BackPage Advertiser Reviews

[QUOTE=Ebdawgg;3791196]If there are any lawyers on here who would care to weigh in and explain some of this, I bet we would all appreciate it.

I have a feeling the feds may have mis stepped here and may not ultimately get what they want or, from their perspective, make things worse.[/QUOTE]DOJ, FBI, USPS, etc etc who wants to go up against all of these government organizations. Ivanka / pence are bitching at trump to sign fosta, for a host of reasons. DJT replies but I got luv for the working girls. And in case you haven't heard I frequent them also.

[QUOTE=TomMcAn;3791540]There are plenty of do-gooders on both sides of the aisle. Kamala Harris, a progressive Democrat, aggressively went after Backpage and its owners when she was attorney general of California. She's now a senator and strongly supported the FOSTA legislation now awaiting the president's signature or veto.

The Polaris Project, one of the top anti-trafficking organizations today, falls on the left side of the political spectrum. So does the International Justice Mission, which is religion-based but comes from a "social justice warrior" perspective.[/QUOTE]A group of house member need to write a bill making sexwork legal, let's go. The gram, Twitter, pof, tinder are all conduits of selling sex. Most Ig ladies have private pages to their premium content.

[QUOTE=Jusblaze1;3791727]A group of house member need to write a bill making sexwork legal, let's go. The gram, Twitter, pof, tinder are all conduits of selling sex. Most Ig ladies have private pages to their premium content.[/QUOTE]Few House or Senate members would be willing to sponsor such legislation. No office holder wants to be seen as pro-prostitution since so many in our society still consider it a vice. Any legalization of sex work will likely have to come through a court decision striking down laws against consenting adults activities involving an exchange of money. That can be done while still leaving in place laws against human trafficking and sex work by minors.

In the face of the terrible crackdown lately on some of our favorite hunting sites of late, I have a question for the group. What of some of the other options for hookup sites that don't seem to have ever gotten this site attention for a forum or thread? I've done my rounds (albeit not heavily) with the BP and CL crowds, and have had some good success on SA, but what of such sites as AFF (Adult Friend Finder). I recently set up an account (no $$ as of yet) to explore this option, and the hunting looks good from what I've seen so far. Now, I'm sure there are the requisite flakes, and fakes, and scammers, probably a pro or semi-pro sprinkled in amongst the masses, but heck, if a modest investment in a one-month subscription and a mass of invites lands just one good one, I reckon it should be worth it. Any feedback or sage intel greatly appreciated. Steer clear of the bulldozers tearing up our playgrounds!

Eccie, & TER (for Americans only), have been shut down. It's been nice knowing you guys... :'(

Just need to use an IP address from abroad and reroute. Review VPN access.

[QUOTE=DeCoria;3792346]Eccie, & TER (for Americans only), have been shut down. It's been nice knowing you guys... :'([/QUOTE]

Switter is new but I don't know how long that will last. I doubt locals will know of it's existence unless someone tells them about it.

[QUOTE=TomMcAn;3791540]There are plenty of do-gooders on both sides of the aisle. Kamala Harris, a progressive Democrat, aggressively went after Backpage and its owners when she was attorney general of California. She's now a senator and strongly supported the FOSTA legislation now awaiting the president's signature or veto.

The Polaris Project, one of the top anti-trafficking organizations today, falls on the left side of the political spectrum. So does the International Justice Mission, which is religion-based but comes from a "social justice warrior" perspective.[/QUOTE]I don't want to turn this into a political discussion so I'll have to agree with you that there are do-gooders on both sides, just never had this kind of regulation 2 years and prior ago, so I blame whomever's in power.

Hopefully Jackson can now clean up with his classifieds. It will be interesting to see if rape statistics jump up as a result of men not getting relief or if burglary and robbery goes up as junkies can no longer make a buck through sex. This is what you get when you want government to regulate morals.

[QUOTE=Ebdawgg;3791177]There are already some BP girls on eros.

I think this is going to be a problem for them because it looks to be for show and to score points with prudes more than an application of the law. There are as we know sites still up like grindr, POF, SA, eros and more. They can't all go away and it won't be long before people find loop holes, work arounds and THIS site's ad section.

I am not a lawyer but it does seem like a free speech issue. As long as people aren't overtly offering an illegal contract, then it's just people talking. If they take down one like BP than everything else might go too and this action could have all kinds of unintended consequences.

I bet BP's lawyers are working overtime and have a plan.

I also think it's going to be funny when we all discover work arounds and loopholes. I can just see it now, BP girls getting into the hourly onsite tool rental business. You could rent that angle grinder for just the hour you need it from a BP girl who, in her hotel room, show you how to use it. How many guys here could use an hour instruction on how to use a torque wrench? If you already know, you'd probably be happy to get an hour long refresher.

I predict this won't last and local governments are going top get pissed because all those BP girls that used to work indoors are now on the streets. Why do people think the SW scenes in many places aren't what they used to be? And the Block? All that action moved online and off the dangerous streets. Even old BCPD commissioner wife beater K Clarke said his stated policy for street crime (mostly drugs) was to move it indoors. The feds just undid that for every city. What a bunch of dumbasses.

For the moment, keep the working numbers you have handy. You will need them for a while; but after a while this will resolve itself and if the fed's case fails, it will resolve itself better than it was before.

My $. 02.[/QUOTE]1. Providers post offering nude massage only. What ever happens during that is between consenting 2 adults.

Or.

2. The girls will have to work off the honor system and have trust. It will work like this, the first encounter there must not be any mention of money or exchanging of money before hand. Providers will have to be willing do the deed and be paid afterwards.

[QUOTE=Ebdawgg;3791196]If there are any lawyers on here who would care to weigh in and explain some of this, I bet we would all appreciate it.

I have a feeling the feds may have mis stepped here and may not ultimately get what they want or, from their perspective, make things worse.[/QUOTE]The law holds website operators criminally liable for posts made by others, even if the posts themselves reflect no criminal conduct. Criminal liabilty is evidently based solely on the perception that a website in some way facilitates prostitution or trafficking, which invites arbitrary prosecution. Basically, the law implicitly compels website operators to strictly curate -- and filter / edit -- all user posts and user generated content. Though seriously defective from a constitutional standpoint, the law is well aligned with the interests of Facebook, Twitter, and the other first tier social media platforms, whom I suspect lobbied for it.

[QUOTE=Steverino1968;3793428]The law holds website operators criminally liable for posts made by others, even if the posts themselves reflect no criminal conduct. Criminal liabilty is evidently based solely on the perception that a website in some way facilitates prostitution or trafficking, which invites arbitrary prosecution. Basically, the law implicitly compels website operators to strictly curate -- and filter / edit -- all user posts and user generated content. Though seriously defective from a constitutional standpoint, the law is well aligned with the interests of Facebook, Twitter, and the other first tier social media platforms, whom I suspect lobbied for it.[/QUOTE]Unless the BP attorneys are morons, they'll raise the 1st amendment defense well as possibly other constitutional issues. We just need to wait and see how the courts decide the merits of the case (unless procedural issues render this analysis academic). It may take years to decide if appeals are granted. Based on the seizure notice, this may end up in the 9th federal circuit. They're typically more liberal than the rest of the USA This may end up at the supreme court 6-7 years from now. This not the end. Only the beginning.

[QUOTE=Ebdawgg;3791177]

I bet BP's lawyers are working overtime and have a plan.

[/QUOTE]At least in BP's case, you missed that BP and all of it's related assets were seized. That means it ALL belongs to the government now. That means BP has no money to pay lawyers to defend it. It is a fundamental problem with asset seizures.

Now the sites that shut down voluntarily MAY be able to bring a case to challenge the law, but there is probably an unspoken agreement that the government will let them keep what they have right now, if they don't challenge, but if they do decide to challenge expect the full weight of the government (IRS, FBI, more seizures, etc.) to go against the site, it's owners, it's lawyers, the hosting services, etc. There are no more Larry Flints in the world willing to stake their reputation, fortune, and freedom for this fight.

I kind of think that they HAD to seize BP, because with the various changes over time (getting rid of services, then changing how much info could be in personals, etc), BP could have made the case that they were trying to solve the problem, they just handn't found what worked yet; and a jury (or at least some of a jury) may have believed them. By seizing, there will be no challenge.

I have no idea how lucrative these sites were, but my guess is most owners and operators are just going to take what they have and get out of the game.

[QUOTE=DropaLoad;3792865]Hopefully Jackson can now clean up with his classifieds. It will be interesting to see if rape statistics jump up as a result of men not getting relief or if burglary and robbery goes up as junkies can no longer make a buck through sex. This is what you get when you want government to regulate morals.[/QUOTE]Implying that mongers would start raping women because we cannot get relief does not follow any logic. I would say that 99.9% of us on this site would never make a provider (let alone regular women) do what she does not want to do. The majority of us come to an agreement for services, if agreed to services are not provided, then provider does not get paid. Even if provider takes money upfront and decides to not provide agreed to services, the majority of us would just walk away rather than force her to provide services. I myself have never ever forced a women (or provider) to do what she does not want to do and I believe I speak for the majority of us mongers. Again increased crime because providers cannot make money through online contacts is stretching things a bit. Don't get me wrong, I am against all this regulation of online services. I agree with others that I do not see a difference between print ads and online ads so am wondering why online ads are being targeted.

If I remember correctly wasn't BP kinda big and bold and a little in the Governments face, thinking they wouldn't lose, when the Gov went after um about their Escort section? Maybe that's why the Gov went hard and took EVERYTHING from BP, and is only warning everyone else. Just saying. I still think it will all settle down after a while, fingers crossed.