Key takeaways from the article are copied below (poorly worded though it may be) and it's worthwhile to note that no criminal charges were filed, only civil.
Running a search on the matter returned a number of articles that all seemed to originate from the same source writer despite not being tagged as a news service release. I'd take that to mean the law firm paid to have the article run in multiple outlets, which I'd further take to mean they hope to sway public opinion before a jury trial, and to advertise their firm.
Following is quoted from the article:
The defendants are seeking damages and attorney's fees.
Five attorneys...representing the women on a pro bono basis...
... asked if an advocacy organization had brought the case to the firm's attention, Montgomery said, "All I would say is that we've been working with a number of groups and trying to be of assistance and trying to meet a legal need that these individual plaintiffs and others like them."
...has communicated with law enforcement officials about the case, but would not specify the policing organizations with which the firm has communicated.
wo Boston women filed suit in federal court today against backpage.com — a website widely linked to pornography and repeatedly accused by victims of sex crimes of serving as a useful tool for pimps.
The woman, ages 17 and 20, filed under the pseudonyms Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2. They are being represented on a pro bono basis by Ropes & Gray.
The complaint alleges that Jane Doe No. 1 was sold for sex in 2012 and 2013 when she was 15-and-16-years-old through the backpage.com website. Between June and September 2013 alone, she was was sold for sex more than 1,000 times at locations in Greater Boston and in Rhode Island, according to a statement from Ropes & Gray.
The second plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 2, was sold for sex when she was 15-years-old in Boston, Saugus, Cambridge and Somerville between 2010 and 2012, according to the complaint.
The women allege that, when they were sold for sex, pimps use backpage.com to identify and communicate with customers.
The women allege among other things that Backstage's owners have deliberately made it "the largest purveyor of online prostitution and child sex trafficking in the United States." Backpage.com accounts for 80 percent or more of online commercial sex advertising in the United States, the complaint states.
Thousands of advertisements run daily in 394 separate geographic areas in the country, according to the complaint.
The named defendants are backpage.com, Camarillo Holding LLC and New Times Media LLC. None immediately responded in court to the suit.
The suit alleges that the defendants in the case forged relationships with law enforcement agencies to make it seem as if they were trying to identify and stop child sex trafficking. The "façade," the lawsuit maintains, included the defendants hiring their first in-house general counsel who "previously had served as a partner at a law firm representing Craigslist.com until its dramatic effort to distance itself from the online sex business."
Backpage.com also has begun accepting Bitcoin as payment, which is largely untraceable and has allowed advertisers to remain anonymous, the complaint said.
Backpage.com also initiated meetings with the National Center of Missing & Exploited Children and presented that the company was among other things implementing technologies to detect underage sex trafficking, the complaint said. The organization made public statements in support of backpage.com, only to realize that backpage.com was trying to create a diversion and "did not intend to adopt these readily available technologies or other practices," the complaint said.
The defendants are seeking damages and attorney's fees.
Five attorneys from Ropes & Gray are representing the women on a pro bono basis, led byJohn Montgomery, who retired as a partner from Ropes & Gray in December 2012, but works on pro bono and public interest matters, according to the firm's website. Montgomery also served as the firm's managing partner from 2004 until 2012, the website said.
When asked if an advocacy organization had brought the case to the firm's attention, Montgomery said, "All I would say is that we've been working with a number of groups and trying to be of assistance and trying to meet a legal need that these individual plaintiffs and others like them."
Montgomery said Ropes & Gray has communicated with law enforcement officials about the case, but would not specify the policing organizations with which the firm has communicated
this effort is being fronted by right-wing group(s) who want to tell consenting adults how to live their lives (many of whom touted "family values" a decade ago)
Key takeaways from the article are copied below (poorly worded though it may be) and it's worthwhile to note that no criminal charges were filed, only civil.
Running a search on the matter returned a number of articles that all seemed to originate from the same source writer despite not being tagged as a news service release. I'd take that to mean the law firm paid to have the article run in multiple outlets, which I'd further take to mean they hope to sway public opinion before a jury trial, and to advertise their firm.
Following is quoted from the article:
The defendants are seeking damages and attorney's fees.
Five attorneys...representing the women on a pro bono basis...
... asked if an advocacy organization had brought the case to the firm's attention, Montgomery said, "All I would say is that we've been working with a number of groups and trying to be of assistance and trying to meet a legal need that these individual plaintiffs and others like them."
...has communicated with law enforcement officials about the case, but would not specify the policing organizations with which the firm has communicated.
They have 45+'State Attorney Generals after them. At some point the dam will burst.
They beat the bushes to find complaintants... could an advocacy group have planted the ads... Lacking a client arrest how could we be sure the incidents actually occurred? Like under-age dancers caught in a Providence Strip club who presented false ID...
Make no mistake, this is being pursued by those who want to tell others of conscenting age what to do with their bodies. Instead of pursueing arrests against the men, PIMPS, who coersed the underage girls to do these things
go after all the magazines and fashion designers who use 12/13 yr girls to wear 20lbs of makeup and expensive clothes. Not one magazine wants to see a woman overweight or with wrinkles.
I constantly have more men tell me I don't need the amt of makeup or to be skinny in this hobby versus guys who look at fashion magazines. I was told I was too short and too odd looking with my filipino features growing up by model scouts.
they are the true causes of pedophiles. Why are 12 yr old girls lying in bed with just underwear or looking like they are passed out in so many photos? We need to sue New York Fashion and Hollywood for this crap.
How many actresses are in sexy roles over age 40 vs this hobby? We have 50 yr old escorts making top dollar on TER, you won't see that in movies as much. They want the 18 yr old girl with the 50 yr old.
I have even been told my clients that back in the 70-80's playboy had more variety in haircolor/body type/looks for the parties vs now all Hugh's girlfriends look identical.....18 yr old platinum blonde hair and a size 2
You are absolutely right, Joan. A big part of this problem is the fashion industry and the media in general. As if, regular guys won't look twice at a 35+ year old woman. Funny, I get looks all the time, and I'm 44. Anyways, our media puts out some very negative messages from 13 year old models looking like fuck dolls to anorexic sized models to bleach blondes who act as if they have no mind.
feel very sorry for these women/girls, because they were trafficked. However, it is not the fault of backpage. That's like saying that we should chop up some of the streets, because pimps control the girls working on them. Or let's get rid of clubs, because a lot of pimps use them, too. If they don't have backpage, they will use other mediums/advertisers. Worse yet, it could bel forced underground which will make it even more dangerous for the girls and harder for LE to catch them. Backpage does cooperate with law enforcement to find and rescue underage girls and prosecute pimps. A lot of these scumbag pimps have been prosecuted, because they are easier to locate off sites like backpage or whatever major advertiser there is (adultsearch, etc.). If backpage is shut down, a LOT of legitimate providers are going to be out of work. Not good.
Another thing is that half the equation that enables these traffickers to exist are the johns. You guys need to start paying attention to the signs of trafficked women, because LE is now targeting you as being part of the problem. Young girl, cheap rates, will do anything, TGTBT, looks stoned, etc