Despite your effort to frame the conversation that way, nobody is claiming that every "lolita" Backpage ad was a pimped child. The claim is simply that some were, and that Backpage knew it. It wasn't up to Lacey and Larkin to make a best effort at profiting from illegal prostitution ads while not profiting from child sex abuse: they were repeatedly given ways to mitigate the latter crime, and they repeatedly refused to do anything meaningful about it.
They belong in prison.
Let's roll with that. Since it's impossible to know which pr0n on tube sites is underage, and it's almost certain that some will be, all porn tube sites must be banned.
Since it's impossible to know which email accounts are used for child sex trafficking, and it's almost certain that some will be, all email services must be banned. There's really no limit to how far you can go with this.
Why don't you start right now? Youporn, xhampster, xvideos, there are dozens - they all have "teen" sections. Send them a letter letting them know that their website is used by "child" pornographers (you're unsure which images, of course, it's really hard to tell with 17/18 year olds). That starts Claim #1 "defendant was notified that their site facilities child pornography". Better yet, get a law enforcement agency to do it, that looks better on the indictment. The fact that uploads ban/strip the word 'lolita' (they do, actually) - Claim #2!
The good news for the Backpage guys is that in court, every single one of those points in the indictment are going to have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The bad news is it won't matter because what's really going on is that they're being prosecuted for facilitating adult prostitution, and our puritanical society has barely come to grips with the fact that sex toys are now legal (marijuana is still pending).
No matter what you think of Lacey and Larkin, the loss of backpage and craigslist adult is a huge step backwards for female autonomy.
For the nth time, I'm receptive to the harm reduction argument for sites like Backpage. They just need to be run by people who won't try to profit from child prostitution.
Supporters of Backpage can talk tough on message boards in advance of the trial, but those guys are going to lose in court, and lose bad. It's a nightmare indictment. This notion that they're going to prevail at trial seems like it depends on the idea that the jury is going to nullify for two middle aged men who knowingly profited from child sex trafficking. It's not going to happen.
That leaves the moral question.
They were running a board posting prostitution ads. We agree that this is a-ok. The claim is that in some cases, some of the posts were advertising underage prostitution or sex trafficking. The number is disputed, but I think we can also agree it was a minority. I am sure we can further agree that inevitably, since some sex trafficking exists, someone will try to advertise it.
The attorney generals, or NCMEC, argued that Backpage should shutdown it's prostitution section, citing, among other things, sex trafficking. You are open to the idea that in the name of harm reduction, such a section should exist, though. So ok, Backpage doesn't shut it down.
Some suggestions were made how Backpage might otherwise reduce sex trafficking occurring on their website. Those included things like having submitters provide ID documents. It seems that you believe that refusing to do so is what made Backpage evil, when it otherwise would have been ok. That obviously depends on the sensibility of those suggestions. Maybe you think that they were no-brainers, likely to save the lives of thousands of children. I think they were invasive, made in bad faith, not likely to make a difference, yet totally undermining the Backpage as harm reduction argument.
Suffice it to say that I don't want to run a prostitution website with your blessing, but on the mercy of a bunch of attorney generals not being able to convince you that I didn't do "enough" to combat abuse. That seems like a precarious position to be in.
Now maybe if they did require IDs, or implemented other changes, they would have gained your approval. But it is unlikely it would have saved them from an indictment, or from the ire of sex-trafficking hysterics, nor the politicians trying to ride the PR wave.
There are sites that work differently than Backpage. They have advertisers maintain permanent profiles. They have higher barriers to entry and more checks. They may require a login to see any content. This gains them a lower profile, but ultimately does not protect them (see Redbook, Rent Boy, and probably others I do not recall right now).
The majority of sex workers are neither sex trafficking victims, nor high-class escorts with a Twitter profile. A lot of them might be similar to, say, the mother portrayed in the film Florida Project. They don't want to maintain a profile. This is not their full time job. They might post an ad today to earn some money, then delete it tomorrow. Backpage served this clientele. The silver lining here might be that the government is not, now, in the possession of the identities of tens of thousands of these woman.
I looked at some of the points that you mentioned specifically, and I stand by my position. I support Backpage publishing ads for prostitution, and I would draw the line at them in any way supporting underage prostitution or sex trafficking. I don't see anything here that tells me that Backpage did that.
If you would like me to refute any point in particular, let me know.
Just as an example of how I am reading things. You refer to:
#39 - A letter by attorney generals saying Backpage should stop accepting prostitution ads, with the claim that "ads trafficking children" are among them in a subordinate clause. It does even claim that Backpage ignored those ads, or encouraged them.
Things like #61, #67 or #78, re. the word filter: It's obviously controversial, but look, there are thousands of ads using words like "teen" or "lolita". None of them mean that actual children are involved. In fact, NCMEC said, quote "It is virtually impossible to determine how old the young women in these ads are without an in-depth criminal investigation. The pimps try to make the 15 year olds look 23".
They can filter those words silently, they can block them explicitly ("guiding traffickers about how to write their ads" they will say), or they can have them posted as-is. And they can choose which of those ads warrant a report because they look like actual trafficking, which apparently they did.
I mean, let's say you and me want to run a prostitution ad site like Backpage, you figure you could do it in a way that would not end up with you in the position Backpage is in right now?
#86, and #87, and #88 is interesting: First of all, the ad is deleted once it is pointed out on Backpage.com. And Backpagepics.com may well not be under the control of Backpage, as they say; they might not be able to do anything about it.
Now, reading this I did think that not bothering, on purpose, to respond to a mother who's child has been kidnapped is pretty awful behaviour (though it still doesn't proof they condoned trafficking).
However, the indictment doesn't quote Padilla here, it paraphrases. For all we know, he told the subordinate: Answer the email, but just so you know this, Backpagepics.com is not owned by us, in general we don't have a legal responsibility to deal with them. Or, maybe Padilla showed a gross lack of empathy here.
But think the government wouldn't blatantly misrepresent this email, while also not lying? Think again.
As I said, if you would like me to address a specific point, I am happy to.