"IT'S UNCOMFORTABLE" LAWYER SAYS, BUT CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING WEBSITE "IS PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL".?

The legal system in the U.S. as I have said many times before is a systemically dysfunctional cesspool of injustice, in particular when it involves the rights of victims.

Just when you think that the legal system has sunk as low as it can go, guess what, it sinks even deeper into the shit hole of the out of touch with reality, seemingly insane minds of those in this system who supposedly are there to protect us by upholding the justice that we are all entitled under the laws of our Country.

There aren't many things in this world that stink more than the human trafficking of children for sex and profit. Child sex slaves are thought of as something that happens in "other countries" not here in the United States. Wrong!

The Supreme Court of the State of Washington is currently considering arguments on behalf of a group of former child sex slaves.

In a continuing mockery of our sicko legal system, a lawyer told the Washington State Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 21, 2014 that a lawsuit filed by three young girls in the 7th and 9th grades, who were sold as prostitutes on a website, should be thrown out because the website didn't write the ads, so it's not liable for what happened to them.

But the victims' lawyer said the website, doesn't have immunity under the federal Communications Decency Act because the website markets itself as a place to sell "escort services" and provides pimps with instructions on how to write an ad that works, making them a participant in the largest human trafficking website in the U.S.

These children were rented out as "escorts" using a website known as Backpage.com.

The pimp who took out the ads in this case went to jail, so that's not the issue.

The issue now is whether the website itself can be held responsible for ads placed by those pimps and the fact that this Case has still survived despite the obvious complicity of that website in promoting the slave sex trading of children.

Clearly, to any civilized human being, this is all about selling children for sex and shamelessly profiting in advertising dollars by the Backpage.com owners who are in my opinion considered pimps as well.

To make matters even worse, these website pimps are cowardly, their heads deliberately up their greedy ass, trying to hide behind the manipulation of certain words used by their Attorney, essentially attempting to justify their own moral, ethical, and legal accountability in actively promoting the human sex trafficking of children.

The lawyer for the children has argued that the website owners are guilty because the site posted rules on how to write the ad in a way that "One of the rules says, 'Don't advertise time increments in 15 minutes. It's actually instructions to pimps on how to post an ad that works."

But the lawyer for Backpage says, don't be ridiculous. Escort services are legal, and those advertising guidelines are actually designed to deter the sleazeball element from misusing the site.

"Because the plaintiffs admitted that the ads that are written here were authored, created, posted by the pimps that actually victimized them," says Backpage's lawyer.

He's saying just because a site allows ads for escort services and a lot of those escorts turn out to be 14 or 15 year old children, it might be uncomfortable, but it's perfectly constitutional.

Prompting one justice to comment under his breath, "It's somewhat of an ostrich defense." He continues, "That (Backpage) escapes liability by sticking (its) head in the sand and just don't pay any attention to what's being done.

People opposed to child sex trafficking rally outside of the Washington state Supreme Court on Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2014, in Olympia, Wash. The court was hearing a case filed by three victims who say the website Backpage.com helps promote the exploitation of children. (AP Photo/Rachel La Corte)

A similar case was filed last week in federal court in Boston, but a previous case in Missouri was dismissed, said Yiota Souras, a lawyer with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. "The Washington state case has gone further than any previous case," she said.

Suggesting they might be skeptical about Backpage's argument, the justices asked lawyer Jim Grant about the website's content."Your client wouldn't say with a straight face that 'escort service' doesn't mean something else most of the time," Justice Steven Gonzalez asked.

Justice Charles Johnson asked whether this 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?" Johnson asked.

Grant said when Congress wrote the communications act, it wanted to preserve free speech on the Internet so it gave immunity to websites like Backpage for things posted by users or members of the site."Backpage did not create or develop the ads," he said. And holding it responsible would chill that speech, he said.

But Erik Bauer, the victims' lawyer, said his clients were children, when adult professional sex traffickers sold the girls as prostitutes on Backpage. The pimps knew they could run their ads anonymously, he said.

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

While Backpage didn't write the ads, it helps develop them in part, he said. It also gives advertisers specific instructions on what the ads should say in order to be successful, Bauer said.

Justice Debra Stephens asked Bauer if the website has a tool to scrub information to make it anonymous. If it did, it might be liable for that tool, she said.

Justice Mary Yu asked if Bauer thought he would find more evidence that Backpage was creating or writing ads if the case went forward and he said he believes the records reveal how deeply it's involved in the developing and marketing the ads.

Sadly, it is these Justices, like so many before them, who minutely, intellectually dissect word by word argued by others whose sole purpose is to avoid the true intent of the law in protecting us and punishing those who are evil and harm others.

Who speaks up for these abused victimized children?

Who speaks up for justice given to all victims of crimes?

It is the esteemed "Justices" who will speak to rule on the case at a later date. 

Since Backpage has won all of its cases so far, the courts seem to be saying that's just what the Founding Fathers intended. 

Unless the Washington State case goes differently but in the circus of the legal system, don't expect much.

WHEN DOES "YES" REALLY MEAN "YES"?

In the male social culture of relationships with women, when I was growing up it was believed by most men, that when initiating different stages of sex with a woman and she says "no", that it is her playing "hard to get" and the real meaning is yes.

No woman wants her reputation to be that she is "easy" and so the belief was that this was simply part of the interaction. This was and is especially true of the younger generation in the past, as well as today's world.

Clearly, "no" means "no, and any other interpretation is an assumption that has led to numerous horrific cases of rape, criminal charges, suicide, trauma, and ruined lives.

California now has a "YES means Yes" law-Click Here- intended to deter sexual assault on campus. Under this law, to make love legally, each partner must agree as they "tag each base". 

This law attempts to define when yes means yes in College assault cases.

Just because a female said yes to being kissed doesn't mean she has said yes to having her breast or any other part of her body touched.

It seems absurd to me that anybody who thinks you can replace lust with a logical step by step government questionnaire, just hasn't been to college lately, or had contact with the younger generation.

In reality, the root of the problem is the serious cultural permission concerning the out of control drinking of alcohol, substance abuse among young people in "modern" society.

Today's party culture is so out of control that before the typical hookup, the average girl has had four drinks, and the average guy has had seven.

So yes, the law states that an intoxicated girl is incapable of giving legal consent even if she said "yes." But the guy she's with is too drunk to realize that, and often, too drunk to realize he's too drunk.

Certainly there have been many publicized cases world wide of horrifying incidents of date rape, gang rape, and forced rape by men of women victims which defy any sense of humanity.

There are many other times that these rapes go unreported by its victims due to embarrassment, shame, severe trauma, cultural mores, and genuine fear of retaliation.

Clearly this is a terribly critical, complex issue without easy answers, but is legislation by Governments, of "yes means yes", the answer?

Personally I think that it's unfair to  automatically assume the guy is always at fault when the girl also decided to drink too much.The woman is not always the losing person in this situation.

Any son, or their parents does not want their child to be accused of rape, and labeled a sexual predator for the rest of his life.

Bottom line: if colleges really want to prevent sexual assault, they have to understand the real issue isn't the sex.

The issues are about alcohol, substance abuse.

Most colleges pay "lip service" to the abuse of substance and alcohol abuse by their students. Binge drinking is common and openly done, often a way of initiation by Fraternities and Sororities. 

It's been this way for decades and remains unchanged.
 
The problem with "yes means yes" legislation, while the rules/laws although clearly stated should be respected by all, they are hard to recall when both of you are dead drunk and naked.

You cannot legislate away these types of problems by legal semantics.  

If Colleges, Society, Parents, People, want to seriously address the real issues, then there has to be meaningful, systemic, direct actions on their part, that are directed to educating and teaching personal accountability of all for their actions when violating the rights of others, no matter what a piece of legislation states.

Don't hold your breath for that to ever happen in a world such as we live in, where taking personal accountability and confronting the real issues, rarely is part of the way solutions are found.