[everdev]

> since 1996 federal law has provided broad protections for online publishers of third-party content. Backpage has successfully argued that it can’t be held legally responsible for the criminal conduct of others—no matter how reprehensible.

They're not arguing that they have the right to publish ads for illegal services. They're saying they're not liable for what 3rd parties post on their site.

They're saying they're more like journalists, simply reporting what other people are saying (which happens to be promoting illegal services). While it sounds like they are pro-decriminalizing sex work, no one is arguing that it's legal to advertise criminal behavior (selling drugs, weapons, sex, etc.). They're just telling the courts to go after those advertisers individually rather than Backpage.

[DanBC]

Backpage's case would be stronger if they hadn't set themselves up to profit from this type of illegal advert, and if they hadn't hampered law enforcement at every opportunity.

[everdev]

Yeah it's a dubious case IMO. The 1st amendment is incredibly important and even more so in journalism, but this seems like a retroactive last ditch defense.

They clearly wanted to profit off of the sex industry in places where it was still illegal to do so.