By KILEY CROSSLAND

But critics argue the act was never intended to protect providers like Backpage. Donna Rice Hughes, president and CEO of internet safety group Enough is Enough, was involved in the law's passage in 1996.

 

'The intent of Congress was that if an internet provider made a good faith attempt to protect children from getting pornography or being sexually abused, that they would have protection under the law. ... Over the years, that provision has basically become a loophole,' Hughes told me.

Three plaintiffs, all women referred to as "Jane Doe," claim they were victims of child sex trafficking made possibly by Backpage and its "escort" advertisements. The suit asserts the women were part of "stables" moved from city to city after their pimps placed advertisements on Backpage. Jane Doe No. 1 said she was sold for sex at ages 15 and 16 more than 1,000 times in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Despite the heinous nature of the alleged crimes against children, Backpage defends its right to host content without being liable for what its users post. The company also claims it continues to fight child exploitation on its site....

.... Hughes disagrees. She told me 47 of the U.S. attorneys general proposed a minor amendment to the Communications Decency Act in July 2013 because of the way the courts were incorrectly interpreting the exemption. The proposal notes Backpage.com and other sites are avoiding criminal liability, regulation, or civil liability, and asks for Congress to grant criminal jurisdiction to state and local governments. The proposal failed, but Hughes hopes the attorneys general will continue to push for the change.

'This provision has been taken advantage of for far too long and children are paying the price,' she said.

The three female plaintiffs plan to appeal Sterns' decision."