Printable View
[QUOTE=Kijimuna;3102985][URL]http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Paxton-to-Hold-News-Conference-About-Human-Trafficking-396213311.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand[/URL][/QUOTE]I mean really, is it against the law to advertise escort services? I'm aware of this sites (seldom used in our area) classified ad page however, with no BP where do we go!! Oh the madness!!
[QUOTE=Kijimuna;3102985][URL]http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Paxton-to-Hold-News-Conference-About-Human-Trafficking-396213311.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand[/URL][/QUOTE]In reading through the affidavit, it seems to me the gist of the prosecution's argument is that prostitution is facilitated by BP, and the CEO makes money from BP, so therefore the CEO is guilty of acting as a pimp for specific, individual escorts. Also, since some of those escorts were minors, additional charges can be tacked on.
One defense against that argument is that BP is nothing more than an online marketplace, like CL or FB or many other different sites, and all the CEO is responsible for is having some kind of reasonable screening process to try to filter out illegal activity and especially any sex-related activity by minors. While it's possible to argue that BP's processes didn't do a good job, that's not the same as the CEO having direct knowledge of individual acts of prostitution and intending to profit from them.
It's also interesting that this case is being brought under California law, not federal. Makes you think they must have had concerns they wouldn't be able to make Fed charges stick. Since BP's activities cross over state and national borders, I have a hard time believing the Feds wouldn't want a piece of this if they thought it had a decent chance of success. Just the sheer amount of fines and forfeiture they could get out of BP's worldwide operations would seem to make it worth it.
Lots of potential twists and turns and, while I don't know all the facts, I certainly hope BP hires some great lawyers and sticks this case right back down CA's throat.
[QUOTE=CowboyWilson;3103053]I mean really, is it against the law to advertise escort services? I'm aware of this sites (seldom used in our area) classified ad page however, with no BP where do we go!! Oh the madness!![/QUOTE]It's too lucrative. One possible scenario is for it to move operations to areas outside US jurisdiction, maybe even changing the business name. But I don't think the personal charges against the CEO will automatically cause the site to shut down. There would probably have to be a separate legal action filed to try to accomplish that. And that legal action could (and would) be challenged in the courts.
It won't be easy, straightforward or inexpensive, but let's hope BP puts up a good fight and wins!
So we have a state attorney general, currently seeking higher office, who's decided to make a name for herself a month ahead of the general election. Whether this tactic will succeed remains to be seen. In the meantime the defendants will have to spend some serious money hiring lawyers to defend themselves. Aside from some pretty obvious First Amendment issues, I really wonder if the charges can possibly stick. In addition, will this case be a priority for the next state attorney general should the incumbent's Senate campaign be successful?
I hope a judge laughs this case out of court. However, far too many judges legislate from the bench these days rather than interpret the law and constitution, so it's too early to predict how this will play out.
[QUOTE=JmSuttr;3103078]It's too lucrative. One possible scenario is for it to move operations to areas outside US jurisdiction, maybe even changing the business name. But I don't think the personal charges against the CEO will automatically cause the site to shut down. There would probably have to be a separate legal action filed to try to accomplish that. And that legal action could (and would) be challenged in the courts.
It won't be easy, straightforward or inexpensive, but let's hope BP puts up a good fight and wins![/QUOTE]Just as Backpage became the top site for escort ads once Craigslist discontinued its adult services section, I'm sure some other site would step forward should Backpage get shut down or agrees to get out of the escort ads business. Those ads won't go away; they'll simply move elsewhere.
[QUOTE=Kijimuna;3102985][URL]http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Paxton-to-Hold-News-Conference-About-Human-Trafficking-396213311.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand[/URL][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=JmSuttr;3103066]It's also interesting that this case is being brought under California law, not federal. Makes you think they must have had concerns they wouldn't be able to make Fed charges stick. Since BP's activities cross over state and national borders, I have a hard time believing the Feds wouldn't want a piece of this if they thought it had a decent chance of success. Just the sheer amount of fines and forfeiture they could get out of BP's worldwide operations would seem to make it worth it.[/QUOTE]My guess is that the expansive list of charges is an effort to obtain BP's records and server information. Making the charge of pimping (and child pimping) stick will be an uphill battle for the California authorities, so there might be thoughts of plea bargaining. I truly hope the BP execs win this big time or, better, that an impartial judge throws the case out of court [U]with prejudice[/U].
A couple additional thoughts and observations:
[INDENT]
(1) Had this been a federal case, it would likely have subordinated the California case until completion or resolution of the federal case. Trying the matter under California law first will still enable the feds to come in at a later point and, of course, bring all of its resources to bear on the defendants. (The effect if this is greater financial hardship for the defendants.)
(2) The fact that the case was brought under California law, rather than federal law, suggests some behind-the-scenes coordination between the Feds and the California authorities.
(3) As JmSuttr has already suggested, don't discount the money angle of this action.
(4) Even if the California action, and any subsequent federal action, is ultimately unsuccessful, there is probably the hope or expectation of putting a crimp in BP's operations, temporarily or permanently.
(5) Like LEO "street sweep" actions to round up prostitutes and clean up an existing stroll, this action (if successful) will simply cause BP operations to move outside the country.
(6) This is the action of a lazy and/or incompetent AG and authorities, who cannot seem to put a crimp in the source of under-age or "trafficked" individuals. (There [u]is[/u] a way to clamp down on trafficking, but that involves better border enforcement, something the current administration and even California are none to keen about.)
[/INDENT]
[QUOTE=RoaminRoman;3103220]My guess is that the expansive list of charges is an effort to obtain BP's records and server information. Making the charge of pimping (and child pimping) stick will be an uphill battle for the California authorities, so there might be thoughts of plea bargaining. I truly hope the BP execs win this big time or, better, that an impartial judge throws the case out of court [U]with prejudice[/U].
A couple additional thoughts and observations:
[INDENT]
(1) Had this been a federal case, it would likely have subordinated the California case until completion or resolution of the federal case. Trying the matter under California law first will still enable the feds to come in at a later point and, of course, bring all of its resources to bear on the defendants. (The effect if this is greater financial hardship for the defendants.)
(2) The fact that the case was brought under California law, rather than federal law, suggests some behind-the-scenes coordination between the Feds and the California authorities.
(3) As JmSuttr has already suggested, don't discount the money angle of this action.
(4) Even if the California action, and any subsequent federal action, is ultimately unsuccessful, there is probably the hope or expectation of putting a crimp in BP's operations, temporarily or permanently.
(5) Like LEO "street sweep" actions to round up prostitutes and clean up an existing stroll, this action (if successful) will simply cause BP operations to move outside the country.
(6) This is the action of a lazy and/or incompetent AG and authorities, who cannot seem to put a crimp in the source of under-age or "trafficked" individuals. (There [u]is[/u] a way to clamp down on trafficking, but that involves better border enforcement, something the current administration and even California are none to keen about.)
[/INDENT][/QUOTE]Feds go after cases they expect to win, and when they have the evidence to support a conviction. They do not want to tarnish their 90+ percent conviction rate and lose the confidence of the masses. What I could see the Feds possibly doing is going after the company itself and not individuals.
[QUOTE=Miketastic69;3103488]Feds go after cases they expect to win, and when they have the evidence to support a conviction. They do not want to tarnish their 90+ percent conviction rate and lose the confidence of the masses. What I could see the Feds possibly doing is going after the company itself and not individuals.[/QUOTE]The courts have already decided that the owners of a forum are not responsible for what gets posted on the forum. Rather, it is the responsibility of the person who posted it.
It sounds like Backpage has plenty of money to defend these type of cases. The cost of defending themselves from lawsuits should be baked into their business plan. If it is not, they need to rewrite their business plan. Defending free speech is not cheap.
Perhaps Backpage could do a better job in enforcing their rules. Currently, they just ask their users / viewers to "Please report the suspected sexual exploitation of minors and / or human trafficking to the appropriate authorities" and to email [EMAIL]abuse@backpage.com[/EMAIL]. Perhaps they could do more to clean up "Inappropriate or Illegal Content". But, it is up the the prosecutors to prove that Backpage is willfully negligent.
[QUOTE=Jones73;3103667]The courts have already decided that the owners of a forum are not responsible for what gets posted on the forum. Rather, it is the responsibility of the person who posted it.
It sounds like Backpage has plenty of money to defend these type of cases. The cost of defending themselves from lawsuits should be baked into their business plan. If it is not, they need to rewrite their business plan. Defending free speech is not cheap.
Perhaps Backpage could do a better job in enforcing their rules. Currently, they just ask their users / viewers to "Please report the suspected sexual exploitation of minors and / or human trafficking to the appropriate authorities" and to email [EMAIL]abuse@backpage.com[/EMAIL]. Perhaps they could do more to clean up "Inappropriate or Illegal Content". But, it is up the the prosecutors to prove that Backpage is willfully negligent.[/QUOTE][URL]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/can-prosecutors-stop-child-sex-trafficking-without-breaking-the-internet[/URL]
Good explanation about how the Communications Decency Act applies and also about past and current cases. Pretty even-handed info, IMHO, and lays out a pretty good argument for why BP may win.
[QUOTE=JmSuttr;3151764][URL]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/can-prosecutors-stop-child-sex-trafficking-without-breaking-the-internet[/URL]
Good explanation about how the Communications Decency Act applies and also about past and current cases. Pretty even-handed info, IMHO, and lays out a pretty good argument for why BP may win.[/QUOTE][URL]http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BACKPAGE_SEX_TRAFFICKING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-11-16-13-52-57[/URL]
Judicial (preliminary) ruling favoring BP.
[QUOTE=JmSuttr;3152065][URL]http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BACKPAGE_SEX_TRAFFICKING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-11-16-13-52-57[/URL]
Judicial (preliminary) ruling favoring BP.[/QUOTE]I find this story encouraging, but the judge agreed to give California's attorney general more time to make her case. I hope he tells her to go take a hike.
If the judge upholds his initial ruling, I have to wonder if the attorney general will seek to change federal law once she moves to the United States Senate. She won last week's election.
[QUOTE=TomMcAn;3154075]I find this story encouraging, but the judge agreed to give California's attorney general more time to make her case. I hope he tells her to go take a hike.
If the judge upholds his initial ruling, I have to wonder if the attorney general will seek to change federal law once she moves to the United States Senate. She won last week's election.[/QUOTE]In some court cases the judge makes a ruling where the issues raised are a bit of a surprise and may not have been fully discussed or argued. But in this case it's always been clear that the Communications Decency Act was going to be the centerpiece of BP's defense. While I haven't read all of the documents in the case, I'd be very surprised if the AG hasn't already thrown her best arguments out there. And if those didn't persuade the judge, I doubt repackaging and recycling them is going to make any difference. For the sake of fairness the judge will give them a chance to respond but, IMHO, their case is on life support and it's only a matter of time before the plug is pulled.
As for her election to the Senate, she'll have even less influence as a single junior senator than she did as AG of CA. And, while nobody was willing to specifically defend BP, changing a federal law that protects companies like Google and FB will most likely turn out to be a pretty fruitless endeavor.
FWIW, my prediction is that the judge will rule in favor of BP and against CA. And, if a state as big and powerful as CA can't get it done, my guess is other authorities will back off. And if BP is smart, they'll learn some lessons from this and make even more adjustments to their ad reporting and review process to avoid anything that could possibly be related to trafficking.
From the PWC website. Security cam pics on the website (in case you ever wondered how good they are).
Abduction.
Assault & Battery – On December 4th at 3:06 PM, officers responded to ZY Massage located at 2578 Dynasty Loop in Woodbridge (22193) to investigate an assault. The victim, later identified as a 44 year-old-woman of Woodbridge, reported to police that at approximately 10:00 AM that day, an unknown man entered the business and asked to use the restroom. While the subject was exiting the business, he requested a hug from the victim which was declined. The subject then left the store but returned after a short period of time. When the subject reentered the business, he locked the door with the victim inside, preventing her from leaving. A struggled ensued between the two and the subject assaulted the victim, causing minor injuries. The victim was able to break free from the subject and ran from the business. The subject also exited the business and was last seen on foot walking towards Telegraph Rd. The investigation continues and more information will be released once it is made available. Anyone with information about this incident is asked to call police at 703-792-6500.
The suspect is described as a Black male, 23-27 years of age, 6'0', and 180 lbs. He also has dark hair with a dark colored unshaven beard and mustache. He was last seen wearing blue jeans with a skull on the back right pocket, a black shirt with "Blackwatch" written on the front, a gray New York Yankees hat, and dark colored shoes.
Very clear photos have led to identification of the guy, though he hasn't been located and arrested the last I heard.
[QUOTE=Backrub321;3174843]From the PWC website. Security cam pics on the website (in case you ever wondered how good they are).
Abduction.
Assault & Battery On December 4th at 3:06 PM, officers responded to ZY Massage located at 2578 Dynasty Loop in Woodbridge (22193) to investigate an assault. The victim, later identified as a 44 year-old-woman of Woodbridge, reported to police that at approximately 10:00 AM that day, an unknown man entered the business and asked to use the restroom. While the subject was exiting the business, he requested a hug from the victim which was declined. The subject then left the store but returned after a short period of time. When the subject reentered the business, he locked the door with the victim inside, preventing her from leaving. A struggled ensued between the two and the subject assaulted the victim, causing minor injuries. The victim was able to break free from the subject and ran from the business. The subject also exited the business and was last seen on foot walking towards Telegraph Rd. The investigation continues and more information will be released once it is made available. Anyone with information about this incident is asked to call police at 703-792-6500.
The suspect is described as a Black male, 23-27 years of age, 6'0', and 180 lbs. He also has dark hair with a dark colored unshaven beard and mustache. He was last seen wearing blue jeans with a skull on the back right pocket, a black shirt with "Blackwatch" written on the front, a gray New York Yankees hat, and dark colored shoes.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202774419462/Charges-Dismissed-in-Online-Brothel-Case-Against-Backpagecom-Execs?slreturn=20161110002908[/URL]
While the state of CA can appeal the judgment, the higher court generally only looks at whether the trial judge made an error of law and they usually give the lower court the benefit of the doubt.
So, while it's not completely over, it's certainly not looking good for CA.