Sex trafficking OK, unless you're Mitt Romney's wife.

[LawBeefaroni]

So the story is that Ann Romney had a blind trust that has some form of investment in a Goldman Sachs fund that was invested in an alleged sex trafficking website.

It's a blind trust so she had no idea about the specific investment but whatever, Presidential campaign politics and all that.

What gets lost in all that is that Goldman is investing $30M in a company that runs a site that is alleged to help traffic underage prostitutes and kidnapped sex slaves.

W. T. F?

GS Capital Partners III invested $30 million in the Village Voice in 2000. This was a fraction of fund's capital, which totaled $2.78 billion.

Goldman Sachs said the fund lost the vast majority of its investment when it sold its Village Voice stake last week.

The company – whose boss once claimed it was ‘doing God’s work’ – faced huge embarassment after it was linked to prostitution and sex trafficking of underage girls.

The revelation plunged the U.S. investment bank into fresh embarrassment over its business ethics weeks after a former executive claimed bosses there called clients ‘muppets’.

It has emerged that a private equity fund run by the bank had taken a major stake in a secretive company called Village Voice Media.

It owns a classified advertising website – Backpage.com – that is accused of being the biggest forum for illegal sex trafficking of underage girls in America.

Kidnapping children and forcing them into sex slavery is one of the most abhorrent practices I can think of. If there is even a whiff of it, why aren't these sites taken down? Someone can put up a screenshot of Happy Feet 2 and get a C&D in under 24 hours. These guys run a site like this unchecked? Maybe because TPTB use it?

[Anonymous Bosch]

Sounds like a job for Liam Neeson.

[Teggy]

The Village Voice is a well-respected free paper (had to pay for it until the 90s) in New York. It covers art, culture and politics in the city and has done so for many, many years. It also happens to have an adult section and this classified web site, which has been used for some shady practices (similar to Craigslist). The jump from being part of a blind trust that has a stake in the Village Voice to "sex-trafficking is A-OK" is monumental.

And this is coming from someone who is in the tank for the Democrats.

[LawBeefaroni]

The Village Voice is a well-respected free paper (had to pay for it until the 90s) in New York. It covers art, culture and politics in the city and has done so for many, many years. It also happens to have an adult section and this classified web site, which has been used for some shady practices (similar to Craigslist). The jump from being part of a blind trust that has a stake in the Village Voice to "sex-trafficking is A-OK" is monumental.

And this is coming from someone who is in the tank for the Democrats.

It's not the paper, it's their holding, Backpage.com.

Village Voice Media has the largest share of revenue in the United States from online advertising of adult escort and massage services. Critics, including law enforcement officials, have charged that child sex trafficking victims have been advertised and sold through Backpage.com. Last week several dozen people protested against Backpage.com in front of the Village Voice's editorial offices in Manhattan.

THE biggest forum for sex trafficking of under-age girls in the United States appears to be a Web site called Backpage.com.

This emporium for girls and women — some under age or forced into prostitution — is in turn owned by an opaque private company called Village Voice Media. Until now it has been unclear who the ultimate owners are.

....

Let’s back up for a moment. There’s no doubt that many escort ads on Backpage are placed by consenting adults. But it’s equally clear that Backpage plays a major role in the trafficking of minors or women who are coerced. In one recent case in New York City, prosecutors say that a 15-year-old girl was drugged, tied up, raped and sold to johns through Backpage and other sites.

I don't give a shit about Reps/Dems. In fact, I find it outrageous that no one seems to care until the wife of a candidate who has no knowledge of her investment becomes the story. It should be about the [alleged] trafficking going on unchecked.



EDIT:

The jump from being part of a blind trust that has a stake in the Village Voice to "sex-trafficking is A-OK" is monumental.

I think you missed my point. To clarify, that is the point of my title. That no one cares until Ann Romney has some tangental involvement she doesn't even know about. That it's fine for GS and other investment firms, as well as authorities, to allow it to go on but then when Romney can be connected, that's a problem. Absurd.

[gbasden]

From what I've read, that traffic moved over to Backpage after Craigslist shut down their Adult Services section. They also appear to be doing a lot to screen out inappropriate ads:

Given the complexities here, details are especially important — and they’ve gotten lost in this emotionally charged debate. For example, it’s worth taking a closer look at what Backpage does do to vet ads. Liz McDougall, general counsel for Village Voice Media, tells me the site “operates an automated filter system to preclude ads with suspect words and phrases.” The specifics of the system are guarded by lock and key to make it harder for traffickers to circumvent it. On top of this, Backpage has real-life human beings manually review all submitted content for the adult and personal sections before it’s posted on the site. Just to be double sure, Backpage does another manual review of all material once it’s actually published in either section.

When Backpage identifies an ad potentially advertising a minor, it “immediately reports it to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,” and an “‘expedited’ reporting system” is in place for cases “where there appears to be an imminent possibility of rescue.” All postings require a credit card number, which can be subpoenaed by law enforcement, and Backpage has a policy of responding within 24 hours, says McDougall. She adds that the site “stands ready and willing to do more,” especially “in cooperation with government, nongovernmental, public, private and all other interest groups sincerely dedicated to pragmatic approaches to addressing this scourge.”

...

Ultimately, most critics will accept nothing less than the site shutting down its adult section — but this will likely direct business elsewhere (just as Craigslist’s shuttering of its adult section drove traffic to Backpage), and potentially to less cooperative businesses.

In general, I think criminalizing prostitution is as untenable as the war on drugs. I'd love to see the business legalized so that our resources in that area could be used for prevention of sex slavery and exploitation of young girls. And tax revenue. But then again I think the same of pot.

[LawBeefaroni]

Legalized prostitution I have no problem with. In fact, I think legalization would do a lot to stop the worst aspects of the sex trade.

As for Backpage, they sell advertising for illegal services. It's great that they try to weed out the "bad" illegal from the "ok" illegal but their product is still being used to sell the illegal stuff and most of their content is skirting the law in some way to begin with. The "bad" illegal will still make it up there. And key word filters and even live eyes can't stop someone from calling and asking "What else have you got?"

It's like if there was a drug classified site and they said that they filtered out any overt sales of heroin because herion crosses the line. What's the harm if they let some harlmess weed slip through? Well, if someone advertises 4 oz of weed, chances are I could call and ask if they could hook me up with some smack. Not every drug dealer sells smack, but enough do that you'd eventually get a hit. Not every pimp pedals kids or sex slaves but enough do...

[Teggy]

I think you missed my point. To clarify, that is the point of my title. That no one cares until Ann Romney has some tangental involvement she doesn't even know about. That it's fine for GS and other investment firms, as well as authorities, to allow it to go on but then when Romney can be connected, that's a problem. Absurd.

Ah, understood - I can't argue that someone should be looking into backpage.com. I was aware of it already due to the protests and some other news articles I read.

There was also a Law & Order SVU episode this season that touched on it (although with altered names)

[gbasden]

You mean like these?

I'm pretty sure I don't buy the argument that most women who advertise on sites like that are pimped or otherwise coerced. If most of them are independents, then your analogy of being able to be hooked up with heroin by a pot dealer doesn't work. That's an anecdotal gut feeling based on what I've heard about this area, so obviously things could be different elsewhere, but I would still guess that it's the minority rather than the majority.

[LawBeefaroni]

I'm pretty sure I don't buy the argument that most women who advertise on sites like that are pimped or otherwise coerced. If most of them are independents, then your analogy of being able to be hooked up with heroin by a pot dealer doesn't work.

Sure it does. You just have to make a few more calls. "Most" is not all.

That's an anecdotal gut feeling based on what I've heard about this area, so obviously things could be different elsewhere, but I would still guess that it's the minority rather than the majority.

Still a problem whether it's the majority of cases or the minority. And if Backpage is facilitating that minority, then it's a problem too.

[gbasden]

/shrug

I guess that's true. If you cold called people out of the Chicago phone book you could probably also find some.

I'm not sure it would be worth it to shut down the page altogether and drive that traffic back underground. At least in this case, Backpage actively cooperates with police. As mentioned in that article:

it’s also one of the most, if not the most, relied upon tools for law enforcement to identify child trafficking victims.

I'm as horrified and disgusted by sex trafficking as you are - I'm just not sure if crushing sites like this helps or hurts the cause.

[LawBeefaroni]

/shrug

I guess that's true. If you cold called people out of the Chicago phone book you could probably also find some.

So don't enforce regulations prohibiting something because, hey, there will always another way to get it.

I'm not sure it would be worth it to shut down the page altogether and drive that traffic back underground. At least in this case, Backpage actively cooperates with police. As mentioned in that article:

it’s also one of the most, if not the most, relied upon tools for law enforcement to identify child trafficking victims.

I'm as horrified and disgusted by sex trafficking as you are - I'm just not sure if crushing sites like this helps or hurts the cause.

There's an argument to be made there certainly but if the best solution is tacitly allowing the activity so you can catch some people sometimes, well I think a bit more time and effort needs to be put forth to come up with a better solution.

[Isgrimnur]

What's the old line? Locks don't keep out criminals, they keep your neighbors from becoming criminals? Something like that.

The ones that demand those services will always put in effort to find them. Enforcement and shutting down access to ads like this helps keep people from trying it because, hey, if it's this easily available, it must not be that bad.

Obviously there's a line of diminishing returns there that varies from locale to locale and topic to topic. Just look at how much music piracy there was when Napster was a click away.

[AWS260]

The jump from being part of a blind trust that has a stake in the Village Voice to "sex-trafficking is A-OK" is monumental.

I think you missed my point. To clarify, that is the point of my title. That no one cares until Ann Romney has some tangental involvement she doesn't even know about. That it's fine for GS and other investment firms, as well as authorities, to allow it to go on but then when Romney can be connected, that's a problem. Absurd.

This got plenty of attention before Mitt Romney's wife was mentioned. As noted above, Nick Kristof in the NYT first reported on the Goldman-Backpage connection on March 31. It got a lot of pick-up in the financial press and on some blogs, and by the next day, Goldman announced that it was selling its stake in the company.

As far as I can tell, this second wave of Romney-inspired coverage smaller, not larger, than the initial wave of coverage.

[LawBeefaroni]

The jump from being part of a blind trust that has a stake in the Village Voice to "sex-trafficking is A-OK" is monumental.

I think you missed my point. To clarify, that is the point of my title. That no one cares until Ann Romney has some tangental involvement she doesn't even know about. That it's fine for GS and other investment firms, as well as authorities, to allow it to go on but then when Romney can be connected, that's a problem. Absurd.

This got plenty of attention before Mitt Romney's wife was mentioned. As noted above, Nick Kristof in the NYT first reported on the Goldman-Backpage connection on March 31. It got a lot of pick-up in the financial press and on some blogs, and by the next day, Goldman announced that it was selling its stake in the company.

As far as I can tell, this second wave of Romney-inspired coverage smaller, not larger, than the initial wave of coverage.

You're in the NY, right? It's local to you. I heard a bit about it here but nothing like the last few days. I'll bet nationally it didn't get much attention until the Santorum camp started making a big deal out of the blind trust. Besides, I know we're in the internet news age, but 6 days isn't exactly old news.

[gbasden]

Another perspective on the Backpage issue.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... e-com.html" target="_blank

[LawBeefaroni]

Another perspective on the Backpage issue.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... e-com.html" target="_blank

Whereas no one disputes that some individuals are led into the sex industry under false pretenses and remain in the industry due to violence or coercion, the truth is, not all people who engage in commercial sex have been misled into doing so or remain in the industry by force. People sell sex for lots of different reasons—and many of these people say the ads should stay up.

“The forces behind the censoring of Craigslist clearly know little of the real world. Now, they’re after Backpage. To assume that removing the Adult Services ads sections of our newspapers would magically eliminate the abuse of anyone is absurd. The fact is that there are people who post on Adult Services that are of legal age and independent. I should know—I am one of those women.”

So put the effort into legalization. I mean that's the real problem, right? Don't sit around and bemoan that laws aren't being selectively enforced to allow your illegal activity. If it's an honest and honerable trade, work to get it legal. Then it ought to be easier to weed out the coerced, minor, and other undesirable stuff anyway, so everyone is happy.



EDIT:

These are the words of Maria, a 48-year-old hairdresser and artist who supplements her income selling sexual services to clients that she meets online. Maria was one of many eager to talk to me about how petitions to shut down adult classified sections on sites like Craigslist and Backpage affect real people working in the industry.

“If Backpage and the many other adult services sites were to be removed as an option for [men and women like me],” Maria said, “I fear we will be forced to the streets, where the most abuse occurs.”

Or instead be "forced" like everyone else to live within your means or work on getting a better income. The horror! Like I said, look to legalization, not defending Backpage.com

[silverjon]

Because getting prostitution legalized is so feasible in America's political climate....

[LawBeefaroni]

Because getting prostitution legalized is so feasible in America's political climate....

So just say "screw it, we should just accept the coerced/forced portion of the sex trade that goes along with the "good" prostituion because some hairdressers need some extra scratch"?

If it can be legalized anywhere (outside of certain areas of Nevada), NYC would be a good bet. And when you figure that half the polticians are probably regulars, you've got a bit of a head start right there.

[LawBeefaroni]

And when you figure that half the polticians are probably regulars, you've got a bit of a head start right there.

Just thought of something. They probably want it to remain illegal to there's always the threat of prosecution to keep their infidelities a secret. So nevermind that part. More of an uphill battle. Still, we do have laws and ways to change them.

[Enough]

Because getting prostitution legalized is so feasible in America's political climate....

So just say "screw it, we should just accept the coerced/forced portion of the sex trade that goes along with the "good" prostituion because some hairdressers need some extra scratch"?

If it can be legalized anywhere (outside of certain areas of Nevada), NYC would be a good bet. And when you figure that half the polticians are probably regulars, you've got a bit of a head start right there.

But it's okay to endure similar horrors for strategic minerals, iPads, clothing and toys? I'm not saying it's right or wrong in the Backpage case, but I would bet most Americans exist with some pretty heavy compartmentalized morality whether they use Backpage services or not.

[LawBeefaroni]

But it's okay to endure similar horrors for strategic minerals, iPads, clothing and toys? I'm not saying it's right or wrong in the Backpage case, but I would bet most Americans exist with some pretty heavy compartmentalized morality whether they use Backpage services or not.

It's a wee bit of a stretch to compare someone buying an iPad and passively supporting Foxconn in another country, where federal, state and local laws don't apply, to a prostitute defending a matchmaking service that benefits her financially willing to overlook the coerced sex trade in her backyard, where federal, state, and local laws do apply.

[silverjon]

But they're not willing to overlook it, and they take all kinds of steps to screen out ads for trafficked girls and put the information in the hands of organizations who can help.

Shut them down and you're not stopping the trade, just driving it even further underground again.

[Enough]

But it's okay to endure similar horrors for strategic minerals, iPads, clothing and toys? I'm not saying it's right or wrong in the Backpage case, but I would bet most Americans exist with some pretty heavy compartmentalized morality whether they use Backpage services or not.

It's a wee bit of a stretch to compare someone buying an iPad and passively supporting Foxconn in another country, where federal, state and local laws don't apply, to a prostitute defending a matchmaking service that benefits her financially willing to overlook the coerced sex trade in her backyard, where federal, state, and local laws do apply.

So giving money to purchase goods from a child slave labor ring in another country where laws to protect against such things don't yet exist-- is merely passive support? So, if I give a bunch of cash to some third world outfit that is known to be a terrorist organization... that's passive support? Who's stretching things here?

Great demonstration of compartmentalized morality. What-- we don't own the blood diamond? We don't pay the blood diamond pimp who uses our money to go create more horrors? What's more direct than that? I don't see anything more passive about directly financially supporting awful things in third world countries with your US cash than a willing working girl putting ads on a service like Backpage. At least her cash isn't going directly to a trafficking pimp. If anything her harms are more passive than yours when you give cash to blood diamonds, etc. and some of the proceeds go directly to the villain. Cash is king.

[Enough]

/shrug

I guess that's true. If you cold called people out of the Chicago phone book you could probably also find some.

I'm not sure it would be worth it to shut down the page altogether and drive that traffic back underground. At least in this case, Backpage actively cooperates with police. As mentioned in that article:

it’s also one of the most, if not the most, relied upon tools for law enforcement to identify child trafficking victims.

I'm as horrified and disgusted by sex trafficking as you are - I'm just not sure if crushing sites like this helps or hurts the cause.

Well said.

[LawBeefaroni]

But they're not willing to overlook it, and they take all kinds of steps to screen out ads for trafficked girls and put the information in the hands of organizations who can help.

"Maria" does?

Shut them down and you're not stopping the trade, just driving it even further underground again.

See ISG above.

If you're going to argue that backpage.com is a honeypot, fine. But it is undeniable that it leads to at least some of the "bad" business. I know perfection (in this case, eliminating 100% if coerced sex trafficking) is unachievable but that doesn't make ignoring some percentage of hardcore crime acceptable.

[LawBeefaroni]

But it's okay to endure similar horrors for strategic minerals, iPads, clothing and toys? I'm not saying it's right or wrong in the Backpage case, but I would bet most Americans exist with some pretty heavy compartmentalized morality whether they use Backpage services or not.

It's a wee bit of a stretch to compare someone buying an iPad and passively supporting Foxconn in another country, where federal, state and local laws don't apply, to a prostitute defending a matchmaking service that benefits her financially willing to overlook the coerced sex trade in her backyard, where federal, state, and local laws do apply.

So giving money to purchase goods from a child slave labor ring in another country where laws to protect against such things don't yet exist-- is merely passive support? So, if I give a bunch of cash to some third world outfit that is known to be a terrorist organization... that's passive support? Who's stretching things here?

Great demonstration of compartmentalized morality. What-- we don't own the blood diamond? We don't pay the blood diamond pimp who uses our money to go create more horrors? What's more direct than that? I don't see anything more passive about directly financially supporting awful things in third world countries with your US cash than a willing working girl putting ads on a service like Backpage. At least her cash isn't going directly to a trafficking pimp. If anything her harms are more passive than yours when you give cash to blood diamonds, etc. and some of the proceeds go directly to the villain. Cash is king.

Let's take your premise that it's not a strech as fact.

Personally? I don't buy diamonds or iProducts. That's not to say there's nothing I buy that is tainted but in a world economy it's almost impossible to function without somehow touching a products with some connection to 3rd world poverty or mistreatment. I admit guilt. So that's the argument for allowing backpage to continue to function as is? The fact that someone buys blood diamonds or a cheap shirt?

The whole "somewhere something is somehow worse" argument really does't work for me. Same with "somewhere someone is doing something similar." This is about a specific website that allows (intentionally or not) advertising and contact information for the coerced sex trade. Are you OK with that? If so, fine. If not, shouting "iPad" or "blood diamonds" doesn't make it go away.

[silverjon]

"Maria" does?

Ah, no, but the classified site she chooses to use does.

Shut them down and you're not stopping the trade, just driving it even further underground again.

But it is undeniable that it leads to at least some of the "bad" business. I know perfection (in this case, eliminating 100% if coerced sex trafficking) is unachievable but that doesn't make ignoring some percentage of hardcore crime acceptable.

I disagree that they're ignoring it. It looks like they're acknowledging it and taking steps to address that as a serious concern, without tarring all escorts with the same brush.

[Enough]

But it's okay to endure similar horrors for strategic minerals, iPads, clothing and toys? I'm not saying it's right or wrong in the Backpage case, but I would bet most Americans exist with some pretty heavy compartmentalized morality whether they use Backpage services or not.

It's a wee bit of a stretch to compare someone buying an iPad and passively supporting Foxconn in another country, where federal, state and local laws don't apply, to a prostitute defending a matchmaking service that benefits her financially willing to overlook the coerced sex trade in her backyard, where federal, state, and local laws do apply.

So giving money to purchase goods from a child slave labor ring in another country where laws to protect against such things don't yet exist-- is merely passive support? So, if I give a bunch of cash to some third world outfit that is known to be a terrorist organization... that's passive support? Who's stretching things here?

Great demonstration of compartmentalized morality. What-- we don't own the blood diamond? We don't pay the blood diamond pimp who uses our money to go create more horrors? What's more direct than that? I don't see anything more passive about directly financially supporting awful things in third world countries with your US cash than a willing working girl putting ads on a service like Backpage. At least her cash isn't going directly to a trafficking pimp. If anything her harms are more passive than yours when you give cash to blood diamonds, etc. and some of the proceeds go directly to the villain. Cash is king.

Let's take your premise that it's not a strech as fact.

Personally? I don't buy diamonds or iProducts. That's not to say there's nothing I buy that is tainted but in a world economy it's almost impossible to function without somehow touching a products with some connection to 3rd world poverty or mistreatment. I admit guilt. So that's the argument for allowing backpage to continue to function as is? The fact that someone buys blood diamonds or a cheap shirt?

The whole "somewhere something is somehow worse" argument really does't work for me. This is about a specific website that allows (intentionally or not) advertising and contact information for the coerced sex trade. Are you OK with that? If so, fine. If not, shouting "iPad" or "blood diamonds" doesn't make it go away.

Nope, the blood diamonds example is to show that your harms are non-unique and vastly overshadowed by much more commonplace transactions. No justifications offered or assumed. At least if a person buys advertising from Backpage they are actively filtering and working with the cops to shut this shit down. What about the sites it will go to if Backpage is shut down? Will the other sites the sex trade will invariably move to work with the cops or filter? Or will it just get off-shored completely out of the reach of US law?

Oh and what about handymen or other non-sex services that advertise on Backpage, are they equally morally culpable? Are all of the alternative weeklies that increasingly rely on Backpage revenue culpable?

The question I was responding to is if a non-coerced sex trade worker is in the wrong to advertise on Backpage based on the fact that despite Backpage's attempts to filter out the evil stuff and their willingness to work with authorities (per above they are the most valuable asset to law enforcement at the moment) some child ads still manage to get through. I guess I know that lots of stolen property gets sold on CraigsList but I am okay with selling my extra camera gear there since most sales are legit and so I don't feel I am selling out my morality to do so. However buying an obviously hot lens? No way.

Under those same optics, I am not outraged by a willing sex worker advertising on Backpage, no. If they intentionally allow/encourage child sex slave ads of course I will share your outrage over anyone advertising there, but from what has been presented in this thread they are far, far from such a reality (yet you keep suggesting it like it might be true). If there's a citation that I missed proving that Backpage is actually encouraging this shit instead of filtering and working with the cops, please point it out to me and I will amend my position. Glad you agree perfection is impossible, I wonder what percentage of revenue from sex trade ads they spend patrolling the site? I wonder how many times they have helped the cops? A cold pragmatic cost benefit analysis seems to indicate that there could be even more harm in shutting Backpage down vs. tolerating its existence as long as real genuine efforts are made for filtering and working with cops.

[LawBeefaroni]

The question I was responding to is if a non-coerced sex trade worker is in the wrong to advertise on Backpage based on the fact that despite Backpage's attempts to filter out the evil stuff and their willingness to work with authorities (per above they are the most valuable asset to law enforcement at the moment) some child ads still manage to get through. I guess I know that lots of stolen property gets sold on CraigsList but I am okay with selling my extra camera gear there since most sales are legit and so I don't feel I am selling out my morality to do so. However buying an obviously hot lens? No way.

Under those same optics, I am not outraged by a willing sex worker advertising on Backpage, no. If they intentionally allow/encourage child sex slave ads of course I will share your outrage over anyone advertising there, but from what has been presented in this thread they are far, far from such a reality (yet you keep suggesting it like it might be true). If there's a citation that I missed proving that Backpage is actually encouraging this shit instead of filtering and working with the cops, please point it out to me and I will amend my position. Glad you agree perfection is impossible, I wonder what percentage of revenue from sex trade ads they spend patrolling the site? I wonder how many times they have helped the cops? A cold pragmatic cost benefit analysis seems to indicate that there could be even more harm in shutting Backpage down vs. tolerating its existence as long as real genuine efforts are made for filtering and working with cops.

Optics. Hahah, I get it.


I was going by what she said. Including, but not limited to, the part I quoted:

The forces behind the censoring of Craigslist clearly know little of the real world. Now, they’re after Backpage. To assume that removing the Adult Services ads sections of our newspapers would magically eliminate the abuse of anyone is absurd. The fact is that there are people who post on Adult Services that are of legal age and independent. I should know—I am one of those women.

[silverjon]

Well, it won't magically eliminate the abuse of anyone.

Do you seriously believe that even one single trafficker would say, "whoopsy doo, I guess since we can't try to post ads on backpage.com at all anymore, we'd better just let everyone go and stop importing fresh girls"?

[LawBeefaroni]

Well, it won't magically eliminate the abuse of anyone.

Do you seriously believe that even one single trafficker would say, "whoopsy doo, I guess since we can't try to post ads on backpage.com at all anymore, we'd better just let everyone go and stop importing fresh girls"?

I was attacking her argument. It's a strawman. No one is assuming magic.

Now you're going strawman.


I'll make it simple. Should existing laws be enforced? Should new laws be written to target backpage.com and similar sites(such as encouraging age verification for escorts)?

[silverjon]

Not magically, but not realistically either. It just plain will accomplish nothing beyond forcing those elements to move to yet another venue.

Porn sites have to provide proof of age of performers. I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to other sex workers. It still won't screen out all the seedy elements, since they're probably got the fastest line to obtaining convincing fake IDs, but it wouldn't hurt.

I don't really know what the existing laws are that should or should not be enforced, other than they must vary by state anyway.

[LawBeefaroni]

Porn sites have to provide proof of age of performers. I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to other sex workers. It still won't screen out all the seedy elements, since they're probably got the fastest line to obtaining convincing fake IDs, but it wouldn't hurt.

Why should it apply? To quote a wise man, it just plain will accomplish nothing beyond forcing those elements to move to yet another venue.

[silverjon]

If you don't mind my making a serious reply, I think taking a cooperative approach rather than a punitive one has more potential to actually accomplish something productive. It's a general principle of harm reduction.

[LawBeefaroni]

If you don't mind my making a serious reply, I think taking a cooperative approach rather than a punitive one has more potential to actually accomplish something productive. It's a general principle of harm reduction.

If you mean backpage, the cooperative approach has been taken and yet ads/contacts still slip by. Thus the calls for stronger enforcement and/or legislation.

I just find it odd that on the one hand requiring age verification is an acceptable enforcement action to take but requiring verification of legal services is not.

One "wouldn't hurt" but the other is harmful because it would force elements to another venue.

[noxiousdog]

If you don't mind my making a serious reply, I think taking a cooperative approach rather than a punitive one has more potential to actually accomplish something productive. It's a general principle of harm reduction.

If you mean backpage, the cooperative approach has been taken and yet ads/contacts still slip by. Thus the calls for stronger enforcement and/or legislation.

I just find it odd that on the one hand requiring age verification is an acceptable enforcement action to take but requiring verification of legal services is not.

One "wouldn't hurt" but the other is harmful because it would force elements to another venue.

Legal services are a lot harder to verify than age.

[LawBeefaroni]

Legal services are a lot harder to verify than age.

So that's the difference between the two then? Harder = harmful?

[noxiousdog]

Legal services are a lot harder to verify than age.

So that's the difference between the two then? Harder = harmful?

If you can come up with an easy 'services' test, be my guest. For age, they can tell if you have a credit card or not.

One is objective and requires no effort. The other is subjective and requires review.

[LawBeefaroni]

Legal services are a lot harder to verify than age.

So that's the difference between the two then? Harder = harmful?

If you can come up with an easy 'services' test, be my guest. For age, they can tell if you have a credit card or not.

One is objective and requires no effort. The other is subjective and requires review.

They can tell the age of someone in a picture or an ad by verifying a 3rd party's credit card? It's not going to be that easy. Coerced minors aren't going to be paying for an ad with their own money.

Backpage.com, whose parent company is The Village Voice, makes at least $22 million a year from online adult escort ads, but refuses to verify the ages of those who place the ads or are depicted in them, even though its print edition published in the Seattle Weekly requires in-person age verification. This results in minors being sold online into prostitution and sex-trafficking. All state attorneys general have called on Backpage.com to stop selling online adult escort ads.

Kohl-Welles’ bill creates a new offense, making it illegal to knowingly publish an escort ad that involves a minor. To avoid possible criminal charges, classified advertising companies will be motivated to try to verify ages of escorts in sex-related postings.

The new law offers an affirmative defense to prosecution for advertising commercial sexual abuse of a minor if the advertiser can produce documentation showing a bona fide attempt to verify the age of the person in the ad.

[noxiousdog]

Regardless, one is objective and verifiable. The other is not. Without someone being present while the services are delivered, there's no way to verify.

This whole concept is ridiculous. No matter how many times we make stuff illegal and make and even more dangerous, we keep making the same mistakes.

One of these days, maybe we'll wake up.