In defense of the website, which had posts advertising the sale of three young girls as prostitutes, its lawyer asserted innocence before the Washington Supreme Court on Tuesday as the advertisements were not written by the administrators themselves. Hence, the website cannot be held accountable and the lawsuits filed against it should be dismissed. 

Like Us on Facebook

According to Jim Grant, the lawyer defending the stand of Backpage.com in this case, the Congress created the communications act in order to preserve free speech on the Internet. This reason behind the law grants the website immunity for the information posted by its members or users.

"Backpage did not create or develop the ads," Grant argued before the court. "And holding it responsible would chill that speech," he added.

On the other hand, the victim's lawyer, Erik Bauer, asserted that Backpage had no immunity over such activities in accordance with the federal Communications Decency Act since the website has made itself available to be used a marketplace to advertise "escort services".

In addition, Backpage has been revealed to aid pimps by providing guidelines on writing an effective advertisements. Hence, the website is considered a significant participant in the biggest online human-trafficking business in the United States.

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

Bauer disclosed that his clients were only in the 7th and 9th grades when they were sold as prostitutes by professional sex traffickers by utilizing the website. Moreover, he claimed that these adult pimps were aware that Backpage allowed these prostitution advertisements to be posted anonymously.

Moreover, the justices expressed incredulity on the argument presented in behalf of Backpage, especially regarding the content of the website.

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

As for Justice Charles Johnson, the defense of the website was clarified whether it was an "ostrich issue".

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

The justices expressed their intention to give their decision at a later date.

TagsBackpage, Washington Supreme Court, child prostitution, Child abuse, online prostitution, Communications Decency Act, Human Trafficking, human sex trafficking