Succumbing to years of government pressure, the online classified ads website Backpage. Just like Craigslist before it, Backpage faced the difficult choice of censoring an entire forum for online speech rather than continue to endure the costly onslaught of state and federal government efforts seeking to hold it responsible for the illegal activity of some of its users.
The hearing was the backdrop for the release of a committee report [PDF] alleging [PDF] that Backpage knew that its website was being used to post ads for illegal prostitution and child sex trafficking, and directly edited such ads to make their illegality less conspicuous or flagged for the posters how to do so themselves. While acknowledging the horrific nature of sex trafficking, EFF has participated in several cases to remind courts about the importance of preserving strong legal protection under the First Amendment and Section 47 U.
For example, we were counsel for the Internet Archive in two cases, one in Washington state and the other in New Jersey , challenging state laws that sought to hold online companies responsible for hosting third-party ads for illegal sexual transactions Backpage had brought parallel challenges.
We successfully argued that the laws were invalid under the First Amendment and Section Section is the two-decade old statute passed by Congress to promote online free speech and innovation by immunizing with certain exceptions Internet intermediaries from liability for illegal content created or posted by their users. Section immunity holds as long as the companies did not themselves create the illegal content , while editing user-generated content is permitted by Section as long as the editing does not make the content illegal.
We filed an amicus brief in an emotionally tough Massachusetts case against Backpage brought by young women trafficked for sex as minors via the website. The court rightly dismissed the case, largely adopting our Section arguments. Give me a break! EFF and other civil liberties organizations are all too familiar with the fact that First Amendment rights are often championed by those accused of disseminating unpopular or harmful speech.
