Law Backpage has been seized

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://archive.is/wReed
Banner3.jpg


We have just lost cabin pressure.

Null said:
Backpage was seized because the Communications Decency Act was amended to allow LEO to pierce the veil and come after hosts and services when users had broken the law. This may seem trivial, but the CDA's safe harbor provisions is what enables every site that exists and allows user-generated content to be self-published.

4chan? At risk. 8chan? At risk.
Encyclopedia Dramatica? At risk. Kiwi Farms? At risk. Every other web forum? At risk.
Facebook, Google Plus, YouTube, Twitter, Gab? At risk.

If the CDA continues down this path we will see our largest export (culture and technology) be swiftly transplanted to other countries with safe harbor provisions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Click to expand...
Told Senpai the horrible news if there's autistic screeching about him not getting his dick sucked or salad tossed by a troon or man I'll let you know. I am even sending him a sailor moon poster...
 
It seems to me like this is where the Feds are hanging their hat:
...investigators say the site lost that protection when they alerted posters to key terms related to child sex trafficking. Investigators found proof of these alerts in internal Backpage.com documents.

The site even gave the third party posters a chance to rephrase their ads so they wouldn't be flagged for child sex trafficking. Some of the terms Backpage.com admins told posters not to use include "Lolita," young, teenager and even "Amber Alert."
Click to expand...
I mean, there's not being responsible for what your site's users post... and then there's...
upload_2018-4-6_20-43-48.png

Their charge is that backpage actively and knowingly helped its users conduct illegal activities on the site in such a way as to avoid setting off any bells at the FBI office... if the federal prosecutor can get a jury to buy this argument, then I don't really see it as a change in the online legal landscape.

(I would not be at all surprised to learn that the FBI had secretly ordered backpage admins to notify law enforcement whenever a user posted an ad containing one of those words, and instead of complying with that order, they just added wordfilters to prevent users from even posting ads containing those keywords.)
 
Flopwop said:
Some bitch named Maria Mint owes me a refund.
Click to expand...

She was prolly a man breh....
Null said:
I don't give a shit mate. This is the first step towards walking off a cliff. The fucking feds themselves own several Tor child pornography sites; "protecting the children" is a bullshit fucking lie.
Click to expand...


Ima have to agree with you here. This doesn't seem so much of a "look at all this good where doing!" kind of thing when literally anyone can go into the deepweb and buy a Singaporean child for the same price as a dozen bagels. This is gonna be the first step to farenheit 451.
 
gREEEEEEEEEr said:
It seems to me like this is where the Feds are hanging their hat:

I mean, there's not being responsible for what your site's users post... and then there's...
View attachment 420947
Their charge is that backpage actively and knowingly helped its users conduct illegal activities on the site in such a way as to avoid setting off any bells at the FBI office... if the federal prosecutor can get a jury to buy this argument, then I don't really see it as a change in the online legal landscape.

(I would not be at all surprised to learn that the FBI had secretly ordered backpage admins to notify law enforcement whenever a user posted an ad containing one of those words, and instead of complying with that order, they just added wordfilters to prevent users from even posting ads containing those keywords.)
Click to expand...
Yeah there's a huge difference between IDK about child trafficking her de durr..and actively promoting and possibly profiting from it... You'd think pedos would update their lexicon of terms as time progresses to avoid detection.
Damn it where's eichenstein when you need him!
 
100 Dollar Bill Guy Apparently said:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Click to expand...
Ahh obscenity laws. Gonna post some SFW comics from an artist buddy of mine who just got thrown back into prison because he refused to stop drawing loli stuff and post it on chan-boards. Just know that it's a huge red flag when you can't even draw obscene stuff from imagination and post it on forums for such things. When websites don't allow that then they are slip-sliding fast.
FBInyourface.jpg natisinprison.jpg JohnDoeTrial.jpg criminalization.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gREEEEEEEEEr said:
Their charge is that backpage actively and knowingly helped its users conduct illegal activities on the site in such a way as to avoid setting off any bells at the FBI office... if the federal prosecutor can get a jury to buy this argument, then I don't really see it as a change in the online legal landscape.
Click to expand...

That's the rub that I think people are overlooking in claiming this to be Brave New World, 1984, (insert dystopian novel of your choice here). Knowingly is the keyword here, which by all accounts is a damn hard threshold to prove without substantial internal documentation. This isn't to say that it isn't encouraging a "shoot first, ask questions later" kind of law enforcement where the Feds can seize all your shit if they have reason to think that you're abetting child sex traffickers, but it doesn't expand the definition of criminality beyond what it already was and closes a potential loophole.

Here's the full update the Senate passed recently to the Communications Act of 1934.

"(Sec. 3) This bill amends the Communications Act of 1934 to specify that communications decency provisions protecting providers from liability for the private blocking or screening of offensive material shall not be construed to impair or limit civil action or criminal prosecution under state or federal criminal or civil laws relating to sex trafficking of children or sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion.

(Sec. 4) The bill amends the federal criminal code to specify that the violation for benefiting from "participation in a venture" engaged in sex trafficking of children, or sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, includes knowingly assisting, supporting, or facilitating the violation.

(Sec. 5) The bill amends the federal criminal code to allow a state attorney general to bring a civil action in U.S. district court on behalf of the state's residents if the attorney general believes an interest of the residents has been or is threatened or adversely affected by any person who knowingly participates in the sex trafficking of children or sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion."
 
SugarSnot said:
Ahh obscenity laws. Gonna :powerlevel::powerlevel::powerlevel: a little bit here and post some SFW comics from an artist buddy of mine who just got thrown back into prison because he refused to stop drawing loli stuff and post it on chan-boards. Just know that it's a huge red flag when you can't even draw obscene stuff from imagination and post it on forums for such things. When websites don't allow that then they are slip-sliding fast.
Click to expand...

It's not websites who arrest you or convict you, though.
 
xxXDxx said:
Never trust the current administration with powers you wouldn't trust the other party with. Does anyone here feel comfortable with Hillary Clinton or Michael Bloomberg being able to shut down websites for alleged "obscenity", safe harbour be damned? Do you trust them not to no-knock-raid political opponents using this law, to "investigate" alleged "violations"?

So if these changes stay on the book, and a hard left SocJus wins the Democratic nomination and Presidency in 2020 or 2024, what do you think will happen?

This is the same bullshit of Obama having taken ridiculously liberties as to what executive power covers, and then the same liberals who applauded that being terrified Trump might use those same powers.
Click to expand...
Yup I'm so happy the butthurt from the left will be so sweet! It's almost Obama was a hero for exerting these same powers Trump is now a tyrant for essentially exerting the same powers!
 
Marvin said:
This is not that dramatic a change. The state has to argue that the operators of the site knew their site was being used for sex trafficking and that they did nothing about it.

It's the same way that the DMCA safe harbor doesn't apply if you are intentionally exploiting it to violate copyrights.

If you say to someone "yeah, the DMCA means I don't get held responsible if you infringe copyrights on my site, so go ahead, please do infringe copyrights on my site", then yeah, you don't receive that safe harbor.

Perhaps you can say that the idea that legislators are willing to fuck with the CDA is ominous. But that's about all you can say.
Click to expand...
yea but if you acknowledge reality like that then you can't get really mad about nothing.
 
It was so fucking obvious the website was used for prostitution, no matter the legal loopholes of what constitutes an "escort." I fail to see how this could result in a slippery slope banning fuck all, unless America goes cuck like Europe and bans criticizing attention whore SJWs on the internet.

I'm more concerned about the law from a week or so ago giving foreign nations power to shut down stuff.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom