Politicians Who Said SESTA Was Needed To Takedown Backpage Claim Victory Over Backpage Takedown... Without SESTA

from the say-what-now? dept

From the very beginning of SESTA and FOSTA, its backers kept insisting that the bill was necessary to takedown Backpage.com. Indeed, Senator Rob Portman, in announcing SESTA, entitled his press release "Senators Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Hold Backpage Accountable." And he's spent the past six months pointing to Backpage as the reason we absolutely needed SESTA. At launch, his quote was the following:

For too long, courts around the country have ruled that Backpage can continue to facilitate illegal sex trafficking online with no repercussions. The Communications Decency Act is a well-intentioned law, but it was never intended to help protect sex traffickers who prey on the most innocent and vulnerable among us.

Except, as we pointed out multiple times, that's not at all what courts have said. What they've said is that CDA 230 immunizes the site from certain types of liability. But as two recent courts -- not to mention the DOJ shutting down Backpage on Friday -- have made clear, nothing in CDA 230 immunizes Backpage from illegal activity that it directly engaged in.

So you'd think that maybe, just maybe, Senator Portman would recognize that SESTA was a giant unnecessary boondoggle that puts a ton of people and speech at risk. But, nope. Instead, he's released a statement praising the action and pretending that SESTA will "hold online sex traffickers accountable."

“I’m pleased that Congress has taken additional steps by passing my SESTA legislation to let sex trafficking victims seek justice and allow state and local law enforcement to swiftly prosecute websites that violate federal sex trafficking laws. This bipartisan measure will make it easier to hold online sex traffickers accountable, and I look forward to seeing President Trump sign this bill into law next week.”

Except not a single thing in SESTA holds online sex traffickers accountable. Indeed, it does the exact opposite of that, in that it makes it that much more difficult for law enforcement to track down actual sex traffickers. Prior to SESTA, websites (including Backpage) frequently worked with law enforcement to help them track down those using their platforms for illegal activity. Under SESTA, no site will be willing to assist law enforcement in such a manner, because doing so will provide evidence of "knowledge" and thus, potentially, criminal liability. This sweeps the problem of sex trafficking under the rug, which might make Senator Portman feel better, but does nothing to tackle the actual problem, and makes it that much more difficult to find and prosecute actual traffickers, let alone find and rescue victims held against their will.

Still, at least Senator Portman acknowledges that SESTA/FOSTA has not been signed into law yet. That basic fact apparently escaped Representative Mimi Walters, who provided the amendment that attached SESTA to FOSTA in the House. She actually took to Twitter to claim that Backpage was shut down because of her amendment:

That's pretty incredible, considering her bill hasn't been signed into law yet. You would think that a Representative would know that her own bill wasn't a law yet, wouldn't you? Or does Congress not work that way? Anyway, SESTA/FOSTA is not the law yet, and it clearly wasn't used to take down Backpage. And, of course, what was Rep. Walters' reason for pushing SESTA in the first place? The need to take down Backpage. So, not only is she not admitting that her law (which she said was necessary) was not, in fact, necessary, she's now living in a fantasy world where her law must have helped, despite it not yet being a law.

Can we elect better people to Congress please?

Then we have Senator John McCain. His wife has been at the forefront of the anti-Backpage campaign for many years. Indeed, many people I spoke to on Capitol Hill said that it was John and Cindy McCain's support for SESTA that made the bill viable in the first place. So it's no surprise that Cindy McCain was quick to tell the media how good the seizure is, calling it a "good day." And then the Senator put out the following statement celebrating the takedown, but oddly insisting it proves why SESTA was needed.

The seizure of the malicious sex marketplace Backpage.com marks an important step forward in the fight against human trafficking. This builds on the historic effort in Congress to reform the law that for too long has protected websites like Backpage from being held liable for enabling the sale of young women and children. Today’s action sends a strong message to Backpage and any other company facilitating online sex trafficking that they will be held accountable for these horrific crimes.

But, considering that Backpage was taken down prior to SESTA becoming law, how can McCain honestly claim that the law protected Backpage from being held liable? It did not. It only protected them from liability for actions of third parties. It has never protected the site from liability for its own actions. And the takedown on Friday proved that. So it's quite bizarre for McCain to pretend otherwise.

Either way, all of this is yet more evidence that SESTA was never truly about going after Backpage. That was all just a convenient excuse to gut Section 230 of the CDA and pave the way for changing some of the fundamental open parts of the internet, closing them off and putting up more and more gatekeepers. That those who supported SESTA and insisted it was necessary to take down Backpage are now pretending otherwise just underlines that fact.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Ninja (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 6:15am

    "You would think that a Representative would know that her own bill wasn't a law yet, wouldn't you?"

    Yes I would. But I would expect said representative to ignore it and grandstand over it using false assertions because, wait for it, people will buy it. At least that's what I would expect from most politicians.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 6:38am

    "just a convenient excuse to gut Section 230 of the CDA" - GOOD!

    Corporations are NOT to be immune to common law requirements.

    NOR are Corporations LICENSED as censors of "natural" persons. As the recent Sandvig decision showed, I've been right all along that businesses providing a forum thereby concede, NOT gain, rights. They are PUBLIC forums, where The Public has First Amendment Right just as elsewhere, so long as within common law. -- That means Techdirt too.

    Anyhoo, all you've got is more whining over a loss, trying to claim you were right all along, when in fact, you advocate on basis of CDA 230 that corporations can allow or disallow anything, which is simply WRONG, Google-boy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 6:44am

    Not just good, SUPERNATURALLY good

    Ah but you see it is thanks to the bill that they were able to take Backpage down. The bill is so effective at combating sex trafficking that it not only retroactively applies to the past it influences the future.

    Clearly had the bill not been voted on the current laws that were used against the site would never have been able to be used, because reasons; it was only thanks to SESTA that the foul scourge that is Backpage was able to be brought to it's knees, and sex trafficking completely eliminated.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 6:47am

    SOPA defeated, and then Megaupload taken down.
    SESTA passed and back pages taken down.

    In both cases the timing is suspiciously like the DOJ holding off action to help con congress into a law they desire, and only acting once the law is defeated or passed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 6:48am

    We are now squarely in the Age of Trump. Facts don't matter anymore. Get used to it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 6:50am

    I’m going to practice radical candor here: none of this complaining is going to change anything.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 6:50am

    Re: "just a convenient excuse to gut Section 230 of the CDA" - GOOD!

    You argument is confused, as section 230 allows companies to give users freedom of speech, while removing it and making them liable for user posts makes it more likely that they will censor their users, or not allow comments.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Annonymouse, 9 Apr 2018 @ 6:52am

    Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 9th, 2018 @ 6:48am

    Silly human.
    They never did.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 6:58am

    'Cutting off your nose to spite your neighbor' but worse

    Yeah, it never stops being funny watching someone who complains about how big companies are bad and sites should be required to host their anonymous drivel unaltered and always visible cheering on something that empowers large companies, consolidating power to the larger platforms, and makes it far more likely that sites will require people to create accounts and provide personally identifying information in order to post.

    If they were worth taking serious the cognitive dissonance would be rather stunning, but as it is it's just more entertainment from TD's most dedicated fan/stalker.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    AC, 9 Apr 2018 @ 7:02am

    And yet we keep voting these idiots in. WTF is wrong with us all?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 7:03am

    Re:

    I did make the rhetorical question last week asking which moron would be the first to say this was a Great Victory for SESTA... looks like we have a winner! ;)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 7:06am

    Not delusional, 'just' dishonest

    So, not only is she not admitting that her law (which she said was necessary) was not, in fact, necessary, she's now living in a fantasy world where her law must have helped, despite it not yet being a law.

    ...

    So it's quite bizarre for McCain to pretend otherwise.

    Lie.

    The word you're looking for is 'lie', as in 'Walters and McCain are lying, deliberately and knowingly being grossly dishonest in portraying the recent shutdown of Backpage as being connected to, and justification for, their disgusting PR stunt of a bill, as opposed to showing that said PR stunt was, contrary to their claims, unnecessary for the purpose that they claimed it was needed.'

    Between the two possibilities of 'delusional' or 'dishonest', I'm going to assume the latter. They know full well that they are lying by claiming that the shutdown of Backpage was related to, and a demonstration of the justification for their bill, they just feel safe in lying by claiming otherwise.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 7:08am

    Re:

    Speak for yourself - I didn't vote any of the current retards into office. So the question should be WTF is wrong with YOU all. I never vote the lesser of two evils... I don't vote for evil at all. When you do, guess what? You get evil.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    ACCC, 9 Apr 2018 @ 7:16am

    Re: Re:

    So if you do not vote what right do you have to say what goes on in this country? NO vote NO bitching, that is what is wrong with today's special little flowers, they all think they can complain all they want but they do not want to have a say in our elections. This is what is wrong with our country.

    AGAIN NO VOTE NO BITCHING.

    And if you do not like the 2 evils then get out there and run yourself you special little flower.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 7:18am

    usual bunch of self-serving cunts who do the same thing every day, ie, nothing, but then expect to get the glory and be thanked for it!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 7:24am

    Re: Re: Re:

    And just where is the link to your political campaign page?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. icon
    The Wanderer (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 7:27am

    Er... where do you get "I didn't vote at all" from "I didn't vote in any of the current officeholders"?

    I think it's considerably more likely that the person voted for someone else, who then lost the election.

    (Another possibility is that the person wasn't eligible to vote, but that seems unlikely in this instance.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 7:29am

    Heads I win, tails you lose

    Along those lines if you voted for the candidate that lost then you've no right to bitch either, as clearly you're in the minority. The majority has spoken, so sit down, shut up and deal with it.

    Voted for the candidate that won? Hey, you voted for them, you deserve what they do.

    Voted for the candidate that lost? More people wanted the other candidate, so clearly you're in the minority and it would be absurd to claim you get to dictate what the majority does.

    Didn't vote for either? Not allowed to complain at all, it doesn't matter that you didn't want either candidate, you should have voted for one of them or run yourself(which is of course a trivial undertaking and something anyone can do).

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 7:37am

    Re: Re: Re:

    He didn't say anywhere in his post that he didn't vote, only that he doesn't vote for the lesser of two evils. You seem to have missed the possibility that he votes for a third party.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. icon
    Blaine (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 7:40am

    Maybe Backpage HAD to come down before the law was signed

    I'd guess Backpage could have challenged the constitutionality of the law the second it was signed. All of the noise made about SESTA / FOSTA targeting Backpage specifically may have given them standing.

    With Backpage already gone, it will be more difficult for anyone else to challenge the law until it's used against them.

    Hell, the feds won't even need to charge anyone under the law, just being able to say "it'd be a shame if your nice little website violated SESTA / FOSTA" will probably be enough to make any site "voluntarily" take down whatever the government wants.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 7:46am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, your all special little flowers. Jumping on a guy for voicing his/her opinion.

    I was raised that if you do not vote, you have no right to complain.

    do you believe you live in a democracy? If you do , you must vote to be part of it, if you do not vote, then you are saying that whatever the rest of the country decides if fine with you.

    So what way is it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 7:59am

    Whether Legal or Not

    There is a big question, that will take years to resolve, as to whether FOSTA/SESTA is Constitutional or not. It will take some cases to develop that actually, legally, use this law to perform some enforcement action that then get appealed in more than one Circuit. If those answers agree, and the law is declared un-Constitutional, then it will be over. If those answers don't agree, then it will take some more time to get to the USSC, and given their behavior I have my doubts about whether we get a cogent answer from them.

    But, as Scott Greenfield points out the passing of un-Constitutional laws is not actually necessary for some types of censorship to take place. Backpage shut down their adult ads back in January in order to prevent the kind of nonsense being displayed by the DoJ now. They didn't need to, and in doing so made certain tactics law enforcement could use to get at actual traffickers impossible, but even considering the potential loss of revenue they did what they thought would ameliorate critics. The mere threat of the FOSTA/SESTA legislation creates an environment where censorship begins.

    We don't know yet what kind of evidence the DoJ has against Backpage, or for that matter what the actual charges are due to the sealed indictment, but it certainly appears that the Government is working at practicing censorship both with and without laws that demand censorship. This does not bode well for a free society.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. icon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 8:02am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Whether one votes or not, whether one performs military service or not, whether one does or doesn't do something else that some pinhead thinks should be required, just being a citizen allows for all the freedoms the Constitution provides, including being able to speak their minds.

    Even you snowflake.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 8:08am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ahh, so your just another sheeple. Baa Baa, go chew your cud.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. icon
    Ninja (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 8:27am

    Re: "just a convenient excuse to gut Section 230 of the CDA" - GOOD!

    Backpage lost their immunity because they actually committed crimes and you are still foaming over how CDA 230 protects companies from liability? Seriously?

    And seriously, the laws of your Unicorn Land aren't applicable in the US, stop making a fool of yourself.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 8:50am

    Re: 'Cutting off your nose to spite your neighbor' but worse

    The really hilariously ironic thing: the only reason he comes and spouts his little free speech tirades *here* every day is that almost any other blog actually *would* have started deleting his comments or dropped the banhammer by now. (Assuming any other blog even allowed instant true-anonymous comments with no signup or email address required - which they don't.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 8:52am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I was raised that if you do not vote, you have no right to complain.

    And... are you still nine years old? Or have you grown up since then?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 8:57am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Ummm this entire thread is you saying "the system works! You must participate dutifully in the election process! Do as you are told - I do, because that's how I was raised! If you don't follow the rules, you forfeit any right to complain."

    Point being: I don't think you understand what "sheeple" means. Which is kinda fine because it's a dumb term that only morons use, but given that you should just not use it at all instead of using it in a hilariously incorrect fashion. Grab a dictionary - or a mirror.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 9:12am

    Re:

    That does seem like a rather interesting pattern.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 9:28am

    Re: Re:

    This is why I always ask for a paper ballot. If no one is not evil I write in a candidate. Last local election was for minor positions... I wrote in for Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse and Captain America Since no one on the ballot was worth a crap.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 9:48am

    Re: "just a convenient excuse to gut Section 230 of the CDA" - GOOD!

    They are PUBLIC forums, where The Public has First Amendment Right just as elsewhere, so long as within common law.

    Pray tell, what law was it that gave you the unquestioned and irrefutable right to force Techdirt into being a platform for your speech? You can keep trotting out that whole “common law” schtick as if anyone here but you cares about SovCit lingo, but until such time as you can cite an actual federal law or statute that gives you the unfettered ability to force a privately-owned platform into hosting your speech, you have no argument. (Insults are not an argument.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. identicon
    ItsMe, 9 Apr 2018 @ 1:48pm

    Re:

    Except the DOJ is against SESTA

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 1:51pm

    Re: Maybe Backpage HAD to come down before the law was signed

    Unlikely sites will "voluntarily" take down whatever the government wants.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 2:15pm

    Here is an editorial by a legitimate, original tech business owner- not an astroturfer.

    http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=233286

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 2:40pm

    Re:

    Also, unfortunately, by someone who doesn't seem to really understand what they are talking about here.

    For one thing, the UPS example is deeply flawed. UPS and all other major shipping companies do not just ignore packages unless someone wrote "bomb" on the box - they have extensive security divisions with all sorts of inspection and detection practices, up to and including x-rays and simply opening and inspecting packages.

    SESTA is the equivalent of telling UPS that it now has two choices: stop that entire apparatus and never inspect any packages in any way ever again, or do a full and detailed inspection on every single package because if they ever accidentally let a bad one through they will be considered to have "knowledge" of that fact.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. icon
    ECA (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 3:51pm

    Ummm

    Love this 1 part..

    BUT WHAT WAS ADDED TO THIS BILL???
    WHAT ELSE IS PART OF THIS BILL that anyone would sign it...BECAUSE, it was already FULLY covered with other laws..

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 4:38pm

    Re: Re: Maybe Backpage HAD to come down before the law was signed

    Maybe not but mention in passing that your site might be in violation of SESTA and you'll be surprised what will "disappear".

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2018 @ 6:47pm

    Re:

    antidirt and out_of_the_blue just hate it when due process is enforced.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39. icon
    The Wanderer (profile), 9 Apr 2018 @ 8:19pm

    I think the position he's attempting to argue is something like "any forum which is open to posting (or other relevant participation) from members of the general public, rather than only from members of a defined group, is by definition a public forum, and it's long-established that the First Amendment strictly limits the placing of restrictions on speech in any public forum".

    (Examples of a "members of a defined group only" forum would include e.g. a company-internal mailing list, or a discussion-forum Website where only people with accounts can post and you only get an account with the direct approval of the site's moderators, or suchlike.)

    Where that fails is in the fact that "public forum" as the term is used in First Amendment jurisprudence has its own definition, which is quite distinct from the one which he appears to subscribe to (and which I've attempted to paraphrase above); the mismatch between those definitions renders the conclusions he reaches invalid.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2018 @ 11:40am

    Re: Re: Re:

    I voted my conscience.... NONE OF THE ABOVE...

    Yes, NOT voting is making a decision NOT to support either of the Evil/Vile/Politicians that are running since neither is any better than the other.

    Anarchy and revolution... the wheel goes round and round

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. icon
    The Wanderer (profile), 10 Apr 2018 @ 8:12pm

    The best way to express that is to vote for a write-in candidate, even (possibly especially) a joke or otherwise nonexistent candidate. Just not voting at all means you aren't counted towards the total which defines "majority", so both of the candidates have an easier time winning, and it looks as if they both have more support (as a fraction of the electorate) than they actually do.

    (My brother refuses to vote not because he doesn't want to support any of the candidates in the race - although he often may not - but because he refuses to legitimize the system, which he considers to be so badly broken as to be irreparable from within, by participating in it.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  42. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 11 Apr 2018 @ 6:12am

    Re:

    Third party where they're acceptable. Write in where allowed, leave the position unchecked if no acceptable candidates are listed and write in isn't possible.

    I'm currently not allowed to vote due to the wonderful "Real ID" initiative, but as soon as I get my "official" birth cert, I can change that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  43. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 11 Apr 2018 @ 6:20am

    Re:

    A big problem with electronic voting isn't that there's no paper trail, even though that IS a big problem, it's that there's no facility for write-in candidates. That's almost certainly on purpose. You vote for the SOMEONE out of the list, or you don't vote at all. If you're lucky, there's a third party candidate available to vote for to serve as 'none of the above' since third parties never win (I've certainly never seen one win, accept in the news somewhere else). Many electronic voting systems don't even let you skip the entry if you don't want to vote for any of the choices. You HAVE to vote for someone... even if there's only one name, and for many small, local positions, that's very often the case.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  44. identicon
    Sites like backpage, 15 May 2018 @ 9:13pm

    bedpage.com

    bedpage.com is site similar to backpage. this is the free ad posting classified site. It is the best Alternative to backpage. people started seaching for sites like backpage and bedpage is overcoming the problems of backpage and people started loving this site for posting their classified ads

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer
Anonymous number for texting and calling from Hushed. $25 lifetime membership, use code TECHDIRT25
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.