I guess Google doesn't categorize the raping of children as "doing evil." What do you think of Google now?
1
I went to the website of backpage.com and I have to admit that I would not have known about it except for YOU!
Anyway, it seems that backpage has a lot of perfectly OK advertising. E.g. antiq.-collectibles
appliances
business
boats & motorcycles
farm/garden
clothing/jewelry
household items
computers/electronics
free
furniture
miscellaneous
pets, pet supplies
sports equip.
tickets
tools/materials
want-trade
yard sales
Do you want to really shut it down because SOME of its activities are not to your liking?
Sex trafficking is a crime and should be handled by the police. I am not sure I am happy about censorship being enforced by random New York Times columnists.
Anyway, it seems that backpage has a lot of perfectly OK advertising. E.g. antiq.-collectibles
appliances
business
boats & motorcycles
farm/garden
clothing/jewelry
household items
computers/electronics
free
furniture
miscellaneous
pets, pet supplies
sports equip.
tickets
tools/materials
want-trade
yard sales
Do you want to really shut it down because SOME of its activities are not to your liking?
Sex trafficking is a crime and should be handled by the police. I am not sure I am happy about censorship being enforced by random New York Times columnists.
2
I think that if we legalize the sex industry, in the same manner as Nevada does, much of this would stop. Kristof has stated in the past he is opposed to that, which I don't understand. I also think the authorities could go after trafficking of children much easier if prostitution was legal. And girls would be somewhat protected from pimps throwing them downstairs and forcing sex on them.
Orange, NJ
Orange, NJ
5
"the odious website where most American victims of human trafficking are sold"
Of course human trafficking is odious.
I guess I don't know enough about backpage.com to judge yet. But I want to know how this is different from the fact that most murderers use telephones. At what point, in a situation like that, do we say: Ban telephones, since that will make murder more difficult. And like when police raid a city park that is frequented by drug dealers and prostitutes and the problems just move to another location, that is overwhelmingly likely to occur if we try to suppress advertising for sexual services.
So, I'm not yet convinced that getting rid of backpage.com would lead to a real improvement in anything.
Of course human trafficking is odious.
I guess I don't know enough about backpage.com to judge yet. But I want to know how this is different from the fact that most murderers use telephones. At what point, in a situation like that, do we say: Ban telephones, since that will make murder more difficult. And like when police raid a city park that is frequented by drug dealers and prostitutes and the problems just move to another location, that is overwhelmingly likely to occur if we try to suppress advertising for sexual services.
So, I'm not yet convinced that getting rid of backpage.com would lead to a real improvement in anything.
3
Google is partner of Vivastreet which is the european version of Backpage.
They generate 600 millions pageviews a month. On these page, 90% of the "above the fold" is dedicated to Google Adwords.
The money generated by the ecort girls is later re-invested on Google Adsense. This is money laundering. Google knows that, their Legal representative, Yoram Elkaïm has been informed since 2015. I have a copy of the email, and I have a proof that he has read those emails.
They generate 600 millions pageviews a month. On these page, 90% of the "above the fold" is dedicated to Google Adwords.
The money generated by the ecort girls is later re-invested on Google Adsense. This is money laundering. Google knows that, their Legal representative, Yoram Elkaïm has been informed since 2015. I have a copy of the email, and I have a proof that he has read those emails.
11
The mom in Washington has it right. We must do more to protect our kids. Our laws haven't kept up with our technology. Backpage.com is in essence acting as a modern day brothel. Considering that with the exception of Nevada prostitution is illegal not to mention the fact that sex trafficking minors is especially appalling I'm not sure why Google is fighting this legislation.
I wish that more had been written about Google's specific concerns so that we could determine if they're legitimate. Frankly as long as this law gives law enforcement agencies more power to shut down these sites let's do it. Fix whatever is concerning to Google if necessary and get this law passed.
I wish that more had been written about Google's specific concerns so that we could determine if they're legitimate. Frankly as long as this law gives law enforcement agencies more power to shut down these sites let's do it. Fix whatever is concerning to Google if necessary and get this law passed.
2
"Good" today might become "bad" tomorrow.
All this overwrought outrage against Google, pimps and rape is impressive. However, not a word about all the thousands and thousands of customers who routinely rent women as if it were normal everyday business. Where is the shame for those who buy sex on a routine basis and never face the consequences?
4
Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act also protects those who libel others on the internet. It's bad legislation, but Google has an interest in protecting it, as it provides blanket immunity against legitimate lawsuits - not only frivolous ones, a point of which Google is well-apprised.
1
Nick Kristof is well-meaning but he gets his facts wrong, as he did with Somaly Mam, whose sex-slave narrative turned out to be a lie https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opinion/the-price-of-a-sex-slave-resc... https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/trafficking-numbers-women-exa...
Many of the policies he advocates will do more harm than good. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/26/nick-kr... for example by imposing an "anti-prostitution loyalty oath," which cut off funds to public health funds for sex workers.
One misguided result of this advocacy was to stop advertising for sex workers on Craigslist. The sex workers themselves (and some police) said that Craigslist was safer than the alternatives, because customers who use Craigslist usually leave identifying information when they register, as the murderer Philip Markoff did.
There is a controversy in journalism about whether a journalist should talk to people on all sides of the story, or whether that is "false balance" and we should "believe the woman." The Rolling Stone rape story should have ended that controversy.
Nick Kristof should hire a fact checker.
Many of the policies he advocates will do more harm than good. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/26/nick-kr... for example by imposing an "anti-prostitution loyalty oath," which cut off funds to public health funds for sex workers.
One misguided result of this advocacy was to stop advertising for sex workers on Craigslist. The sex workers themselves (and some police) said that Craigslist was safer than the alternatives, because customers who use Craigslist usually leave identifying information when they register, as the murderer Philip Markoff did.
There is a controversy in journalism about whether a journalist should talk to people on all sides of the story, or whether that is "false balance" and we should "believe the woman." The Rolling Stone rape story should have ended that controversy.
Nick Kristof should hire a fact checker.
3
Women of Google: STOP THIS. NOW.
Hypothetically, some astronomical percentage of the internet is sex and porn. Would a bad actor like the "moral majority" of yester year be able to use this law to target someone like Google for linking pornography since from a narrow view porn targets children and so removing it would protect children from exploitation?
Don't say it is unlikely, think like a semi crazy fundamentalist with god in his heart, a hankering for censorship, and a moral crusade in the making.
If this bill opens a backdoor means to circumvent the 1st ammendment, then of course I'm against it. Otherwise Google should get its act together.
Don't say it is unlikely, think like a semi crazy fundamentalist with god in his heart, a hankering for censorship, and a moral crusade in the making.
If this bill opens a backdoor means to circumvent the 1st ammendment, then of course I'm against it. Otherwise Google should get its act together.
The fact that they have to say publicly that their motto is 'Don't be evil' indicates to me that that's obviously something they struggle with. Nonetheless, I'm glad that they keep trying.
1
First free speech, now the internet. Even after never actually seeing inside I think I'd take Pandora's Box without a moments thought. It's only fitting that an American - Al Gore - invented the internet.
Google is protected from liability under CDA 230. They are spending big bucks to protect big tech's "carte blanche" liability protection via CDA 230.
Unlimited liability protection is built into big tech's profit model. No one is entitled to that level of protection. That level of protection has fascilitated sex trafficking and fake news that undermines our democracy.
Congress needs to remove CDA 230 completely if big tech can't make a buck without sex trafficking. Expect an avalanche of propaganda by Google and Fakebook to fight Congress on this.
And no this bill will not make trafficking disappear, but its certainly a step in the right direction.
Unlimited liability protection is built into big tech's profit model. No one is entitled to that level of protection. That level of protection has fascilitated sex trafficking and fake news that undermines our democracy.
Congress needs to remove CDA 230 completely if big tech can't make a buck without sex trafficking. Expect an avalanche of propaganda by Google and Fakebook to fight Congress on this.
And no this bill will not make trafficking disappear, but its certainly a step in the right direction.
7
It's rare that I disagree with Kristof, but I must disagree this time. I don't entirely agree with Google either. as explained below.
Section 230(c)(1), the part this bill wants to eliminate, says that if a third party posts something offensive as a comment on my blog, I'm not liable. Without that protection, regular people couldn't have blogs; everyone would have to pre-screen comments the way the Times does. How much staff time goes into that screening?
If backpage.com knowingly takes money to advertise sex traffickers, that's /already illegal/.
Here's a less biased explanation of what SESTA is actually about:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/stop-sesta-congress-doesnt-underst...
Google worries about this bill because it's part of a long history of some people in Congress trying to censor the Internet in the guise of protecting children. If I'm remembering correctly, three such laws have been reversed by the Supreme Court, and another, SOPA, was derailed by a mass opposition movement among Internet users.
Here's where I disagree with Google: Section 230 essentially gives Internet semi-monopolies the protections of common carrier status without the regulatory burdens that apply to common carriers. (A common carrier is the phone company, or, in the old days, the telegraph company. They are not liable for the content of the messages they carry, but they also can't use the content of messages for their own benefit, such as targeting ads.)
Section 230(c)(1), the part this bill wants to eliminate, says that if a third party posts something offensive as a comment on my blog, I'm not liable. Without that protection, regular people couldn't have blogs; everyone would have to pre-screen comments the way the Times does. How much staff time goes into that screening?
If backpage.com knowingly takes money to advertise sex traffickers, that's /already illegal/.
Here's a less biased explanation of what SESTA is actually about:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/stop-sesta-congress-doesnt-underst...
Google worries about this bill because it's part of a long history of some people in Congress trying to censor the Internet in the guise of protecting children. If I'm remembering correctly, three such laws have been reversed by the Supreme Court, and another, SOPA, was derailed by a mass opposition movement among Internet users.
Here's where I disagree with Google: Section 230 essentially gives Internet semi-monopolies the protections of common carrier status without the regulatory burdens that apply to common carriers. (A common carrier is the phone company, or, in the old days, the telegraph company. They are not liable for the content of the messages they carry, but they also can't use the content of messages for their own benefit, such as targeting ads.)
10
Shame on you, Google. I'm done with you, my in home Engineer will be disconnecting YOU. Bigly. Just SLIMY.
1
As you state, closing Backpage won't end trafficking. Indeed it will only hide it better from law enforcement. Why can't we use Backpage to our benefit by placing fake ads and use it for sting operations? Aren't there TV shows based on that? Many pervs would be taken off the street and eventually the pervs will realize that Backpage will stab them in the back and can no longer be trusted.
2
This column is sorely lacking in details about the proposed legislation. Kristof needs to explain how the law works, how it would be helpful in the battle against human trafficking, and exactly what Google's expressed concerns are.
10
Most people would be surprised to know that tech companies, such a Google, already operate with massive escalation procedures to local, federal, and international law enforcement agencies. That used to be my full time job, and it is a 24 hour process of receiving and viewing horrific content, tracking down a cop who is willing to receive the content, and letting them take over. Any company worth its salt works hard to remove and report this kind of stuff.
I can say with absolute certainty that this bill will do nothing to make child sex trafficking disappear either online or in the real world. Nicholas Kristof needs to devote some time to critically appraising the bill instead of doing the easy thing - blaming Google, and by extension technology, for the morally corrupt in this world. This article does a disservice to its readers.
I can say with absolute certainty that this bill will do nothing to make child sex trafficking disappear either online or in the real world. Nicholas Kristof needs to devote some time to critically appraising the bill instead of doing the easy thing - blaming Google, and by extension technology, for the morally corrupt in this world. This article does a disservice to its readers.
15
Thank you! Couldn't have said it better!
I cannot understand from this article and the provided links to see what Google's responsibility is in the use of Backpage.com in human trafficking. And there is some assumption here that Google does not work with law enforcement to stop this and many other types of heinous crimes. Is this true?
All the while, we don't hold gun manufacturers accountable for people who use their products to murder people, we don't hold drug manufacturers accountable for doctors overprescribing them or for their marketers who push pills with horrible side effects and addictions. We don't hold mass agricultural farms accountable for the damage they do to the environment. We don't even hold CEO's accountable for stealing or manipulating billions of dollars from people.
I would like to hear people talk about solutions that will drastically reduce human trafficking. I don't see how going after Google accomplishes this. I don't understand what Backpage has done to enable trafficking or not done to stop it because that crucial information is not here.
There is so little information in this editorial about what the congressional acts say and why Google opposes it. Isn't this important information for making such a strong stance against Google? Because it is an opinion piece does not justify the lack of facts and details. If we want to reduce trafficking, let's perform the diligence required to inform people.
All the while, we don't hold gun manufacturers accountable for people who use their products to murder people, we don't hold drug manufacturers accountable for doctors overprescribing them or for their marketers who push pills with horrible side effects and addictions. We don't hold mass agricultural farms accountable for the damage they do to the environment. We don't even hold CEO's accountable for stealing or manipulating billions of dollars from people.
I would like to hear people talk about solutions that will drastically reduce human trafficking. I don't see how going after Google accomplishes this. I don't understand what Backpage has done to enable trafficking or not done to stop it because that crucial information is not here.
There is so little information in this editorial about what the congressional acts say and why Google opposes it. Isn't this important information for making such a strong stance against Google? Because it is an opinion piece does not justify the lack of facts and details. If we want to reduce trafficking, let's perform the diligence required to inform people.
8
That other tech company, Airbnb, has been accused of facilitating the sex trade and there have been unverified rumors of drug traders using fake accounts to rent apartments.
1
Here's one way to get Google to pay attention. STOP USING IT! Period. Sex trafficking is the exploitation of children. It is taboo in just about every culture.
I am a journalist. I embrace freedom of the press. But what Google (and others... Facebook, Twitter) need to responsibly build on is this: With freedom comes responsibility... It is morally responsible to do everything possible to end Sex trafficking. Period. Google is living in a bubble. A glass bubble that is about to shatter. I just ask all those well to do techies to do this: Look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself: What would your actions be if it was your kid? Incidentally, sex trafficking exploits young men and young women. What would you do? Do no evil... REALLY?
I am a journalist. I embrace freedom of the press. But what Google (and others... Facebook, Twitter) need to responsibly build on is this: With freedom comes responsibility... It is morally responsible to do everything possible to end Sex trafficking. Period. Google is living in a bubble. A glass bubble that is about to shatter. I just ask all those well to do techies to do this: Look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself: What would your actions be if it was your kid? Incidentally, sex trafficking exploits young men and young women. What would you do? Do no evil... REALLY?
8
The only reason Backpage is "successful", or even exists, is because of the legal pressure put on the adult ads of Craigslist that finally compelled it to pull them. This is the ultimate game of Wack-A-Mole. If you put Backpage out of business, something else will spring up to replace it. Better the devil you know?
6
As important as free speech is, the lives of these children are more important. SESTA would provide a unified front against human trafficking of children for sex work, something we should all be to agree is deplorable and undesirable.
Google is a great service, but it's got the wrong end of the stick this time.
Google is a great service, but it's got the wrong end of the stick this time.
5
Please watch "I am Jane Doe" currently showing on Netflix. It tells the story of three young girls abducted and sold for sex on "backpage." Follow the money.
Absolutely every parent's worst nightmare.
If congress cannot fix this, then shame on all of them!!!
Absolutely every parent's worst nightmare.
If congress cannot fix this, then shame on all of them!!!
10
From the comments, it seems like a lot of Google employees and techno-libertarians are just fine with Google promoting the sale of child slaves.
8
Let me share a few observations. Everyone likes sex. We hate to admit it but we do. Yes, people meet on-line or in bars to have sex. It's fun and it's legal. Not all sex is "human trafficking" nor are there an abundance of children being sold into slavery on-line. In truth, the majority of ads on Backpage.com were from undercover cops trying to lure teen-ager's into making offers for prostitution - which is also legal in this country, albeit confined to Nevada. If people want to sell their bodies on-line what business is it of yours?
Backpage represented the last great free forum. Here, adults were free to exchange phone numbers, ideas, meet, mingle, and do what humans do. Fascists hate free speech. They would have us all be good Christians, meet others at church sponsored events, and refrain from sex until after marriage. Yes, people on backpage.com were having sex. That's what makes us free humans, not criminals.
Backpage represented the last great free forum. Here, adults were free to exchange phone numbers, ideas, meet, mingle, and do what humans do. Fascists hate free speech. They would have us all be good Christians, meet others at church sponsored events, and refrain from sex until after marriage. Yes, people on backpage.com were having sex. That's what makes us free humans, not criminals.
6
This isn't about your proclivities. This is about CHILDREN being trafficked for sex when adults. There is no consent for this. And
If you support this; you are a deviant.
If you support this; you are a deviant.
3
No, not all sex is human trafficking; however, even on child being trafficked on Backpage is one too many. Think about it if this was your child, sibling or anyone you know.
2
Why on Earth is back[age allowed to exist? Why can't their web host throw them off the Internet? And SHAME on GOOGLE for trying to stop this bill.
7
Thanks Mr. Kristof for bringing forth this important topic. I didn't knew that we have child prostitution/slavery in our country. I always thought it was a 3rd world problem, another symptom of our decline.
But backpage.com also gave safe work access to legal age prostitutes, so in this sense it also provides them a mechanism to operate safely. A better solution is to legalize prostitution and make it safer for everyone so that pimps cannot control the market and sell humans. Legalization will also help to regulate the market more effectively.
Child prostitution/slavery is there with or without backpage and we have to fight it by all means. Make prostitution legal and then Backpage can operate in a more transparent way and maybe we can handle this problem in a better way.
But backpage.com also gave safe work access to legal age prostitutes, so in this sense it also provides them a mechanism to operate safely. A better solution is to legalize prostitution and make it safer for everyone so that pimps cannot control the market and sell humans. Legalization will also help to regulate the market more effectively.
Child prostitution/slavery is there with or without backpage and we have to fight it by all means. Make prostitution legal and then Backpage can operate in a more transparent way and maybe we can handle this problem in a better way.
7
46% of Google's executive management is comprised of women.
Not to be sexist, but this is so unconscionable, disturbing and deplorable.
If you google Google the second sentence of the website...
"Our values in action."
It should read: greed and mendacity in action.
Not to be sexist, but this is so unconscionable, disturbing and deplorable.
If you google Google the second sentence of the website...
"Our values in action."
It should read: greed and mendacity in action.
3
Nicholas, I must call out your "click and bait" tactics. If you want to talk about child trafficking, then talk about child trafficking. It is easy to use the Google name because it is big and a nice target that everyone can rally against.
To suggest that Google is opposing legislation while also accepting child trafficking as a consequence is highly irresponsible of you. It is the equivalent of me opposing a law that targets GMO and to then suggest that I am supporting famine around the world.
Just provide analysis about the issue at hand without trying to get more clicks on your commentary. We are all adult enough to understand the issues importance and comment accordingly.
To suggest that Google is opposing legislation while also accepting child trafficking as a consequence is highly irresponsible of you. It is the equivalent of me opposing a law that targets GMO and to then suggest that I am supporting famine around the world.
Just provide analysis about the issue at hand without trying to get more clicks on your commentary. We are all adult enough to understand the issues importance and comment accordingly.
10
Mr. Kristof, you have been wrong on the subject of sex trafficking and sex worker safety so many times, i really wish you could reexamine your prejudices. But that seems to be too much to hope for.
3
I wish Mr. Kristof gave the actual text of the proposed legislation. And policing computers/internet/social media is tricky. Especially if law enforcement or even tech resorts to algorithms and computer searches. Twitter recently banned a guy who tweeted about killing a mosquito. The computer read it as a death threat, whereas an actual human would have at least realized something was up (The tweet started with something like "how dare you bite me all over when I'm just trying to watch TV..."). If the text of the proposed legislation is vague enough, there are a lot of other strategies that can cull suspected sex trafficking ads on Backpage and use those to get more targeted warrants.
Mr. Kristof could be right, but it's hard to tell without actually seeing the proposed legislation.
Mr. Kristof could be right, but it's hard to tell without actually seeing the proposed legislation.
4
For such a technologically advanced company that is pursuing ( and breaking ground ) in so many other areas, it seems implausible that said company could not direct a fraction of their talent and resources towards a filter\app that could eliminate fully or highly restrict websites proven to be used for illegal activity ( of any sort )
On the flip of side that, legislators must create laws to catch up to the criminal behavior as soon as possible and make reassurances to the any company that helps in that effort in any way.
Slavery of all kinds needs to be abolished now.
On the flip of side that, legislators must create laws to catch up to the criminal behavior as soon as possible and make reassurances to the any company that helps in that effort in any way.
Slavery of all kinds needs to be abolished now.
2
CDA "230" was put in place to protect tech companies from liabilities that in the mid 90's they did not have the money or technology to stop.
Now they have both. They are not mere conduits but actively comb and sell data. They editorilize content when it suits them.
This law is a "carve-out" of 230 to only go after sites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking.
I say throw out the whole "230" billion dollar boondoggle--give them a taste of their own arrogant medicine.
Unfettered fake news, sex trafficking and monopolies do not need liability protection at the publics' expense.
Big tech is unable nor should they be allowed to "police" themselves. They are the robber barons of our age.
https://www.ft.com/content/ce1d6a00-89a0-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787
Now they have both. They are not mere conduits but actively comb and sell data. They editorilize content when it suits them.
This law is a "carve-out" of 230 to only go after sites that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking.
I say throw out the whole "230" billion dollar boondoggle--give them a taste of their own arrogant medicine.
Unfettered fake news, sex trafficking and monopolies do not need liability protection at the publics' expense.
Big tech is unable nor should they be allowed to "police" themselves. They are the robber barons of our age.
https://www.ft.com/content/ce1d6a00-89a0-11e7-bf50-e1c239b45787
7
"Sex trafficking." Is this some new inflammatory epithet to be employed in the service of puritanism and prudery?
It gives the impression that the advertisers are slavers. Perhaps a few -- a VERY few -- are in this against their will, but that is a truly minuscule minority.
Maybe we should lighten up a bit.
It gives the impression that the advertisers are slavers. Perhaps a few -- a VERY few -- are in this against their will, but that is a truly minuscule minority.
Maybe we should lighten up a bit.
5
Seriously? You think the 13-year-old girl in this article is in it for fun?
Around 300,000 girls (under the age of 18) end up in the sex business in the United States each year. What part of the words "statutory rape" don't you understand?
Around 300,000 girls (under the age of 18) end up in the sex business in the United States each year. What part of the words "statutory rape" don't you understand?
7
You obviously have not educated yourself about this issue, or you wouldn't be so ignorantly dismissive of the suffering that's being inflicted on thousands of children (mostly young girls) in this country, and millions of children worldwide. This is not a situation of whether women can/should choose to sell their bodies for sex, and certainly not an issue of "puritanism and prudery." This truly is out-and-out slavery, and not by a "tiny miniscule minority." I'm glad, though, that you have at least read this article and are now aware of the existence of this sad reality, whether you yet believe it to be true or not. Please watch "I Am Jane Doe" (available on Netflix), then comment again from a more informed perspective. Pretend that this happens to your daughter -- then tell me whether we should still all just "lighten up."
4
Ugh. I have heard of backpage but I thought it was just a place for escorts and prostitutes to advertise. I had no idea they were selling children as slaves. It is truly disgusting to think this is allowed on the regular internet. I thought only the dark web was so sick.
7
So, Facebook lied for a year on selling ad space to a Russian troll farm that was set up to harm Clinton, and Google has a back-door system that allows trafficing in children.
Who are these men who control these sites?
I think they need a RICO slapped on them.
We know that Facebook made $100,000 from the trolls, but how much does Goggle make off Backpage?
I'll warrant that they can tell you right down to the last cent.
RICO.
Who are these men who control these sites?
I think they need a RICO slapped on them.
We know that Facebook made $100,000 from the trolls, but how much does Goggle make off Backpage?
I'll warrant that they can tell you right down to the last cent.
RICO.
21
Some commenters seem to be conflating the sex trafficking of minors with "adult services" or "sex work" or "prostitution". It's none of these, it is the hostage-taking of children who cannot legally give consent to sex, who don't have abstract thinking skills, who have in many cases prepubescent bodies, who can't vote, or enter into legal contracts. Children need to be protected by adults, not sold for rape by predators to predators. Why does this need to be explained. Anti-trafficking legislation is as futile as prohibition? Seriously? Hey Google, lose money, lose a lot of money. And Backpage users, I'm certain you can find myriad ways to amuse yourself that don't violate the rights of others or of the most vulnerable. If you can't, there is something terribly wrong with you, and there is something terribly wrong with all of us if we allow this marketplace that primarily exists to facilitate crimes against children to continue.
71
Exactly! People don't seem to realize the vast numbers of Asian and Eastern European girls, boys, and women who are forced into sex slavery. It is not a small problem as many would like to believe.
5
KCJ writes: "Some commenters seem to be conflating the sex trafficking of minors with "adult services" or "sex work" or "prostitution". It's none of these, it is the hostage-taking of children who cannot legally give consent to sex" in apparent reference to some of my comments.
You missed the point of bringing up prostitution. The whole point is that it is in the shadows and unregulated. The whole point is that the criminalization and demonization of sex has lead to deviancy and a complete lack of respect for sexual morality based on consent.
Let's take another approach and see if it can make sense to you. Cannabis should not be used by teenagers. The best way to keep cannabis away from teenagers is to regulate the sales so it is harder for them to buy. Making it illegal makes it easier. When I was 18, alcohol was mildly difficult to get, but pot was easy. Today, pot is just as hard for kids to get as alcohol.
My point is that if you want to get kids out of sex work, get sex work out of the shadows.
You missed the point of bringing up prostitution. The whole point is that it is in the shadows and unregulated. The whole point is that the criminalization and demonization of sex has lead to deviancy and a complete lack of respect for sexual morality based on consent.
Let's take another approach and see if it can make sense to you. Cannabis should not be used by teenagers. The best way to keep cannabis away from teenagers is to regulate the sales so it is harder for them to buy. Making it illegal makes it easier. When I was 18, alcohol was mildly difficult to get, but pot was easy. Today, pot is just as hard for kids to get as alcohol.
My point is that if you want to get kids out of sex work, get sex work out of the shadows.
3
I read the letter from Stewart Jeffries (linked in this story).
Google’s argument is that the DOJ already has the power to shut down sites like Backpage so this new legislation is unnecessary.
So now the real question is why isn’t the DOJ shutting down Backpage.com?
We really, really need technology literate law enforcement and law makers. We need for the DOJ to understand that crime happens online too.
Google’s argument is that the DOJ already has the power to shut down sites like Backpage so this new legislation is unnecessary.
So now the real question is why isn’t the DOJ shutting down Backpage.com?
We really, really need technology literate law enforcement and law makers. We need for the DOJ to understand that crime happens online too.
14
What precisely is Google opposed to about this new law?
I think it is the case that Google is simply opposed to *any* regulation of the web. They have had a really profitable business so far without any regulation. This is literally like the banks during the housing bubble profiting off of lax rules. You know what? Google will still be profitable. It'll just be a tiny bit more expensive for them to accommodate some regulations.
I think it is the case that Google is simply opposed to *any* regulation of the web. They have had a really profitable business so far without any regulation. This is literally like the banks during the housing bubble profiting off of lax rules. You know what? Google will still be profitable. It'll just be a tiny bit more expensive for them to accommodate some regulations.
11
Of note, but not included in the article: Google staffers had over 425 meetings at the White House during the course of Obama's presidency - averaging more than one a week.
3
Why doesn't the federal government take down the site and put the trafficators in jail and the web site developers? The legislation should pass unanimously. This is not a First Amendment issue. It is a crime to solicit underage sex.
If I can't yell fire in a theater, can I solicit sex illegally? I am a First Amendment proponent but I can tell the difference between criminal actions and free speech.
If I can't yell fire in a theater, can I solicit sex illegally? I am a First Amendment proponent but I can tell the difference between criminal actions and free speech.
9
"Why doesn't the federal government take down the site..."
By law the government cannot just go and take down a site. If they could, we'd be in China.
By law the government cannot just go and take down a site. If they could, we'd be in China.
4
Thanks for publicly shaming Google. Sex trafficking children is pure evil. Google's moral cowardice is appalling.
25
so now prostitution has been renamed "sex trafficking" by the PC crowd, who blame males in all instances, and continually descry the victimhood of womenkind. A rather bizarre twisting of logic in the "multicultural" world, but true to form, always demonizing the male sex and glorifying the female. Of course that is a thinly veiled confirmation of the second class place of women, acknowledging that they need ongoing special support from the media and that their accomplishments do not stand on their own merit.
2
This is about adults renting out the bodies of CHILDREN who have no choice, Patrick. Not all prostitution is trafficking. Some of the traffickers are women, and some of the children are male.
I don't understand how you read your meaning into this article.
I don't understand how you read your meaning into this article.
29
So, we shouldn't stand up for a 13 year old girl being sold for sex because political correctness hurts your feelings?
22
Thanks so much, dear Patrick, for this convincing evidence of male strength and wisdom--it's just amazing that women could think of themselves as victims of such gems as your sweet caring self!
1
as with drugs, if there were NO BUYERS, sellers would disappear. We need to splash their faces on the newspapers front page and do more to jail them
10
A strange thing jus happened. When I tried to post this article on Facebook, it posted as a direct link to Backpage.com. They must be in cahoots somehow.
1
Don't be fooled. This is a patriarchal campaign about regulating sex. The evidence of nefarious conduct is scant and highly distorted. Using the word "lolita" in an erotic ad is no more indicative of crime than using the word "steal" in sale ad.
2
The trafficking of minor children, some as young as 11 or 12 years old, is hardly puritanical. If you wish to procure your anonymous sex through newspaper ads and can be sure you aren't either hiring a child or engaging in prostitution in a county where such actions are illegal, go for it. But I might recommend you talk to the women (and a few men) who support themselves and their handlers this way. Learn something about what brought them to this place. Why they stay. Whether they can leave.
Most Americans, I am happy to say, find the concept of the sex trafficking of children abhorrant.
Most Americans, I am happy to say, find the concept of the sex trafficking of children abhorrant.
2
Kristoff is ripping into Google but nowhere does he state that he has actually read the Bill. Much like the 2,000+ page Affordable Care Act, he doesn't know what it says, which means there are undoubtedly loopholes that the government can exploit to do things not mentioned in the bill. Perhaps that's what Google fears?
Until Kristoff actually reads the bill with the cynical eye he would possess if he didn't work for the Leftist NYT, his thoughts on the matter are biased, personal, and just plain irrelevant.
Until Kristoff actually reads the bill with the cynical eye he would possess if he didn't work for the Leftist NYT, his thoughts on the matter are biased, personal, and just plain irrelevant.
4
Soooo... Have YOU read the bill? Did Mr. Kristoff state that he had read the entirety of the bill?
I keep wondering why people so adamantly opposed to the mission of the Times or WaPo and so utterly dismissive of their reportage nevertheless read the work of talented reporters like Kristoff and others, the comment in disparaging ways.
I'm looking forward to your comment outlining what you think are the possible issues identified by Google's lawyers.
I keep wondering why people so adamantly opposed to the mission of the Times or WaPo and so utterly dismissive of their reportage nevertheless read the work of talented reporters like Kristoff and others, the comment in disparaging ways.
I'm looking forward to your comment outlining what you think are the possible issues identified by Google's lawyers.
So, abetting evil by opposing this law for your own sake is evil.
Google, why have a negative motto anyway? Rather than "Don't be evil". Why not "Support the Common Good."
Google, why have a negative motto anyway? Rather than "Don't be evil". Why not "Support the Common Good."
4
Why has Nick Kristof not yet been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? His tireless work for the oppressed, the marginalized, the refugee, and in particular for women and girls with no one to fight for them is a shining light. I usually cringe at a Kristof headline; I hesitate to read about the latest horror perpetrated by the powerful of our species. But I do read because I must.
I've met up with a few of the profiles in courage who are fighting worldwide sex trafficking, anonymous paragons battling a huge criminal enterprise second only to the illegal drug industry. When Google opposes laws to make their internet pathways a little rockier, Google is abetting a terrible enemy of humanity.
Nick's moral compass, always in good working order, will provide Google and its allies a way back from the ugly path it has inadvertently chosen to walk.
I've met up with a few of the profiles in courage who are fighting worldwide sex trafficking, anonymous paragons battling a huge criminal enterprise second only to the illegal drug industry. When Google opposes laws to make their internet pathways a little rockier, Google is abetting a terrible enemy of humanity.
Nick's moral compass, always in good working order, will provide Google and its allies a way back from the ugly path it has inadvertently chosen to walk.
15
"...50 attorneys general around the country have signed a letter saying that this kind of legislation would help — an astonishing unanimity."
Find me a elected official who is not for education, jobs, housing, healthcare, children and puppies and I'll show you the loser in the next election. Of course they are against human trafficking of children. This is an irrelevant piece of non-information.
Before Backpage they used Craigslist. Before Craigslist they used newspapers like the Village Voice. Those ads didn't read "get your human trafficking here." The ads were carefully disguised as ads for "escorts" or "adult services."
The "agency" Governor Spitzer used as he violated the human trafficking law called the Mann Act (and suffered no consequence) ran full page ads in New York magazine. There were multiple publications that carried ads for prostitutes. Shut down Backpage and they'll find something else.
Human trafficking is a serious problem, however, stifling a technology company that is used by a media company that in turn is used as a platform for criminals to facilitate activity that disguises human trafficking is not just a slippery slope, it's the fast lane to censorship.
Holding tech companies like Google accountable for material published using Google is akin to holding the company that printed New York Magazine accountable for Spitzer's escort ad.
Go after the pimps. Leave the messengers alone.
Find me a elected official who is not for education, jobs, housing, healthcare, children and puppies and I'll show you the loser in the next election. Of course they are against human trafficking of children. This is an irrelevant piece of non-information.
Before Backpage they used Craigslist. Before Craigslist they used newspapers like the Village Voice. Those ads didn't read "get your human trafficking here." The ads were carefully disguised as ads for "escorts" or "adult services."
The "agency" Governor Spitzer used as he violated the human trafficking law called the Mann Act (and suffered no consequence) ran full page ads in New York magazine. There were multiple publications that carried ads for prostitutes. Shut down Backpage and they'll find something else.
Human trafficking is a serious problem, however, stifling a technology company that is used by a media company that in turn is used as a platform for criminals to facilitate activity that disguises human trafficking is not just a slippery slope, it's the fast lane to censorship.
Holding tech companies like Google accountable for material published using Google is akin to holding the company that printed New York Magazine accountable for Spitzer's escort ad.
Go after the pimps. Leave the messengers alone.
4
For those who are complaining that the text of the bill isn't included in this article, it's quite simple to find: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1693.
4
Google is a business with a bottom line. If that bottom line is even remotely threatened, that behemoth, will go out to protect itself. It's nice that its motto is "do no evil", but anything that is for profit will step over corpses to keep its business. So it is very disappointing that Google has aligned itself with such sleaze to "potentially" protect its rights. May be if people write to Larry Page and Sergei Brin, it would back down, but not likely. That is partially why one needs governments and non profits whose bottom-line is not that stringent. To have a for profit medical insurance is one of the greatest travesties of the American society.
1
I don't know. If you must equate copyrighted material and sex trafficking, we should probably make a fair analogy. Here's a question that remains unanswered: Is a website hosting shared material responsible for copyright violations or the individual who posted the copyrighted material? Let me say it a different way: If I plagiarize an author on the New York times comment board, is the New York Times responsible for my plagiarism? Generally speaking, no.
I don't think posting an ad about sex trafficking is illegal. Actually trafficking sex is the illegal part. Should it be illegal to host sex trafficking ads? Possibly but the infringement on free press becomes a political question rather than a legal one. By the standards outlined here, the Village Voice along with many other publications are probably guilty of criminal wrong doing as well. Perhaps not so egregiously as backpage but guilty all the same. So where do you draw the line?
Aside from being dangerous towards civil liberties, the targeted legislation is also pointless. The only thing remarkable about backpage is the trafficking component isn't on the dark web already. That's what black markets do. They operate outside conventional space due to their illegal nature. You can shut down backpage if you want but it's probably more productive to design legislation that actually accomplishes the stated goal.
I don't think posting an ad about sex trafficking is illegal. Actually trafficking sex is the illegal part. Should it be illegal to host sex trafficking ads? Possibly but the infringement on free press becomes a political question rather than a legal one. By the standards outlined here, the Village Voice along with many other publications are probably guilty of criminal wrong doing as well. Perhaps not so egregiously as backpage but guilty all the same. So where do you draw the line?
Aside from being dangerous towards civil liberties, the targeted legislation is also pointless. The only thing remarkable about backpage is the trafficking component isn't on the dark web already. That's what black markets do. They operate outside conventional space due to their illegal nature. You can shut down backpage if you want but it's probably more productive to design legislation that actually accomplishes the stated goal.
2
The Bill is very short and specifically target sex trafficking of children, not about plagiarism.
We can all agree that there are cases when knowingly facilitating an illegal activity is criminal. This should be decided on a case by case basis and taking into account the costs of both sides: the victim and the facilitator.
We can all agree that there are cases when knowingly facilitating an illegal activity is criminal. This should be decided on a case by case basis and taking into account the costs of both sides: the victim and the facilitator.
Social media platforms have played a key role in exposing the crimes of pedophile priests & mobilizing public outrage to force policy changes within the Catholic Church, as well as more stringent prosecution by national, federal/state criminal justice systems around the world of those employees of the Vatican that sexually assaulted, exploited or abused vulnerable human beings of all ages. Given that positive historic role, the executives in charge of social media infrastructure (many of whom are parents themselves) must hold their own industry to a higher standard in helping to safeguard minors from predators. After all, would they want to be seen as being no better than the Vatican in addressing the sexual abuse of children when it is being perpetrated by agents of influence who help increase their own wealth, influence and global reach? There is no excuse whatsoever for shrugging at the agony of captive children being raped. Invoking the 1st Amendment as some kind of one-size-fits-all Kevlar vest that shields even the marketing of child rape completely perverts both the spirit & the letter of the Constitution. A website allowing kids to be sold to rapists is effectively recruiting criminals to commit egregious crimes: that violates statutes against criminal conspiracy & the mob, rather than Freedom of Expression. We ban terrorism manuals from being published online. We can & must, just as readily, ban content that allows rapists to buy victims for raping from procurers.
6
This article is a complete misrepresentation of the issues and a cheap attempt to shame Google and the tech community into accepting censorship and policing of user generated content.
Under the proposed legislation, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, WhatsApp and all other internet platforms would be made instantly liable (criminally and civilly) for user generated content that flows through that platform.
For example, if an 18 year old boy exchanges messages on Facebook to a 17 year old girl to "hook up" and/or share suggestive pictures, then the girl's parents, likely cheered by M. Kristof, could claim that Facebook is facilitating child pornography and child abuse. And Facebook needs to mount a defense and pay up or prove that it has nearly perfect safeguards against it.
Do we really want our Internet platforms to be subject to this? Do you, Mr. Kristof, have any idea how destructive to the way humans communicated today this will be?
Under the proposed legislation, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, WhatsApp and all other internet platforms would be made instantly liable (criminally and civilly) for user generated content that flows through that platform.
For example, if an 18 year old boy exchanges messages on Facebook to a 17 year old girl to "hook up" and/or share suggestive pictures, then the girl's parents, likely cheered by M. Kristof, could claim that Facebook is facilitating child pornography and child abuse. And Facebook needs to mount a defense and pay up or prove that it has nearly perfect safeguards against it.
Do we really want our Internet platforms to be subject to this? Do you, Mr. Kristof, have any idea how destructive to the way humans communicated today this will be?
5
To many of us, social media is already responsible itself for destroying the way humans have communicated throughout history.
8
The act is called the "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act." It's a "rare piece of bipartisan legislation that seems likely to become law."
Here is the essence of the legislation, anyone can look this up for themselves:
"Congress finds the following:
(1) Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) (as added by title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104; 110 Stat. 133) (commonly known as the “Communications Decency Act of 1996”)) was never intended to provide legal protection to websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims.
(2) Clarification of section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 is warranted to ensure that that section does not provide such protection to such websites."
So, that's the whole thing in a nutshell. All this new legislation would do is clarify the law by eliminating ambiguity in interpretation. Apparently sex traffickers, in some sense, believe they are entitled to legal protection regarding their on line activities.
If fifty attorneys general have signed a letter, that's good enough for me. It's stunning that every single state in this country is in agreement on anything.
Here is the essence of the legislation, anyone can look this up for themselves:
"Congress finds the following:
(1) Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) (as added by title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–104; 110 Stat. 133) (commonly known as the “Communications Decency Act of 1996”)) was never intended to provide legal protection to websites that facilitate traffickers in advertising the sale of unlawful sex acts with sex trafficking victims.
(2) Clarification of section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 is warranted to ensure that that section does not provide such protection to such websites."
So, that's the whole thing in a nutshell. All this new legislation would do is clarify the law by eliminating ambiguity in interpretation. Apparently sex traffickers, in some sense, believe they are entitled to legal protection regarding their on line activities.
If fifty attorneys general have signed a letter, that's good enough for me. It's stunning that every single state in this country is in agreement on anything.
11
AS A CHILD ADVOCATE OF MANY YEARS I find it shocking that google is knowingly aiding and abetting sex trafficking among children by casting a blind eye to the ads on its internet browser for children for sale for sex. To my mind, it is impossible to say out of one side of your mouth, don't do evil. Then turn around and enable such vicious evil as child sex trafficking. My advice is that google draw up a code of ethics and morality. Advertising children for sex for money violates every taboo, legal and ethical standard. Being on google, it is engaging in interstate commerce, making it a federal crime. I urge goggle to amend its code and to negotiate carefully with law enforcement to see which things are a clear and present danger and which, while we disagree with them, are safe and fair. There is absolutely nothing safe and fair about sex trafficking, especially of children. There is a clear difference between observing some ethical and moral code and being censorious, oppressive or punitive. If google does not take the initiative to participate in drafting model legislation it's going to be stuck with whatever congress decides to concoct. To prevent the potential evil of legislation, google must act now.
3
Who are the people running Backpage?
5
Watch the documentary "I AM Jane Doe" available on Netflix, and you'll learn more about the people running Backpage than you'd ever want to know. It's an excellent overview of this entire situation.
Is Google really more concerned about "frivolous lawsuits and investigations" than the criminal exploitation of children? Maybe it would help if the Google lobbyist mentioned in this column talked to the child who was abused by her "agent" in New York City about her experiences in the sex slave market.
3
"Putting up posters of trafficked people or children for sale in a mall would constitute a federal crime. Yet, companies like Backpage do this online "
No, actually, they don't. The correct analogy is with the company that owns the mall. As far as I know, owning a mall where a crime has been committed is not itself a crime.
No, actually, they don't. The correct analogy is with the company that owns the mall. As far as I know, owning a mall where a crime has been committed is not itself a crime.
5
Public locations, such as parking lots, parks, garages, restaurants, etc.. can be used to facilitate illegal transactions. It is unreasonable to hold such businesses liable for those transactions, just as it is unreasonable to hold online websites liable when used for illegal transactions. Anybody who thinks shutting down backpage.com will lead to less sex trafficking is forgetting that it can be done online or offline anywhere that two people can go to talk. It would just change the location, and the next place would just be more guarded. Law enforcement should be going after the actual offenders - not those online businesses that provide valuable services.
3
I believe this is the legislation that is opposed by sex worker rights organizations who strongly opposed closing down backpage. Taking advertising spaces away from people who may need that work to survive is problematic. You can debate all day long about whether sex work is right or wrong, but the fact is that for some people, sex work is the best option. Sex worker rights organizations suggest decriminalization (also supported by Amnesty International, the World Health Organization, and other human rights agencies) which allows people to identify and get help for anyone, especially minors, who are trafficked against their will. As an advocate who has experience with sex workers, I completely disagree with this misguided opinion piece.
5
Let's hear from Google regarding this legislation. I don't see any significant words from Google in this article. Common sense, plus the fact that this legislation has real bipartisan support, and that of the attorneys general of fifty states, should tell anyone looking at it that this should happen. It's about time. I suspect that "Don't be evil" has devolved somewhat since Google's inception, but I can't imagine they're so insensitive that they'll fight such a good idea without a reasonable reasoning.
Despite my cynicism, I can't imagine why the people at Google would fight this thing. Please, NYT, give Google a chance to respond, let them explain why. If you'll talk about them, talk -to- them.
Enquiring minds want to know, yes?
Despite my cynicism, I can't imagine why the people at Google would fight this thing. Please, NYT, give Google a chance to respond, let them explain why. If you'll talk about them, talk -to- them.
Enquiring minds want to know, yes?
1
Google above all else knows that even if Portman's legislation were to pass, techies would find ways to "sell" children on search engines including Google.
But indicating a willingness to begin this process is the least Google could demonstrate. No need to hide behind a phoney constitutional rationale.
But indicating a willingness to begin this process is the least Google could demonstrate. No need to hide behind a phoney constitutional rationale.
1
I just looked over the bill and it does raise the question of why it is necessary in the first instance. Will Congress have to rewrite exceptions for every single criminal act on the books to section 230 of the CDA?
Section 230 was designed to protect ISPs from CIVIL actions such as defamation. As Mr. Kristof notes, the content industry lobbied for an intellectual property exception.
But it was never intended to protect ISPs or anyone else from CRIMINAL activity. This fact is true whether the crime is sex traffic or illegal drugs or harassment.
There have been plenty of instances where the DOJ have shut down sites used primarily for criminal purposes. The deeper question may be what is preventing the DOJ from acting forcefully enough to do so in this -- and every other -- sex traffic case.
I admire the work Mr. Kristof has done over the years in the name of women and children. I am not resolved that those issues will be adequately addressed with this legislation, however. Congress should review section 230 for over breath to protect all criminal activity. And the DOJ should do what must be done to close down the operations behind this putrid site.
Section 230 was designed to protect ISPs from CIVIL actions such as defamation. As Mr. Kristof notes, the content industry lobbied for an intellectual property exception.
But it was never intended to protect ISPs or anyone else from CRIMINAL activity. This fact is true whether the crime is sex traffic or illegal drugs or harassment.
There have been plenty of instances where the DOJ have shut down sites used primarily for criminal purposes. The deeper question may be what is preventing the DOJ from acting forcefully enough to do so in this -- and every other -- sex traffic case.
I admire the work Mr. Kristof has done over the years in the name of women and children. I am not resolved that those issues will be adequately addressed with this legislation, however. Congress should review section 230 for over breath to protect all criminal activity. And the DOJ should do what must be done to close down the operations behind this putrid site.
I'm generally in agreement with Nicholas Kristof but not this time. Conflating internet sex trafficking with section 230 internet privacy and freedom of expression is wrong. Nibbling around the edges of internet privacy is how we will end up with restrictions on freedom of expression that can affect all of us. Sex trafficking is illegal as it should be. Driving it further underground wont stop it.
2
While few can disagree with the horrific realities of human trafficking, the impact that this law, as drafted, would have on the free flow of information that serves as the backbone of the internet is not adequately addressed in this piece.
Google is not fighting this bill because it has any amount of love for Backpage, or for human trafficking, it's fighting this bill because it is poorly conceived, and would undermine the present functionality of the internet as we know it.
Further, the authors of the bill may have had the best of intentions, but titling a bill "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act" is a sure fire way to garner support from both politicians and citizens who fail to appreciate the implications of this bill--opposing a bill designed to protect human trafficking seems, on its face, to be a terrible thing. This attorney suggests that readers peel back the onion just one more layer on this one.
Google is not fighting this bill because it has any amount of love for Backpage, or for human trafficking, it's fighting this bill because it is poorly conceived, and would undermine the present functionality of the internet as we know it.
Further, the authors of the bill may have had the best of intentions, but titling a bill "Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act" is a sure fire way to garner support from both politicians and citizens who fail to appreciate the implications of this bill--opposing a bill designed to protect human trafficking seems, on its face, to be a terrible thing. This attorney suggests that readers peel back the onion just one more layer on this one.
2
I am thinking that perhaps none of Google's Leaders have children. For is they did, this would be a no brainer. There is not one parent who wants their children to become victims of the Internet. Google needs to use its common sense and back off. This fight will do them no good.
I am all for free speech, but this is not free speech. It comes with an unspeakable price to children. Free speech does not give the right to anyone to abuse children. This includes Google and its defense of Free Speech.
If I remember correctly, free speech does come with a caveat, and I think that it cannot be used to incite people to do bad things. I think this would be looked at as a bad thing.
I am all for free speech, but this is not free speech. It comes with an unspeakable price to children. Free speech does not give the right to anyone to abuse children. This includes Google and its defense of Free Speech.
If I remember correctly, free speech does come with a caveat, and I think that it cannot be used to incite people to do bad things. I think this would be looked at as a bad thing.
The plan here is to ban all sex related advertising on Backpage even though the great majority of it has little to do with trafficking.Thats the idea behind this..censorship of adult material and elimination all prostitution regardless of whether it's trafficking related or not.
Just like the drug war has resulted in a worse problem.. the synthetic opioid epidemic this war advocated by congress will only create new websites and make it more difficult to locate the true traffickers and criminals.
Just like the drug war has resulted in a worse problem.. the synthetic opioid epidemic this war advocated by congress will only create new websites and make it more difficult to locate the true traffickers and criminals.
1
Google is a monopoly, and puts its profit before ordinary people's privacy. That is its problem. Legislators should deal with the company regarding those problems. Linking it with sex trafficking affects its image, but won't eliminate the crime of sex trafficking that uses any venue it can and evades the law by all means. Those profit from sex trafficking are presumably wealthy and circulate in high society, or operate in the underworld. Corporations are not law-enforcement agencies, and we'd better not count on them or use them to distract from real problems.
Google is wrong here, but I get their fear, and think their concerns should be taken account in any legislation. Search sites need to be protected from the crimes of the sites they index.
On another note, I will suggest a few steps we can take to stop sex trafficking. The most important step is to stop criminalizing the victims. The next step is to allow a regulated market for prostitution. In short, if prostitution is illegal, only criminals will provide it. If it is legal, it can be regulated. Finally, if we really want to stop sex trafficking, we need to stop demonizing sex. Societies that suppress sexuality only encourage it to be expressed in more deviant, non consensual, ways. Look at, frankly, the market for young boys amongst Afghanistan's tribal leaders. Only in an environment where sex is de-mystified and moral sexual behavior is openly talked about can we begin to have a society which values consent as the foundation for sexual morality.
On another note, I will suggest a few steps we can take to stop sex trafficking. The most important step is to stop criminalizing the victims. The next step is to allow a regulated market for prostitution. In short, if prostitution is illegal, only criminals will provide it. If it is legal, it can be regulated. Finally, if we really want to stop sex trafficking, we need to stop demonizing sex. Societies that suppress sexuality only encourage it to be expressed in more deviant, non consensual, ways. Look at, frankly, the market for young boys amongst Afghanistan's tribal leaders. Only in an environment where sex is de-mystified and moral sexual behavior is openly talked about can we begin to have a society which values consent as the foundation for sexual morality.
I express no opinion about whether the proposed legislation would pass First Amendment scrutiny although I have my doubts. But Mr. Kristof weakens his case when he notes that websites must remove copyrighted material. Copyright protection is specifically authorized by the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to enact what are essentially restrictions on free speech. I can't legally disseminate copyrighted material regardless of the First Amendment. By contrast the proposed legislation deals with expressions (vile though they are) with some First Amendment shelter.
1
I can't legally disseminate copyrighted material regardless of the First Amendment."
That is not entirely true. There is the Fair Use clause that allows you to use a certain amount of copyrighted material, but you know, if you looked around the web practically for any subject, you would find so much copyrighted material that if suits were the answer the courts would be booked up from today forward.
Even Amazon displays more than may be leagally permissable when they show you a "snapshot" of a text. Of course, they are selling books but....
That is not entirely true. There is the Fair Use clause that allows you to use a certain amount of copyrighted material, but you know, if you looked around the web practically for any subject, you would find so much copyrighted material that if suits were the answer the courts would be booked up from today forward.
Even Amazon displays more than may be leagally permissable when they show you a "snapshot" of a text. Of course, they are selling books but....
Not every expression is Constitutionally protected. Solicitation for murder OR prostitution is excluded, as is yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Your argument doesn't pass scrutiny
1
Of course consistent with the First Amendment I can punish the person who solicits for murder or for sex, or shouts fire in a crowded theatre. But what we are talking about here is whether the forum in which the solicitation is made can be punished, a very different question and a much more difficult one as a matter of First Amendment jurisprudence.
1
With the use of modern technology comes numerous advantages and breakthroughs that are beneficial to society and helps for numerous modern day functions. However, along with the progressive use of the internet comes the darker side of the web, including things such as sex trafficking of young and vulnerable children. It is baffling and quite frankly disturbing that big names such as Google would defend sites such as Backpage, even if it endangers the lives of thousands of children and their innocence and well being. Sites such as Backpage do not gain nor deserve legal immunity. This is not an example of internet freedom, it is an example of breaking numerous laws, regardless of the fact that it is being done online. Policing such sites should not be seen as censorship or lack of internet freedom, it should be seen as defending criminal justice.
41
I am naturally skeptical of any proposal that attempts to make the providers of a communication service like Backpage or any other criminally liable for the contents of individual actor's communications. My skepticism increases when supporters claim that it will only be used against bad people so good people have nothing to fear. It reaches a fever pitch when a defender of the law, like Mr. Kristoff, neither quotes from the law nor provides a lint to the text of it so that I can form a valid opinion of its content. To me, the concept is similar to holding the Post Office responsible for what people mail to one another.
The paper he did link to is a theoretical discussion of how things could be changed, with no references to the specific law Mr. Kristoff is defending. Give the fact that he did not choose to give any details of the proposed law's contents, one is left to wonder if it is as innocuous as he makes it out to be.
The paper he did link to is a theoretical discussion of how things could be changed, with no references to the specific law Mr. Kristoff is defending. Give the fact that he did not choose to give any details of the proposed law's contents, one is left to wonder if it is as innocuous as he makes it out to be.
9
"...the concept is similar to holding the Post Office responsible for what people mail to one another."
Really? The USPO can legitimately claim it has no knowledge of the contents of first-class mail. GOOGLE, on the other hand, knows EVERYTHING about every single thing it handles in its ever-widening universe of data-collectors.
Really? The USPO can legitimately claim it has no knowledge of the contents of first-class mail. GOOGLE, on the other hand, knows EVERYTHING about every single thing it handles in its ever-widening universe of data-collectors.
8
Please state the evidence for your claim about Google knowing everything about every single thing it handles.
3
One wonders how much longer it will be before the bloom comes off the tech rose. Human trafficking may be the most egregious example of tech's dark side but it not the only dark and dirty corner. The emergence of technology in the form of personal devices began in the late 70's and we were agog at the potential and power of machines that by todays standards were as primitive and limited as a bow and arrow compared to a thermonuclear weapon. And here we are nearly a half century later stuck in wonder, unable to grasp, let alone respond to the obvious moral and ethical challenges technology and the giants who control it confront us with. As consumers and enablers we need to get past the shiny trinkets in our hands and confront a future that has already passed us and see technology for what it is, a complex and useful tool that like a hammer when properly applied in the hands of a skilled user can perform flawlessly and when misapplied can be a deadly weapon. We need to push back against the idea that technology holds a special place where the normal rules that regulate the mundane are suspended in the false hope that unfettered technology will be our savior. We could put down the first marker with passage of "The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act."
36
As consumers and enablers we need to get past the shiny trinkets in our hands and confront a future that has already passed us and see technology for what it is..."
only WHEN PIGS HAVE WINGS.
only WHEN PIGS HAVE WINGS.
Leave the internet alone. This bill would be the beginning of a slippery slope, eventually leading to more and more restrictions on internet content. The nanny state gone wild.
12
Oh please. Parents have little power to protect their own children while tech companies like Google, Facebook, et al are getting away with murder and hiding behind the "freedom of speech" and legislative protections such as the Communications Decency Act. They are making money hand over fist and exerting enormous power over the bought and sold Congress. It's high time these companies are reined in and required to accept some responsibility to police who they get in bed with rather than the carte blanche they currently have to print money with no consequences.
3
when the internet kills your livelihood, you'll hum a different tune. GUARANTEED. Technology, especially the internet has killed almost everything already. Record sales, publishing, shopping, movies, anything that can be digitized can and will be to the loss of billions of dollars. The net should have been restricted .EDU.
1
Better a little nanny state than criminals soliciting on the Internet. Other sites do a lot to remove this stuff.
Hmmm. I can't count the number of times the NYT has argued editorially, though its columnists and through Internet comments, that the firearms industry was the only business with such protections. Now it turns out the NYT and other internet companies have similar protections from frivolous lawsuits.
"Google seems to have a vague, poorly grounded fear that closing the loophole would open the way to frivolous lawsuits and investigations and lead to a slippery slope that will damage its interests and the freedom of the internet."
Whether those fears are poorly grounded or not depends of the view of those thus protected. The firearms industry was subjected to a strategy of such lawsuits before Congress protected it. (It is still subject to lawsuits over faulty products.)
I trust Times editors -- those that remain -- will be careful of such references in future. Basic freedoms -- whether enshrined in the First or Second Amendments -- deserve protection from frivolous attack.
"Google seems to have a vague, poorly grounded fear that closing the loophole would open the way to frivolous lawsuits and investigations and lead to a slippery slope that will damage its interests and the freedom of the internet."
Whether those fears are poorly grounded or not depends of the view of those thus protected. The firearms industry was subjected to a strategy of such lawsuits before Congress protected it. (It is still subject to lawsuits over faulty products.)
I trust Times editors -- those that remain -- will be careful of such references in future. Basic freedoms -- whether enshrined in the First or Second Amendments -- deserve protection from frivolous attack.
2
It's difficult to believe there is no minimum age for marriage in many states in the US, leading parents to marry their young daughters off to the men that have been raping them. It's excruciating to know human trafficking is alive and well in the US, including a market for children and teens. And it's impossible to understand how a company as powerful as Google, with such an outward appearance of wanting to pursue equality and social responsibility, would use their clout to do anything other than fight for helpless men and women, including children being sold for sex.
May the outcry be more swift and powerful than when they fired that guy for his sexist memo. May Google care more, too.
May the outcry be more swift and powerful than when they fired that guy for his sexist memo. May Google care more, too.
16
There is no balance when it comes to slavery, no compromise. Protecting people's right to freedom comes before all else even free speech rights to advertise children (surprised that needed saying).
32
Just a thought, as mentioned by Mr. Levy above, have you considered that maybe forcing this into darker corners of the Internet would actually be a disservice to victims and law enforcement?
I remember, about ten years ago, hearing a prostitute call into a talk show and share that she, an independent contractor, didn't ever use craigslist (the site used at the time for this) because the cops used it.
A few years ago, I posted an ad on craigslist for a baby product my kids had grown out of. I was notified by a federal employee that I needed to take my ad down or risk legal action because the product was recalled. I promptly complied and threw the product away.
My point? I prefer things be in the open.
I remember, about ten years ago, hearing a prostitute call into a talk show and share that she, an independent contractor, didn't ever use craigslist (the site used at the time for this) because the cops used it.
A few years ago, I posted an ad on craigslist for a baby product my kids had grown out of. I was notified by a federal employee that I needed to take my ad down or risk legal action because the product was recalled. I promptly complied and threw the product away.
My point? I prefer things be in the open.
Conspicuously absent from this article is any articulation of what the proposed law says and how Google thinks that it might be used inappropriately. I get the horror of what Mr. Kristoff has been describing for years. However, the proposed legislation may be poorly written or have other problems that could have serious repercussions.
This article is inadequate for forming an opinion of the proposed legislation.
This article is inadequate for forming an opinion of the proposed legislation.
59
Ask an attorney general or your local legislator. Fifty Attorneys General signed on to the need for legislation. Do the homework instead of making dubious comments about the virtue of trying to shut down the power of such websites. As others have said, freedom from slavery of any kind outweighs internet freedom or even free speech.
Sites like Backpage must be held accountable for the damage that they help to do by facilitating sex traffickers.
As a Federal grand juror, I occasionally heard testimony in sex trafficking cases where the very young victims gave heart-wrenching testimony about how they were recruited and sold on sites like Backpage, held against their will by pimps, and in one case assaulted for trying to leave and left unconscious on the street.
As a Federal grand juror, I occasionally heard testimony in sex trafficking cases where the very young victims gave heart-wrenching testimony about how they were recruited and sold on sites like Backpage, held against their will by pimps, and in one case assaulted for trying to leave and left unconscious on the street.
22
"Don't be Evil." You always know the shadowy direction the pendulum will eventually turn to by listening to the slogans and promises of companies and politicians.
3
“Google seems to have a vague, poorly grounded fear that closing the loophole would open the way to frivolous lawsuits and investigations and lead to a slippery slope that will damage its interests and the freedom of the internet.”
Sadly it appears Google has the same problem as the gun lobby. Every “common sense” piece of legislation is opposed because of the “slippery slope” argument. Terribly sad for our nation whether talking about assault weapons or sex trafficking.
Sadly it appears Google has the same problem as the gun lobby. Every “common sense” piece of legislation is opposed because of the “slippery slope” argument. Terribly sad for our nation whether talking about assault weapons or sex trafficking.
28
99.99% of Backpage personal and supposed sexual service ads are not for sex trafficked adults or minors but free adults freely exchanging some type of personal and sexual service as free people under no criminal duress. Anyway prostitution should be legal and it is a crime against women and their punters to criminalize a natural, healthy and normal business transaction.
15
There is nothing "normal" about transactional sex. It is disgusting and degrades women for the perverted pleasure of men.
Why should men not be able to enjoy sex on a pay as you go basis, it is a bargain? These women are young and beautiful and are good at what they do for a living. Why do men have to enslave themselves to women for a lifetime, the state and family and criminal court systems just to have sex with a women? Being with a sex worker is one of the most honest transactions. The threat of alimony, spousal support, child support, legal fees, prison, count be out. And btw pay for your own dinner.
1
This bill is hardly innocuous and only internet-illiterate AG's would fail to understand how it is going to have an impact on internet freedom.
Distressingly, Mr. Kristof does not even deign to inform us that Backpage.com is no longer in this particular form of business simply due to ex-legislative pressure - which is as it should be. Backpage SHUT DOWN its adult services ads this past January citing overwhelming pressure from the government not due to an over-reach of legislation.
We speak of the genius of the American Constitution but we rarely discuss the genius of the 1996 Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act which provides websites with legal immunity for the posts of their users.
In October of last year, the California Department of Justice raided Backpage’s offices and arrested its CEO in response to allegations that the site had facilitated sex trafficking. But a judge dismissed the charges, ruling that CDA 230 ultimately protected the company.
The bill’s stated goals are far too broad: the regulation would allow victims of sex trafficking to seek recompense from website that “knowingly and recklessly” enabled their victimization; criminalize any commercial conduct that “assists, supports, or facilitates a violation of federal sex trafficking laws”.
You enjoy your freedom of speech on the internet? Your biggest dangers are well-meaning liberals who even the most liberal Google can not stomach.
Distressingly, Mr. Kristof does not even deign to inform us that Backpage.com is no longer in this particular form of business simply due to ex-legislative pressure - which is as it should be. Backpage SHUT DOWN its adult services ads this past January citing overwhelming pressure from the government not due to an over-reach of legislation.
We speak of the genius of the American Constitution but we rarely discuss the genius of the 1996 Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act which provides websites with legal immunity for the posts of their users.
In October of last year, the California Department of Justice raided Backpage’s offices and arrested its CEO in response to allegations that the site had facilitated sex trafficking. But a judge dismissed the charges, ruling that CDA 230 ultimately protected the company.
The bill’s stated goals are far too broad: the regulation would allow victims of sex trafficking to seek recompense from website that “knowingly and recklessly” enabled their victimization; criminalize any commercial conduct that “assists, supports, or facilitates a violation of federal sex trafficking laws”.
You enjoy your freedom of speech on the internet? Your biggest dangers are well-meaning liberals who even the most liberal Google can not stomach.
14
The "frivolous/politically motivated "lawsuit claim was last trotted out to justify opposition to the International Criminal Court by the then George W.Bush Administration- it hasn;t worked then and won't work now!
1
All of this is good information. What could help even more, given that light tends to send cockroaches running for cover, is a list of names of the owners and staff of Backpage. That information is out there somewhere.
2
Thank you for reminding people that the human beings they purchase for sex are just that - human beings. The cases of children are the most heart breaking, but it's all pretty horrific. People don't want to see the truth about prostitution and pornography, which is that men who buy or sell sex are not as interested in sex itself as they are in hurting and degrading a female person. We need tougher laws and we need to enforce them. Maybe we could redirect some resources from the drug war.
4
I seriously doubt that this legislation will do anything meaningful to combat human trafficking, and this kind of censorship has indeed proven to be a slippery slope in the past.
Backpage is a useful tool for the police as well -- they can see the same ads that the customers see and use this information for sting operations in order to rescue children. It gives parents a chance to find their children in some cases.
Were all of it moved completely underground (it's not like trafficking would actually go away, it would just choose a different platform) then the 'good guys' would be totally in the dark.
The solution lies of course (as we have long known and as we can see in the example of some European countries) in the legalization and regulation of prostitution, because that would mean a regulated industry with willing workers rather than slaves, no underage prostitutes, protection for sex workers against violence by pimps or customers, increased protection against stds -- the list goes on and on.
This would take the wind out of the sails of human traffickers. Why would a customer seek out sex with an underage prostitute if there is a legal, safe alternative that doesn't hurt anyone?
Backpage is a useful tool for the police as well -- they can see the same ads that the customers see and use this information for sting operations in order to rescue children. It gives parents a chance to find their children in some cases.
Were all of it moved completely underground (it's not like trafficking would actually go away, it would just choose a different platform) then the 'good guys' would be totally in the dark.
The solution lies of course (as we have long known and as we can see in the example of some European countries) in the legalization and regulation of prostitution, because that would mean a regulated industry with willing workers rather than slaves, no underage prostitutes, protection for sex workers against violence by pimps or customers, increased protection against stds -- the list goes on and on.
This would take the wind out of the sails of human traffickers. Why would a customer seek out sex with an underage prostitute if there is a legal, safe alternative that doesn't hurt anyone?
21
Best solution in an imperfect world full of sexually coercive males.
It's not about adults buying another adult for paid sex. It's about sexual slavery, whether one is a child, adolescent or adult.
1
Google fears frivolous lawsuits?
If they want to see fear, they should spend a little time with helpless abused kids.
If they want to see fear, they should spend a little time with helpless abused kids.
62
It seems as if the either/or situation here is a) internet freedom or, b) freedom from internet crime.
Why isn't it possible, in this incredibly brilliant technology age, to block all criminal activity on the internet? Why does something like Backpage, obviously run by loathsome creatures, continue to freely go its vile way?
And why do we give Google a pass on this?
Why isn't it possible, in this incredibly brilliant technology age, to block all criminal activity on the internet? Why does something like Backpage, obviously run by loathsome creatures, continue to freely go its vile way?
And why do we give Google a pass on this?
36
If you ban all web advertising for adult services, it will go increasingly underground, back out on the streets. And you are being disingenuous if you equate all adult service providers with "sex trafficking." The only solution to this problem is to legalize and regulate prostitution. There are adult service providers who enjoy what they do and make a good living at it, they shouldn't be pathologized and vilified. And there are many men who are either single or in relationships with mis matched libidos, and who find great comfort in expressing their sexuality with a paid partner.
21
Here's an idea:
Why can't MEN show restraint? Sex is NOT a biological need but a primitive (and in many cases sadistic) biological URGE which is criminally forced in many cases onto women and children.
Why can't MEN show restraint? Sex is NOT a biological need but a primitive (and in many cases sadistic) biological URGE which is criminally forced in many cases onto women and children.
1
Yes, JS, but what about those men who simply want to find great comfort in expressing their sexuality with small children? Have you a plan for them?
1
Wow, this is a seriously skewed, emotionally-charged hit piece that lacks any actual evidence behind its claims. If Google is worried about the unintended consequences of this act, then it is because their astute legal team has a very good reason to believe that it will interfere with their organization. Google is not in the business of supporting sex traffickers, despite what this article would have you believe. The issue is holding websites responsible for what individuals post to the sites. Backpage is a simple classified ads style site like craigslist. While individuals have used this site to create ads for sex workers, that is not the intent or only use of the site. This law would essentially force this website out of business by holding them responsible for the actions of users of the site. It would also affect Google since their search engine points to this site as a result of certain searches, and will point to many more that may become a problem in the future. It is simply impossible for Google to stay ahead of this. contrary to Yiota Souras' claim, this act would not only impact bad-actor sites, it would impact all sites that accept user submissions, and sites that link to them. This would apply to sites like the NYTimes and the user comments here as well as to google whose automated systems constantly crawl the web and index its contents.
30
Always a "legal justification" to protect malicious predators and their enablers.
2
Anyone looking for a counterpoint (and this from a public interest nonprofit, not Google) might be interested in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's take, strongly opposed to SESTA: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/defend-our-online-communities-stop... .
The crux: "SESTA would weaken 47 U.S.C. § 230 (commonly known as "CDA 230" or simply “Section 230”), one of the most important laws protecting free expression online. [...]. [SESTA] would shift more blame for users’ speech to the web platforms themselves. Under SESTA, web communities would likely become much more restrictive in how they patrol and monitor users’ contributions. Some of the most vulnerable platforms would be ones that operate on small budgets—sites like Wikipedia, the Internet Archive, and small WordPress blogs that play a crucial role in modern life but don’t have the massive budgets to defend themselves that Facebook and Twitter do. "
The crux: "SESTA would weaken 47 U.S.C. § 230 (commonly known as "CDA 230" or simply “Section 230”), one of the most important laws protecting free expression online. [...]. [SESTA] would shift more blame for users’ speech to the web platforms themselves. Under SESTA, web communities would likely become much more restrictive in how they patrol and monitor users’ contributions. Some of the most vulnerable platforms would be ones that operate on small budgets—sites like Wikipedia, the Internet Archive, and small WordPress blogs that play a crucial role in modern life but don’t have the massive budgets to defend themselves that Facebook and Twitter do. "
9
Rather than shut down Backpage, where many willing adults advertise sexual services, why don't readers scan their local Backpage "women seeking men" content and report any suspicious sexual exploitation of either unwilling adults or children to their local police for quick investigation?
10
There will always be another backpage. Pimps and traffickers will find other means to sell their services, and going after backpage punishes web designers instead of punishing actual criminals. I'm sure there are at least 5 backpage-like boards that are currently used in the US. Why is backpage the problematic one? Audience size?
Google has a lot of problems but this isn't one of them.
Google has a lot of problems but this isn't one of them.
9
I'm with you 100 percent on this one, Mr. Kristof.
3
Such wasted effort. Shut down backpage and two more sites will pop up in its place. If the customers can so easily tell which ads are offering underage girls, why can't the police? Let them do their jobs and stop trying to legislate morality.
23
You are wrong. Sites will stop popping up if they know they will be shut down and fined and arrested.
3
The commenter either doesn't know or willfully ignores the law enforcement resources it takes to lawfully investigate and prosecute one sex trafficker. Law enforcement pursues these investigations with vigor, but simply does not have the resources to make a significant dent in the trafficking industry. Blocking the traffickers from their clients would go a long way in curbing this scourge.
Why would Google care about the safety of rights of any individual? As long as the money keeps rolling in, all is well as far as they are concerned. Besides, their hype continues to mesmerize gullible Americans.
3
Mr. Kristof
This heartfelt plea would hold a lot more water if you references weren't so vague. One of the things I find inspiring in the NYT's columnist's work is their specificity. Gail Collins regales us with arcane absurdities, Charles Blow with incontrovertible statistics, Maureen Dowd (at her best) with vocabulary and imagination that drives us to the dictionary and occasionally to drink. Usually you're no slacker in this area either, yet here you allude to organizations that Google funds but neglect to identify them or their principles. To your credit you furnish the letter from their lobbyist, but ignore the validity and importance of the issues they raise. It does appear that DOJ has more than enough to prosecute Backpages for a laundry list of serious crimes, this legislation wouldn't affect them after the fact anyhow. While I support the prosecution of child traffickers 100%, I also see how this new law may not be so benign as you present. I think there's a more nuanced view to take, and I think you ignore it at all of our perils. Perhaps if you had identified those mysterious entities we'd have better perspective from which to develop an informed opinion. In an age where people can be tried, twice mind you, for laughing at the AG, government issues subpoenas for millions of visitors to websites it doesn't like, and the purported leader of the free world is tweeting pictures of him wrestling CNN man or running him down with a train, we all need protection.
This heartfelt plea would hold a lot more water if you references weren't so vague. One of the things I find inspiring in the NYT's columnist's work is their specificity. Gail Collins regales us with arcane absurdities, Charles Blow with incontrovertible statistics, Maureen Dowd (at her best) with vocabulary and imagination that drives us to the dictionary and occasionally to drink. Usually you're no slacker in this area either, yet here you allude to organizations that Google funds but neglect to identify them or their principles. To your credit you furnish the letter from their lobbyist, but ignore the validity and importance of the issues they raise. It does appear that DOJ has more than enough to prosecute Backpages for a laundry list of serious crimes, this legislation wouldn't affect them after the fact anyhow. While I support the prosecution of child traffickers 100%, I also see how this new law may not be so benign as you present. I think there's a more nuanced view to take, and I think you ignore it at all of our perils. Perhaps if you had identified those mysterious entities we'd have better perspective from which to develop an informed opinion. In an age where people can be tried, twice mind you, for laughing at the AG, government issues subpoenas for millions of visitors to websites it doesn't like, and the purported leader of the free world is tweeting pictures of him wrestling CNN man or running him down with a train, we all need protection.
3
If you are concerned about this issue of Backpage, Google and sex trafficking of minors there is an excellent film available on Netflix called I AM JANE DOE. It is well worth the watch and will cause you to see Google in a whole new light. Here is the description:
I am Jane Doe is a documentary chronicling the legal battle that several American mothers are waging on behalf of their middle-school daughters, who were trafficked for commercial sex on Backpage.com, the classified advertising website formerly owned by the Village Voice. The film is narrated by Jessica Chastain, directed by filmmaker Mary Mazzio, and produced by Mazzio along with Alec Sokolow.
I am Jane Doe is a documentary chronicling the legal battle that several American mothers are waging on behalf of their middle-school daughters, who were trafficked for commercial sex on Backpage.com, the classified advertising website formerly owned by the Village Voice. The film is narrated by Jessica Chastain, directed by filmmaker Mary Mazzio, and produced by Mazzio along with Alec Sokolow.
1
I will watch the doc with a particular interest in how these mothers explain where they were while their middle school daughters were meeting sex traffickers.
If Donald Trump isn't afraid of lawsuits, I don't know why Google is.
Not to defend google - but what am I missing here? all of this stuff is apparently illegal already so what will this supposed crackdown add?
3
Sex trafficking is less like bank robbery and more like drug trafficking. It doesn't go away when it's outlawed, it just goes underground. And just as with alcohol during the Prohibition, it's gangs and gangsters who supply the demand. And, just like Prohibition gangsters, sex traffickers depend on the illegality of sex work; if prostitution were legalized, they'd be out of business.
Legalizing prostitution is the best path, from the standpoint of harm reduction. Yes, there will still be problems with underage sex workers. But pimps will have to find another line of work. Prostitutes will receive regular healthcare and would be allowed to organize and bargain collectively (unless Republicans are allowed to outlaw unions).
Legalizing prostitution is the best path, from the standpoint of harm reduction. Yes, there will still be problems with underage sex workers. But pimps will have to find another line of work. Prostitutes will receive regular healthcare and would be allowed to organize and bargain collectively (unless Republicans are allowed to outlaw unions).
4
Why would it be OK, Mr. McPherson, for prostitutes to receive regular healthcare (I'm assuming you mean this to be free), when I don't?
But the picture you paint of them bargaining collectively is worth a giggle. Thanks.
But the picture you paint of them bargaining collectively is worth a giggle. Thanks.
1
Backpage is not the problem. This problem existed before backpage and will be there long after backpage is gone. The problem is that there are criminals willing to enslave young girls (and boys, I imagine) and those willing to pay to abuse them. Shutting down backpage will just drive them somewhere else. Before backpage there was craigslist and before that there was the Yellow Pages. Who knows how many underground and dark web sites there are that are facilitating these crimes, well under the radar?
Backpage provides law enforcement with low-hanging fruit. Develop profiles to identify ads of sex traffickers and go after them. Investigate! Set up stings nation-wide to catch child predators. Enact laws to send those who would knowingly pay for sex with a child to jail for a very, very long time. Lastly, stop arresting and shaming sex workers(and customers) of legal age who are working independently and willingly. If we diverted those resources to pursue only those who would exploit children, we might make a dent in this terrible underworld.
Backpage provides law enforcement with low-hanging fruit. Develop profiles to identify ads of sex traffickers and go after them. Investigate! Set up stings nation-wide to catch child predators. Enact laws to send those who would knowingly pay for sex with a child to jail for a very, very long time. Lastly, stop arresting and shaming sex workers(and customers) of legal age who are working independently and willingly. If we diverted those resources to pursue only those who would exploit children, we might make a dent in this terrible underworld.
2
Their motto, an admonition to us, obviously doesn't apply to them.
Thank you Nick. Google should be ashamed. It can also use some of its wealth to help the victims of child trafficking.
1
Wow, I know sex trafficking exists but never imagined that it could exist so openly through an online website....and I suspect there are many more.... Thank you Mr. Kristof
1
Keep up the pressure on Backpage.com, Google, and all of their other enablers, Nick!
2
Although there is no inkling of it from his telling, there are serious issues with this law, and I encourage interested readers to research it elsewhere.
Mr. Kristof, you and your ilk are the biggest promoters of trafficking. Just as our violent drug war has failed utterly and instead promoted the criminal drug industry, moralistic criminalization of sex work has failed for a century. Criminalization instead forces the most vulnerable individuals into far more dangerous situations and gives "pimps" power. By promoting false narratives, and frauds like Somali Mam, you have long since destroyed your credibility on this issue.
Mr. Kristof, you and your ilk are the biggest promoters of trafficking. Just as our violent drug war has failed utterly and instead promoted the criminal drug industry, moralistic criminalization of sex work has failed for a century. Criminalization instead forces the most vulnerable individuals into far more dangerous situations and gives "pimps" power. By promoting false narratives, and frauds like Somali Mam, you have long since destroyed your credibility on this issue.
4
It seems you don't object to children being raped repeatedly by strange (read that word as you will), Anders of the North.
Or are the children offering their wares willingly?
And why should we be concerned about it all, anyway? Right?
Or are the children offering their wares willingly?
And why should we be concerned about it all, anyway? Right?
2
Another example of Google's problems....ads for a medical group appeared in the margin of this story. Google is pulling this information in violation of federal HIPA laws. Ads for ugly slippers can be ignored. This cannot.
Nicholas Kristof has lost all credibility. Here's a quote from this article: "Google’s motto has long been “Don’t be evil,” and I admire lots about the company." And then he goes on to outline how Google is using its enormous power to lobby Congress against trying to help children who have been sold to sex traffickers. Google can have any motto they want, it doesn't make what they dream up true. They are evil and they have been proving it lately, but I guess Mr. Kristof missed the fact that they pressured the New America Foundation to fire Barry Lynn for pointing out that they are a dangerous monopoly and need to be reined in. It was written about in this newspaper.
Where and who can we contact to stop this evil?
1
..... and we wonder how America became fertile ground for the election of DJT. This is but just one drip (albeit a large one) into the cesspool of moral ambiguity that encompasses a lot of America. I remember as a young naive woman listening to the Watergate trial on the radio, and wondering why you would sell your soul for money or power, and the beat goes on......Ken Lay, Bernie Madoff, Wall Street, DJT, Mitch McConnell......
Wake up Google! If a young woman was banging on your door for help, and you saw her face-to-face, you would help. She is banging on your door NOW.
Wake up Google! If a young woman was banging on your door for help, and you saw her face-to-face, you would help. She is banging on your door NOW.
4
Sorry NYTimes......today's opinion pages are overwhelming in their implications and conclusions......and Mr. Kristof's ignited my fury to the next level. So.......
Why not locate the spaces occupied by Backpage.....use sledge hammers to destroy all the computer hardware and software and desks and chairs and water coolers and everything else. Escort all the people found there out of where it is and burn the buildings to the ground.
And my recommendation for those despicable pimps who are convicted ....
a one day sentence to be served in a cage with 6 hyenas who have not been fed for two weeks.
Why not locate the spaces occupied by Backpage.....use sledge hammers to destroy all the computer hardware and software and desks and chairs and water coolers and everything else. Escort all the people found there out of where it is and burn the buildings to the ground.
And my recommendation for those despicable pimps who are convicted ....
a one day sentence to be served in a cage with 6 hyenas who have not been fed for two weeks.
2
Google, please append your motto to add: ...and don't be complicit.
3
google is kinda like the pres they stand for nothing. just their interests
2
If we know that there's a ton of sex trafficking on Backpage, wouldn't we want it to stay open, then one by one (hopefully in a short amount of time) undercover police can make appointments and arrest the pimps when they show up? If I see a bunch of roaches in a corner, I don't shoo them. I squash them. It's not like you have a lot of filtering to do, distinguishing between those legally offering sex for money and those illegally doing so. It's all illegal. They're hiding in plain site (it's a pun, not a misspelling). Get them, for God's sake.
4
Another great article. Thanks for the information
Shame on Google.
2
I'm a pediatrician and Google's response sounds like tenant landlords back in the 70's who denied brain damage from lead poisoning and fought legislation that made them remove lead paint from their apartments. Thank you Mr. Kristoff for making us aware. I will be sure my parents know about this. Watch out Google.
95
As much as I have recently grown to despise Google's lack of support for independent thinking, they're 100% correct in this case. We should NEVER give the government more policing power over relatively benign tools, or put the onus on businesses like Backpage to do police work.
38
And so you would rather protect the right to sell children into slavery than threaten the profit of google? At least be honest when you advocate that
4
To protect innocent children, yes, the government needs as much policing CRIMINAL ADULTS as necessary to protect children. Shame on Backpage!!!!! It should be SHUT DOWN and its owners fined and arrested for complicity in child abuse!!!!!
"We should NEVER give the government more policing power over relatively benign tools"
#1 You're mistaken if you think the internet is 'relatively benign'.
#2 MOST of the laws in place now protect us *from* the government manipulating the internet.
#1 You're mistaken if you think the internet is 'relatively benign'.
#2 MOST of the laws in place now protect us *from* the government manipulating the internet.
As an adjunct law professor and attorney who specializes in human trafficking, I strongly oppose this legislation. Trafficking victims will not benefit from SESTA, nor from further attacks on websites and internet intermediaries. Due to its wide accessibility, Backpage regularly enables people to find and recover their loved ones; nonprofits use it as a resource for identifying and reaching out to victims; and scores of criminal indictments reveal its value as a point of connection between police and victims. Mr. Kristof himself has discovered victims simply by searching through posted ads.
Free speech advocates have (rightly) attacked SESTA for the injury it would cause to the information exchange on the Internet, and it is time for anti-trafficking advocates to add our voices as well. The title of this op-ed should be corrected to "Google and Sex Traffickers and Anti-Trafficking Advocates and Law Enforcement Like Backpage.com."
Free speech advocates have (rightly) attacked SESTA for the injury it would cause to the information exchange on the Internet, and it is time for anti-trafficking advocates to add our voices as well. The title of this op-ed should be corrected to "Google and Sex Traffickers and Anti-Trafficking Advocates and Law Enforcement Like Backpage.com."
74
Professor Levy, it seems to me that this rare unanimity among states attorneys general belies your objections to this proposed legislation. I'm with the mother who said. “Our children can’t be the cost of doing business...”
1
Krisof wrote: "The Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act won’t end trafficking any more than laws end bank robbery, but 50 attorneys general around the country have signed a letter saying that this kind of legislation would help — an astonishing unanimity."
This paragraph, and other, like the support of Senator Blumenthal, makes your attack suspect. Do you have any conflicts of interest here?
This paragraph, and other, like the support of Senator Blumenthal, makes your attack suspect. Do you have any conflicts of interest here?
3
Alex,
In light of your comment and experience, just an honest question on my part to develop an informed opinion. If law enforcement and anti-trafficking advocates like Backpages.com for "its value as a point of connection between police and victims" why do you think the 50 attorneys general signed the letter saying that SESTA type legislation would help?
Thanks,
KS
In light of your comment and experience, just an honest question on my part to develop an informed opinion. If law enforcement and anti-trafficking advocates like Backpages.com for "its value as a point of connection between police and victims" why do you think the 50 attorneys general signed the letter saying that SESTA type legislation would help?
Thanks,
KS
2
Google is a great company. Actually, and I say this with some trepidation, an essential body of knowledge and services, so to promote learning and reflect on our changing needs and wishes. And yet, it's not free, as it demands a distinct responsibility for fairness, especially towards those that can't defend themselves, children. Accordingly, Google representatives must speak up, clearly and decisively, to show they are for social justice, for freedom but not license to abuse it. Nothing less will do.
4
Google would gain a lot more credibility if it showed how it takes steps to combat child sex trafficking. Opposing this legislation in the absence of showing how it handles this problem takes a lot of wind out of the sails of the "Don't Be Evil" motto.
87
The worlds largest internet corporation " don't be evil" ; don't make me laugh or cry.
26
Thank you Nicholas Kristof! I will contact my Congress people and Google!
23
Google has a gaggle of lawyers and lobbyists to protect their interests. Who do these children have? Google is showing it has no moral compass or social responsibility. Time to change my search engine back to Yahoo.
52
I am quitting Google as my search engine, until this law is passed. Thank you Nicholas Kristof.
2
Or better use DuckDuckGo search. Better privacy protection, open source.
3
another reason to call your congressperson and senator
66
Or to acknowledge that Google is contributing force to sexual predators.
1