concern troll people with your biased and prejudicial nonsense.
Exactly this.
Shown the error of a stated opinion, the troll's response is to just restate the opinion like it is proven fact and ask "Do you support this?"
It's one step away from asking "Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or no."
And yet, they can't seem to put it into words. If you're so in support of it, then why not articulate that support? Why be coy about it?
Also, is there some reason you object to bias and prejudice against the pimping, sexual exploitation, sex slavery, coercion, abuse, kidnapping, et al that goes into forming Backpage's primary market?
You answered your own stupid question that you were begging.
What people support is the legality and freedom.
One literally does not need to go any deeper than that.
You're looking for someone to try and make a positive case for the existence of back page that you can then argue against, because you know full damn well you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to freedom of speech or their actions being illegal.
The legality and freedom to do what exactly?
One literally does not need to go any deeper than that.
That’s because they’re intentionally short-circuiting their critical thinking abilities to avoid having to defend a position in favor of pimping, sexual exploitation, sex slavery, coercion, abuse, kidnapping, et al.
You’re no different than the Queers for Hamas types. You’ve pigeonholed yourself into a position where you want to support A without supporting B, but where the two positions can’t be held simultaneously without hypocrisy. And, rather than having the basic integrity to admit that and revise your positions, you instead just choose not to acknowledge B (“we need go no deeper”) and take satisfaction in supporting A.
Because A’s easy to support. It’s freedom. It’s liberty. Woo!
But when B is sex slavery, human butchery, oppression, and otherwise truly despicable behaviors – well, we don’t need to go into that. Let’s just keep thinking about A, OK?
you know full damn well you don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to freedom of speech or their actions being illegal.
Of course I do. Because ultimately the issue isn’t about freedom of speech or legality. That’s just what you want to dress it up with, to avoid a much much more complicated question that you know you don’t have an answer to.
The hookers, duh.
But seriously, it was more than just hookers and blow that you could find on there (never mind that neither of those should be illegal and advertising such should 100% be covered by free speech).
Hookers sometimes provide blow.
The good ones will give you two blows for one low price.
I've heard one can get hooked on blow.
That's like "the teenage girl raped by her father" excuse for abortion. Yea, that happens once in a blue moon. But we all know that's not even remotely the primary purpose and use of abortion.
The pimp who also sells used cars doesn't magically make his sex trade legit simply because he's got used cars for sale next to the girls.
"In instance after instance, ..." Name three.
Believe it or not, back when Lysander Spooner wrote "Vices are not crimes," Massachusetts law could have just barely indicted Mohammed--had he consummated that marriage within the borders of the Commonwealth. A year's delay and he'd've been no-billed because the age of consent (and sex work) was ten. Then came Comstockism, then Article 23 c) of the Treaty of Versailles. How about a Reason article on how advertising is handled where there is no First Amendment to spit on?
It's almost as if Reason has discovered that if the Justice system wants to go after someone, it will do so, and keep trying, and keep throwing charges at them until something-- anything sticks.
And considering that this unjust federal prosecution was brought by the Trump administration in 2018, the prospect of another, even more "vengeful", Trump DoJ seizing the reins in 2025 should be rather chilling.
YOU get this all wrong because you don't consider context at all. Both of those Virginia Democrat perverts lost in the last election yet their personal sex tapes were available publicly for ages.
How do YOU explain that?
Here is the first disguisting pervert : Virginia election candidate responds after leak of tapes showing her performing sex acts with husband: "It won't silence me"
And the second was the $500 per hour dominatrix,
Disgusting creeps with their rights, which do not extend to being a public servant
Intriguing read. Appreciate for sharing.
Thank you from Tourld
It was indeed a Trump prosecution.
https://triamtmt.com/buy-tmt-bar-online/