Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/08/02/jim-larkin-backpage-exec-dies-by-suicide-a-week-before-his-trial/

by mreome • 3 years ago

102 75 3 years ago

msie• 3 years ago

Sad, trying to fight politicians and DA capitalizing on moral panic.

sunk1st2• 3 years ago

I would like to read more about the circumstances surrounding the memo that the DOJ was successful in preventing from entering as evidence.

boomboomsubban• 3 years ago

https://www.techdirt.com/2019/08/28/new-government-documents...

It links to a story about it.

sunk1st2• 3 years ago

Thanks. Very sad situation. Hard to understand how those memos would be sealed away from use by the defense.

myshpa• 3 years ago

“unlike virtually every other website that is used for prostitution and sex trafficking, Backpage is remarkably responsive to law enforcement requests and often takes proactive steps to assist in investigations.” - DOJ

"In short, contrary to the public narrative you may have heard, Backpage worked closely with federal law enforcement to actually stop sex trafficking (and not just take it down, but to track down the perpetrators). But they refused to do the same for consensual sex work and that is why the feds eventually came down on them like a ton of bricks, all while telling the media and politicians that it was for sex trafficking. But that was all bullshit."

toomuchtodo• 3 years ago

From the Wired piece mentioned:

The government indictment that triggered Lacey and Larkin’s arrests, United States v. Lacey, et al., includes 17 “victim summaries”—stories of women who say they were sexually exploited through Backpage. Victim 5 first appeared in an ad on the platform when she was 14; her “customers” made her “perform sexual acts at gunpoint, choked her to the point of having seizures, and gang-raped her.” Victim 6 was stabbed to death. Victim 8’s uncle and his friends advertised her as “fetish friendly.” The indictment accuses Backpage of catering to sexual predators, of essentially helping pimps better reach their target audiences.

Tough issue overall balancing free speech and legitimate consensual sex work against flagrant exploitation. My understanding is that even in jurisdictions with legalization and formalization of the work trafficking still occurs. No solutions to provide, Larkin’s suicide is still tragic and unfortunate.

maxbond6• 3 years ago

From what I've read, it seems sex workers hold that they are safer online because they are able to directly manage their relationships with clients. This enables them to enforce vetting processes before they meet up in person (impossible in the street), and eliminate abusive middle men (pimps).

We could do better than Backpage, we could probably make abuse of sex workers rare rather than a cliche, but it would require decriminalization first. For instance, that would enable them to hire their own security, or to press charges against abusers (though that's is own can of worms of course). It's also usually the sex workers who are in a position to understand who is being trafficked and by whom, but they are unable to intervene effectively without institutional support.

Teever• 3 years ago

So when's Mark Zuckerberg getting arrested for all the crime that happens on his platform?

NoMoreNicksLeft3• 3 years ago

and legitimate consensual sex work

What is legitimate consensual sex work? For those of us who don't transact with prostitutes, all we know about this is a stream of narratives we've seen on tv and in film. Julia Roberts falling for Richard Gere, or Maggie Gyllenhall refusing to have a pimp "manage" her.

Yet, I remember reading one account of a porn actress, who despite signing all the paperwork, waivers and contracts and such, later claimed that every single act felt like rape to her.

Even when there are no pimps or sex traffickers, many claim that they feel coerced by circumstances. Exploited by their clientele.

On top of that we have to deal with ever-evolving ideas about what consent even means. That one cannot properly give consent if one party is more powerful than the other (and how could that ever not be the case, when one is a man and the other a woman... does not plain strength count as power in that scenario?).

In one episode of Californication, Fox Mulder's sitting there mocking a man that showed up with the hooker, calling him a pimp, asking where's his feathered velvet hat, and the guy drolly explains "I'm just here to make sure creeps don't try to beat up the girls".

It's very unclear whether there is such a thing as legitimate consensual sex work, or that humans are even capable of formulating a reasonable definition of consent that would satisfy idiot frat boys and feminist activists both. To call this "tough" is world-class championship understatement. It looks absolutely intractable.

worik2• 3 years ago

I live in a jurisdiction where sex work is decriminalised.

Trafficking does still occur. But it is a very small part of the scene.

The difference it has made to workers is huge. Once they were at risk from pimps, clients, and cops. Now if pimps or clients bother them they go to the cops, and the cops protect them. As they should.

As they do for shop keepers, plumbers, and computer programmers.

Make no mistake: Having a law against sex work encourages, and subsidises, trafficking.

pessimizer• 3 years ago

This will always be an issue, but we don't run around shutting down and suing Monster.com because they allowed ads for unsafe construction jobs or financial firms that engaged in illegal activity.

You want to encourage this stuff to all run through the same site, and to give police carte blanche to poke around that site wherever they want (as long as their customers civil liberties are preserved, due process, etc.). A site that would keep good records (and inform their customers what records would be kept.) That sort of thing.

Instead, it just got driven back underground. Nobody is checking IDs underground.

fasthands9• 3 years ago

I feel like discussions around sex trafficking are weird.

By legal definition they facilitated sex trafficking. Perhaps they could argue they are better than Average Joe Pimp, but Average Joe Pimp is also going to say he was kinder or more fair than Average Bob Pimp.

It seems like everyone accepts face value numbers of sex trafficking when trying to make a point about how widespread the issue is - but then except most forms of it from being "bad" or "actual sex trafficking".

I don't know what the best solution is. Legalizing is seems like it would solve most of the current issues, but ultimately I don't know how you get around issues of coercion with defenders (and backpage) would probably still consider "consensual". In places around the world where sex work is legal, its hard to point to many examples where there are no issues involving coercion.

zer8k• 3 years ago

I also don't know how you can differentiate "consensual" from "non-consensual" sex work.

1. They say "no im not exploited" because they are afraid

2. They say "no im not exploited" because they are not exploited

You gain no information from interviewing them. No vice unit has the resources to do a top secret clearance level check on them to confirm externally they are not exploited. To act like the two can simply be distinguished really is willfully ignoring the very real problem that you cannot verify the honesty of the person through any line of questioning. I suspect despite the foaming mouthed progressives claiming it's some puritanical hatred for women the reason for it still being illegal is because of this exact problem. There's no actual way to confirm this concept of "consent" in a legally rigid frame of reference because nearly every aspect of a sex workers job can be coerced.

EDIT: Somewhat hilarious I'm getting downvoted for an opinion. Groupthink HN truly the pinnacle of individualistic moral superiority.

bombcar• 3 years ago

All work for pay involves some sort of "coercion" depending on how you define it - if my company ain't paying me, I ain't showing up for work. And even if I was independently wealthy and wanted to do some work, it probably wouldn't be this work.

NoMoreNicksLeft3• 3 years ago

By legal definition

How's that?

Like, if McDonald's unknowingly sells a Big Mac to a hungry sex trafficker, have they facilitated sex trafficking? What if they do know he's a sex trafficker, but he's not currently dragging any women behind him with chains? Does he like have to be in flagrant possession of captive victims for it to be "facilitating"?

The legal definition, such as it is, is lame and rather loose. And besides, prosecutors routinely twist and stretch these definitions and judges rarely rebuke them for it, let alone shut it down (at least at the district level).

"Facilitating X" usually means that the defendant associated with the criminals, was vaguely aware that they committed crimes, and didn't refuse to do business with them (or in some cases, that they didn't become vigilante police themselves and investigate to be sure that the customers weren't criminals).

I'm reminded of a man prosecuted because he was selling little plastic vials with lids out of his dollar store. As he realized how popular they were, he ordered more... until at one point, he sought out a local manufacturer to make the things so he could reduce costs. The product was popular with crack dealers or something.

He was prosecuted on a "facilitation" charge of some sort. The idea of "facilitation" in regards to crime probably needs to be abandoned.

themitigating6• 3 years ago

But they refused to do the same for consensual sex work

Isn't that also a crime in almost the entire US?

It's also where sex trafficking comes into play. How would you know consent was given by a sex worker? People who are trafficked to work as prostitutes are often blackmailed and threatened.

Right now there's massive paranoia about this because it's being used as an election tactic but prostitution and sex trafficking are somewhat linked

clipsy6• 3 years ago

How would you know consent was given by a sex worker?

How would you know consent was given by a McDonald's cashier?

LexGray• 3 years ago

Presumably require a degree and certification for sex work. Need proof to advertise and any client who doesn’t check ID is current is guilty of facilitating trafficking.

If degree includes self-defense, financial literacy assistance, and a social worker. This would hopefully improve prospects of those that turn to sex work.

WarOnPrivacy2• 3 years ago

Isn't that also a crime in almost the entire US?

It isn't relevant. Enforcement of law is the responsibility of that jurisdiction. Sex trafficking is criminalized in federal law; it is DoJ's responsibility.

Prostitution is criminalized under the laws of 49 states (and other municipalities) which makes it the responsibility of those jurisdictions.

thaumasiotes3• 3 years ago

But they refused to do the same for consensual sex work and that is why the feds eventually came down on them like a ton of bricks, all while telling the media and politicians that it was for sex trafficking.

Sex trafficking is defined as sex work. There isn't a legal difference. That's why they're saying it.

WarOnPrivacy2• 3 years ago

Sex trafficking is defined as sex work. There isn't a legal difference.

Sex trafficking is addressed in 18 U.S. Code §1591, where a sex trafficker is "a person who recruits, entices, harbors, transports, provides, obtains or maintains a minor for a commercial sex act"

This is pretty distinct from prostitution, a service which is legal in Nevada (where federal laws apply).

dragonwriter3• 3 years ago

Sex trafficking is defined as sex work.

There are a number of definitions in different legal codes, but I’d be surprised if this was accurate in any of them (its not, as another reply notes, in US federal law): sex traffickers and sex workers aren't, even approximately, the same thing.

hyperhello• 3 years ago

A Red Shirt found out too late that authorities don’t care about stopping the actual problem because then they wouldn’t be employed. There is no value in helping a department with their work unless you have something very specific to gain. Just don’t talk to them.

tetrisgm• 3 years ago

Not familiar enough with the person's history to know if they did bad things, or if they were uncooperative, or simply ran a website and became a scapegoat. Anyone got insight into this?

Etrnl_President• 3 years ago

"suicide"

nickpinkston• 3 years ago

Just throwing out there that the "trafficking" topic in the media is largely a moral panic from the culture conservatives working with the police to call all sex work trafficking, as that juices their numbers for the scale of the problem, giving both group more supports/donors while doing nothing to help victims. This is a gross mischaracterization.

Here's an article by a former sex worker on this, and how decrim, Backpage, etc. are better for reducing the numbers of victims in sex work and the severity of what they deal with.

https://medium.com/@cathyreisenwitz/how-to-actually-fight-tr...

worik2• 3 years ago

So sad. It is so hard to fight the power.

RIP

nullc• 3 years ago

But I do hope that some of the people who literally built up their own profiles by demonizing Backpage and Section 230 at least take a moment to reflect on whether or not they got so caught up in the narrative they wanted that they missed what was actually happening.

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kama...

DoreenMichele• 3 years ago

However, where they drew the line was when law enforcement started demanding similar help in tracking down non-trafficking consensual sex work.

It sounds like someone who took an enlightened and ethical stance who got railroaded.

I haven't followed the Backpage drama but this looks to me like a win for uptight, backwards people who want to pretend their hang ups are some form of "righteousness."

I'm very sad to see this article and the news that he apparently died by suicide.

Jim Larkin, Backpage exec, has died

Related Stories