Backpages Sued - Says not Liable for Users' Actions

[QuietSoul]

A teen sold as a prostitute on the site is suing Backpages, who is asking a court to dismiss the lawsuit. The exploitation of children is wrong, wrong, wrong. Who's at fault? The person or persons who posted the ad and abused the teen, or Backpages, who provides a platform for advertising services, some desirable, some not?

Tool providers like Backpages are said to work with LE in cases of child trafficking. If that is the case, then attacking Backpages doesn't help children. Obviously, I don't know the extent to which they work with LE on anything.

Article link below. What do you think?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110110/01460812586/backpages-points-out-that-it-shouldnt-be-liable-actions-its-users.shtml

QS

[Megan Spinner]

Obviously Backpages is not responsible. They're on firm legal ground too. The Feds have repeatedly affirmed that no site is responsible for its users activities - especially if they violate the site's "terms of service." Backpages was not aware of nor endorsed the activities therefore it's not liable.

[QuietSoul]

Not surprisingly, I agree with you. Of concern is that court cases can go one way or another, especially civil cases, where the burden of proof is lower than in criminal cases. On the bright side, from Backpage's perspective, is that this has been tested in civil cases several times before. What happened to the teen was someone else's fault, and the case shouldn't go forward, or should be decided in Backpage's favor. That's my uneducated, non-legal opinion, anyway...
FWIW, I'd never looked at Backpage until just now.

[Megan Spinner]

The lawsuit won't go anywhere unless the advertisement specifically says "Hey, teen for sale - cheap!"

The only time lawsuits like this have gone forward is when the ad section blatantly says something knowledgeable about the ads - SPECIFICALLY knowledgeable.

Soldier of Fortune magazine was successfully sued in the 80's as a result of a section in the back called "Gun For Hire" which, of course, resulted in people being hired as hit men and mercenaries. In that case the activity itself was illegal, the hiring, all the acts committed, etc.

So, it depends on the advert. and the context in which it was placed.

The real danger is... obscenity. That's the real trouble. Check out what happened to porn impresario "Max Hardcore." He had never step foot into the locale he was busted in until he was busted for obscenity there due to "local standards" tests for obscenity. If your ad appears anywhere the local cops feel might be obscene in that area you can be busted - even if you've never been there or intended your ad to be there! :)

Of course, there's a powerful tool to counter that! Simply subpoena Google and ask for the porn searches for the IP's located in that area as a test of what "TRUE local standards" are. Most DA's would drop the case like a hot potato rather than show that their little county, town, village, etc. is a PORN MECCA like any place else! hehehehehe

Anyhooo... it's all food for thought.