Backpage.com: We didn't write the ads selling children for sex, so we aren't liable

Three girls sold as prostitutes have filed a lawsuit against Backpage.com, saying that the website helps promote the exploitation of children like them.

Rachel La Corte/AP
People opposed to child sex trafficking rally outside of the Washington state Supreme Court on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2014, in Olympia, Wash. The court was hearing a case filed by three victims who say the website Backpage.com helps promote the exploitation of children.

A lawyer for Backpage.com told the Washington Supreme Court on Tuesday that a lawsuit filed by three young girls who were sold as prostitutes on the website should be thrown out because the company didn't write the ads, so it's not liable.

But the victims' lawyer said Backpage doesn't have immunity under the federal Communications Decency Act because the website markets itself as a place to sell "escort services" and provides pimps with instructions on how to write an ad that works, making them a participant in the largest human-trafficking website in the US.

The justices plan to rule on the case at a later date.

Before the hearing several dozen people stood in the rain on the court steps with signs that read: "People's bodies are not commodities," ''End Child Slavery" and "Stop Buying Our Girls."

"No one has the right to sell a kid for sex," said Jo Lembo, with Shared Hope International. "That's why we're here. Someone has to speak up for them. They're kids."

A similar case was filed last week in federal court in Boston, but a previous case in Missouri was dismissed, said Yiota Souras, a lawyer with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. "The Washington state case has gone further than any previous case," she said.

Suggesting they might be skeptical about Backpage's argument, the justices asked lawyer Jim Grant about the website's content.

"Your client wouldn't say with a straight face that 'escort service' doesn't mean something else most of the time," Justice Steven Gonzalez asked.

Justice Charles Johnson asked whether this was an "ostrich issue."

"We escape liability if we stick our head in the sand and not pay any attention — as long as you don't affirmatively contribute?" Johnson asked.

Grant said when Congress wrote the communications act, it wanted to preserve free speech on the Internet so it gave immunity to websites like Backpage for things posted by users or members of the site.

"Backpage did not create or develop the ads," he said. And holding it responsible would chill that speech, he said.

But Erik Bauer, the victims' lawyer, said his clients were in 7th and 9th grade when adult professional sex traffickers sold the girls as prostitutes on Backpage. The pimps knew they could run their ads anonymously, he said.

"They claim they have immunity from having pimps sell children on their website," Bauer said. "There's a massive amount of human sex trafficking on their website."

While Backpage didn't write the ads, it helps develop them in part, he said. It also gives advertisers specific instructions on what the ads should say in order to be successful, Bauer said.

Justice Debra Stephens asked Bauer if the website has a tool to scrub information to make it anonymous. If it did, it might be liable for that tool, she said.

Justice Mary Yu asked if Bauer thought he would find more evidence that Backpage was creating or writing ads if the case went forward and he said he believes the records reveal how deeply it's involved in the developing and marketing the ads.

___

Rachel La Corte in Olympia contributed to this story.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.