AVN wants you to believe that a Trump-Vance ticket would
lead to the criminalization of p*** under Project 2025. But Kamala Harris, the
Democrat nominee, does alright by herself when it comes to p***, as history
proves.
And let's see how strikingly familiar it is to what's going
on with P***hub.
Back in 2016 then-California Attorney General Harris filed
criminal charges of pimping and money laundering against the chief executive
and controlling shareholders of the website Backpagedotcom, reviving a case
that was dismissed by a judge.
Harris brought new charges against Backpage CEO Carl Ferrer
and controlling shareholders Michael Lacey and James Larkin including 26 counts
of money laundering and 13 counts of pimping and conspiracy to commit pimping.
At the time, Backpage was the second-largest U.S. online
classified ad service after Craigslist. Prior, it had faced scrutiny from the
U.S. Senate as well as civil lawsuits over allegations that the site
facilitates s** trafficking, especially of children. [Like P***hub]
But efforts to prosecute the company had been blocked by a
federal law that shields website operators from responsibility for content
posted by third-parties.
The complaint filed by Harris alleged that the defendants
created multiple corporate entities to launder money and circumvent the refusal
of financial institutions to process Backpage transactions because of overtly s**ual
material.
Harris also alleged that the defendants created other sites
to increase the company's prostitution-related revenue and developed content
for those sites by using victims' photographs or information without their
knowledge.
Another civil lawsuit was filed in 2012 against Backpage in
Washington State by three young teenagers who alleged they were raped multiple
times after being advertised on the site. The girls, the oldest of whom was 15,
sued Backpage for claims including s**ual exploitation of children, alleging
its posting rules were intended to instruct pimps how to post trafficking ads
that evade law enforcement.
Backpage argued it has rules to prevent unlawful posts, and
some free speech advocates filed briefs in support of its position. The
Washington state Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the lawsuit could go
forward.
0 Comments