[godfather dust]

Prostition being legal would not cause more child trafficking. Obviously child prostitution would stay illegal and a regulated industry would not involve pimps selling teenagers.

[TigerMandingo]

Bottom line is America is weird about sex. It's the Puritan heritage and the all the weird offshoots of Christianity that sprung up here.

[Enigma]

(04-13-2018 12:29 AM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

Were western men paying for livestreams of children being abused on backpage?

Would the rotherdam sexual abuse have been stopped by banning prostitution, when there are already laws against sexual abuse on the books that weren't enforced? Will making life more difficult for hookers in the US somehow protect german women from being assaulted by rapefugees on the street?

What on Earth are you talking about?

Does every case of child sex trafficking have to occur through Backpage for child sex trafficking to exist? The guy was laundering money and pleady guilty to human trafficking across 17 countries, why don't you ask him or his defense lawyer for the details.

People asked for examples of trafficking busts, I provided them.

Now, rather than admitting that you don't know what you're talking about, you try to sidetrack the conversation with silly strawmen.

Here's another example:

Former Oklahoma State Senator pleads guilty to child sex trafficking after using Craigslist to meet underage boys for sex

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/...cking.html

[SamuelBRoberts]

Rotherdam, abused children, and german migrant assaults were your examples. I didn't pull them out of thin air.

But that link you provided gives the game up. When a normal person thinks "Child Sex Trafficking" they think, well, human trafficking of children, for the purposes of sex. One of the most despicable and evil crimes imaginable. Organized crime. Abuse. Children's lives ruined forever.

What did the guy in your link do?
He tried to pay for a 17-year old prostitute in a hotel. Via some bizarre application of the federal code, this crime, which would normally be a local or state issue, somehow became "child sex trafficking" with a 10 year to LIFE felony federal sentence.

Stupid? Yes. Illegal? Yes. Child sex trafficking? Absolutely not. Worthy of life in jail? That's insane.

This is ridiculous.

[Enigma]

The other links included dozens of children as young as 3-months-old, which is why you ignored them. The pilot who was sentenced to life was fucking 7-year-old boys. Do you not think that's worthy of a life sentence?

The entire argument was that child sex trafficking doesn't exist so this must be a government conspiracy.

When in fact, even Backpage has never denied their site was used for child trafficking, they simply claimed they weren't responsible. But the investigation uncovered evidence that they were actually encouraging the ads, which is why the owner plead guilty.

[frozen-ace]

The leader in soft prostitution reacts to the new law and explains they don’t want the hardcore hookers to flood to his site.

I’m reading the text of the law...I bet he is actually shitting bricks right now despite his calm demeanor in the video. They will probably be ok. Backpage was a sleezy site which made for an easy political hit job. SA is a little more classy. Plus, if the Feds go for SA, they will also have to go for Zuckerberg’s Instagram and we know that will never happen.

[TooFineAPoint]

People who worry and fret about child sex trafficking should probably seek psychiatric help.

The kabuki theatre over Backpage should bring shame to any logical adult human.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I see we still have no shortage of people who don't think the Federal government can strongarm a guilty plea even when the person in question is innocent, and even when the government knows they're innocent for a fact.

"They plead guilty, they are villains, end of story".



I too would like to see some of these child trafficking rings chased a bit farther down the road than the expendable middle-men. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together would believe that the bitch in Haiti working for the Clinton Foundation who got prosecuted for child trafficking was operating on her own initiative, but we're supposed to get a boner for prosecuting small time losers while public servants and powerbrokers at the highest levels are given a pass, to mention nothing of our precious muslim immigrants who must never be offended.

Peasant mentality.

[Enigma]

^ I never said that. You just have no argument so you and others are getting bent out of shape.

Again, Backpage has never denied that child sex trafficking existed on their site, the question was whether they tried to stop it or not.

Trump's administration has made this a priority since day 1, people only care about this one because it might slightly hamper their ability to have anonymous sex with women from the internet. The ironic thing is I actually made a popular thread on "Craigslist Game" years ago, but clearly I'm just a prude who doesn't know anything about the interwebz.

Meanwhile, the thread went from "there's no child sex trafficking and no children on Backpage" to "you're a crazy peasant who needs help if you care about that".

I've already proved my point, so I'll leave you guys to argue about muh libertarian values and white knighting for hookers

[Leonard D Neubache]

On what basis do you assume I was referring directly to you?

[Captain Gh]

(04-13-2018 09:00 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

^ I never said that. You just have no argument so you and others are getting bent out of shape.

Again, Backpage has never denied that child sex trafficking existed on their site, the question was whether they tried to stop it or not.

Trump's administration has made this a priority since day 1, people only care about this one because it might slightly hamper their ability to have anonymous sex with women from the internet. The ironic thing is I actually made a popular thread on "Craigslist Game" years ago, but clearly I'm just a prude who doesn't know anything about the interwebz.

Meanwhile, the thread went from "there's no child sex trafficking and no children on Backpage" to "you're a crazy peasant who needs help if you care about that".

I've already proved my point, so I'll leave you guys to argue about muh libertarian values and white knighting for hookers

We all understand your point of view... but can't you see the slippery slope this seizing of Backpage represents? How about the ISP providers. The people committing these atrocious crimes for sure had ISP addresses. Could the providers be made liable next? And what about street prostitution? If you happen to leave near a Prostitution/crime hotspot and you own a business there... who would draw the line of you not be responsible for facilitating criminal activities if you keep it shut?

And everyone would keep their your mouth shut... to avoid getting their head busted... but would the law even care? And what about the hotel giving lodging to prostitutes? If one of them gives a fake ID... is the hotel guilty then? And I could go on & on! Yeah Child trafficking is an awful crime... but it still should be fought without affecting the liberties of Anyone... if not eventually they'll come for something you truly care about.

[AneroidOcean]

Found on Reddit:



From the comments section:

Quote:

There's a reason for that. For a time - at least until 2011, Backpage was sending illegal child-trafficking ads to the feds in a honeypot scenario (not uncommon - I worked for an ISP in KC in 2001 which hosted all kinds of sites which were of interest to the DOH - Taliban and Al-Qaeda affiliated sites specifically. We were instructed to keep them up for monitoring).

I know this because I worked in the same office - not the group mind you. There were 3 companies located there - although they were connected by virtue of being sub-companies of the overall corporate structure (until 2012) which meant my biggest beef with Backpage is they were raiding my dev-pool for talent - which wasn't a small amount of suck.

I checked my conclusions with another dev (who after 10 years) was still in the office and connected to my DM client - although not with Backpage - and he confirmed this earlier this week. My former boss worked closer with Larkin and I'm going to poll his opinion on this too (he left in 2012 after the re-org).

[The Father]

(04-13-2018 12:23 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

28 sexually exploited children rescue and 474 arrested, Feb. 2017

http://ktla.com/2017/02/01/474-arrested-...tion-lasd/

84 children rescued and 120 arrested, Oct. 2017

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/84-...-s-n812156

That particular bust was spread across several states and involved cooperation with authorities from Canada, the UK, Thailand, Cambodia, and the Philippines.

Speaking of the Philippines, they had their largest child porn bust every back in May 2017, which also included rescuing some of the children who had been used in the material. That bust was based on info provided by the US.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-12/af...ng/8521820

Though Backpage wasn't involved in this, there's a reason the suit specifies 17 countries and not just the US (and there's a reason he plead guilty so quickly).

Here's another one. Sacramento pilot receives life sentence for child sex trafficking offenses, Feb. 2018

http://wtkr.com/2018/01/24/california-pi...in-prison/

Much of the worst child trafficking occurs outside of the US, but these days Western men paying for videos or livestreams of children being abused is a huge problem because it then creates an even bigger market for trafficking.

Personally, I could give a fuck if some 30-year-old hooker feels unsafe if it makes it harder for 5-year-old girls to be raped. I'll also take prostitution being illegal over the thousands of little girls "groomed" in the UK or the mass sexual assaults going on liberal Germany, etc.

Adult, non-forced prostitution has existed long before the internet came about and will do just fine without it. In reality, the fact that it's now so easy and less risky is why this #ExposetheSponsor, SeekingArrangement, etc. shit is becoming so out of control.

Hmmm...let's see: "28 commercially and sexually exploited children ...were rescued". What does that mean, exactly? "Commercially exploited"? Did someone use them to get more food stamps? The biggest "commercial exploitation" of children is child support payments! Women use kids as cash crops. Even "sexually exploited" stops short of saying the kids were used as prostitutes; maybe nude photos were taken.

The next article ("128 human traffickers") names one case of someone trying to sell kids for sex, and is silent about what the rest of the "trafficking" is. Coyote's smuggling people across the border? Arranging work for illegals? We have no idea, because like most of these stories, they carry sensationalized headlines and not much detail. How about details of the actual charges, something like "Jason O'Pimp was charged with 184 counts of child prostitution". Why do we never see that?

Look, i'm as much against kids being sexually abused as the next guy. I just don't think backpage or The Erotic Review has much to do with it. The BIGGEST purveyors of kiddie-diddling are groups that the law goes out of its way to protect - trannies, homo's, etc. Most of the action on those sites is willing women renting themselves out to willing men, as happens all over the world and all throughout history. Are there bad actors out there? Sure. Some. Let's arrest them! But you can't shut down the internet because someone once did a drug deal over it, or ban cars because 37K americans a year are killed in them (a tiny fraction far outweighed by the benefits to society of automobiles). Likewise, shutting down sites (which just happen to be favored among men) because somewhere in the world, some kid got touched by a pedophile is silly. Did we shut the catholic church down? They are FAR bigger abusers - and they didn't use the internet. Neither did Sandusky.

And why do i rarely hear about little GIRLS being raped? You do hear about it, but maybe 1/100th as much as you hear little boys being fucked by men. Sorry, but that says to me that pedo's are much more of a problem in the gay community than society is allowed to discuss.

[The Father]

(04-13-2018 12:54 AM)Enigma Wrote:  

Here's another example:

Former Oklahoma State Senator pleads guilty to child sex trafficking after using Craigslist to meet underage boys for sex

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/...cking.html

Ummm...the story says he had a "17-year-old boy in a motel room and accused him of hiring the boy for sex."

That's the "child" you're talking about? Someone who, in a few months or perhaps days, would be 18? For most of human history, a 17 year could fuck (or marry) whomever they pleased. Let's not infantalize them.

Show me a story where someone rips a barbie doll or Thomas the tank engine out of a kid's hand and sells him or her for sex. Then show me 500 of those, and it still doesn't justify censoring the internet.

The answer isn't to throw out the baby with the bath water (no pun intended), it's to arrest the pimps and faggots who do this.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

^^^^^

Building on what The Father wrote, the biggest source of both child abuse and child sexual abuse is...the boyfriends of single mothers. There are scads of sources for this info. I dropped a few links below.

If the government really wanted to put an end to child sexual abuse, it would do something about single mothers. Instead, it created the "single mother culture", by creating the welfare state, in which fathers could not be in the home for mothers to receive gov't assistance.

As with a lot of urban trends, this then bled into the larger culture, which gave us the trend of unmarried moms who date guy after guy.

I'll bet that if all of us counted up the number of girls we knew who were sexually abused by their moms' boyfriends, it would dwarf the number of those Backpage arrests.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...3492900708
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/mums-boyf...32n3s.html

[Raylan Givens]

Topics like this align the forum with degenerates, SJWs, and sexual libertine leftists. There is some Salon-level hamerstering going on in this thread to justify sexual promiscuity.

[SamuelBRoberts]

You think THIS is justifying sexual promiscuity?

Man, god help you if you ever look in the game section of the forum.

[Enigma]

(04-13-2018 02:03 PM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

We all understand your point of view... but can't you see the slippery slope this seizing of Backpage represents? How about the ISP providers. The people committing these atrocious crimes for sure had ISP addresses. Could the providers be made liable next? And what about street prostitution? If you happen to leave near a Prostitution/crime hotspot and you own a business there... who would draw the line of you not be responsible for facilitating criminal activities if you keep it shut?

And everyone would keep their your mouth shut... to avoid getting their head busted... but would the law even care? And what about the hotel giving lodging to prostitutes? If one of them gives a fake ID... is the hotel guilty then? And I could go on & on! Yeah Child trafficking is an awful crime... but it still should be fought without affecting the liberties of Anyone... if not eventually they'll come for something you truly care about.

Bro, have you followed any of the other high profile website closures over the past 5 years? Megaupload, Silk Road, Pirate Bay, etc.?

Did any of those create a "slippery slope"? No. In fact, there are more sites like Megaupload, more darkweb markets, and more torrent portals than ever.

Did the FBI seizing 27 sites in Operation Onymous in 2014 stop people from buying drugs online? Not even close.

Did the 82 fake goods site they seized in 2010 stop cheap Chinese shit from being sold online? Not at all.

More relevantly, Craigslist was forced to shut down their erotic services section nearly 10 years ago. Did that create a slippery slope?

Regarding the ISP comments:

First of all, it's been repeatedly ruled that ISPs are not liable for what people use their service for, as long as they comply with takedown requests. The music industry and Hollywood have been trying to overturn that for decades and have failed.

Secondly, as TravelerKai pointed out, there are many ways around all of this, like using a VPN and hosting the website overseas.

Backpage got busted because they've been under scrutiny for years for allowing child ads to be posted there. Not only did they not try to stop this, they gamed the system to allow them to stay up.

Your analogies about getting arrested because a prostitute is standing down the road are silly and a huge departure from what we're talking about here.

If Backpage had been busted just for allowing adult hookers to post free ads on their site, we could have a different conversation, but that's not what happened. Again, Craigslist had a problem with their erotic services section years ago but didn't face criminal charges -- and aren't now, as far as I know. Many of the same adult hookers that post on Backpage cross post on Craigslist, and there are plenty of others.

People are trying hard to make this fit the narrative of the day, but they simply don't match the facts. I'd note that no one cared when a darkweb drug marketplace was seized -- and rightly so.

Also, Ferrer's lenient plea deal would indicate that he wasnt who they were after in the first place. Whether they're simply using him against the other founders or they're taking it further up the food chain remains to be seen.

Backpage were big donors to Democrats, including Pelosi, by the way.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

^^^

I would argue the shuttering of Web sites did, in fact, send us on the slippery slope. It's created a mentality where a lot of groups think the government should step in and shut down Web sites or ban citizens from social media) when they say or do something these groups don't like.

Case in point: A recent VICE article titled "Social Media Bans Aren't Enough to Stop the Far Right" (here is the cache of the article).

The headline alone takes for granted that "bans" are necessary -- and expected -- to stop people the writer deems "bad." In this case it's "the far right." (By the way, if the "far right" is reaching the mainstream, which is is, then it's mainstream, not "far right." But I digress.)

I'd argue that this started with Craigslist closing down the "erotic" sections of the site ten years ago. That shows there is a sort of morality behind these decisions -- and morality itself is very relative. Anyone can claim a moral high ground, esp. when you start bringing "the children" into the discussions.

Illegality is one thing, but what's immoral? Is the "far right" immoral? Is a disabled war veteran seeking female "companionship" immoral? And who is anyone to say, anyway?

I'm with you all on closing down sites that break the law per se. But I am not behind the nebulous claims of "morality" that underpin all of this.

[rpg]

Somewhat related, the Texas court has determined criminalizing revenge porn is a violation of 1st amendment. Many people have been arrested for uploading pics and videos of exes.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

On the heels of FOSTA and SESTA, a new bill was drafted that makes it easy for the gov't to seize bank accounts for anyone it deems dealing in "human trafficking" -- a charge with a frighteningly loose definition.

The bill is called the End Banking for Human Trafficking Act and it's already passed in the House. It was sponsored by Marco Rubio and Elizabeth Warren, so it has bipartisan support.

Why does this concern us? Because as I wrote on the thread about actress Allison Mack, the gov't can declare almost any sexual act it doesn't like as "human trafficking."

Mack was accused of helping some self-improvement "guru" pick up women. As I wrote, neither she nor the "guru" trafficked anyone. But since trafficking hysteria is in vogue, now they're hit with massive, trumped-up charges.

(In the early 20th century, the gov't came up with something called "The Mann Act" to combat the "white slave trade," which was as fictional and paranoic as the trafficking fears we see today. It just gave officials a reason to arrest men they deemed as troublesome for charges like "taking a minor across state lines." Huh? So you can drive a minor from Frisco down to San Diego and that's cool...but take her across state lines and you go to jail! But I digress.)

Reason Magazine, by the way, also came out with an article that states what I basically said: The trafficking charges against Allison Mack are unwarranted. They might fall under the categories of fraud or harassment, but not trafficking.

But this is what happens when people get caught up in a craze. EVERYTHING starts to fall under the specific category of that craze. In the 1970s it was "cults." You don't hear about them now, though. Why is that? Guess the media and law enforcement moved on after they cashed in on that one. In the 1980s it was satan and daycare centers.

It's also worth noting that in the Preppie, clean-cut 1980s, we had the War on Drugs. Most middle class kids weren't addicts. This was just a way to fill prisons with poor people who couldn't afford legal representation. Those prisons are getting emptier with the legalization of pot -- just as officials are finding a way to fill them back up.

Anyone involved in the game community, the PUA scene, or anything of the sort should keep appraised of all this. When you combine this with the anti-male hysteria stoked by #metoo, it's looking more and more like we're headed into a New Victorian Age. If we're not there already.

[TooFineAPoint]

(04-27-2018 09:49 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

On the heels of FOSTA and SESTA, a new bill was drafted that makes it easy for the gov't to seize bank accounts for anyone it deems dealing in "human trafficking" -- a charge with a frighteningly loose definition.

The bill is called the End Banking for Human Trafficking Act and it's already passed in the House. It was sponsored by Marco Rubio and Elizabeth Warren, so it was obviously originally drafted by Satan himself.

Fixed for you.

[debeguiled]

Master List of Terms That Can Mean Anything:

Grooming.

Trafficking.

Hate Speech.

Harassment.

Domestic Violence.

Rape.

Targeting.

White Supremacy.

Privilege.

Research.

Nazi.

Misogynist.

Anti-Semite.

Transphobe.

Homophobe.

Aggression.

Harm.

Racist.

Sexist.

What am I missing?

[Days of Broken Arrows]

All of these laws are having major ripple effects. Facebook has come out with new rules and Twitter is now banning sexy images right and left.

People on the right felt the effects of social media crackdowns years ago. Well, now people on the left are feeling it too.

This has unexpectedly (and hilariously) caused feminists to realize they now have to support the manosphere. Talk about strange bedfellows. But I guess it's good these people finally realized that supporting bans against others means unwittingly supporting bans against their own:

[url=https://twitter.com/ErosBlogBacchus/status/989134889772572674][/url]

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Delete. Double-posted accidentally.