Federal Court Tosses Teen Prostitute Suit Against Village Voice & Backpage,com

Image via WikipediaCiting a federal statute that protects Internet service providers from lawsuits concerning content posted on their sites, U.S. Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Thomas C. Mummert III this week dismissed a lawsuit against Village Voice Media Holdings LLC and Backpage.com brought by a teen-aged prostitute who claimed the defendants knowingly permitted her pimp to advertise her sexual services on their Website.

According to accounts in St. Louis Today and by the Associated Press, the lawsuit sought at least $150,000 in damages against Backpage.com, which accepts adult services ads, for allegedly providing a "safe house" for customers and procurers to arrange child prostitution. The plaintiff in the suit was not identified, but claimed she became a prostitute at age 14. Her 27-year-old pimp last December received a five-year sentence after pleading guilty to using interstate commerce to promote prostitution, according to press accounts.

In dismissing the case, Judge Mummert ruled: "Congress has declared such websites to be immune to suits arising from such injuries. It is for Congress to change the policy that gave rise to such immunity." Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

In September 2010, a joint letter was sent to Backpage.com by attorneys general from 21 states urging the site to stop running adult services ads, which the Website declined to do. (See "TUOL" post 9/23/10.)

Calif. High Court Gives SF Weekly Owner the Golden Gate

Image via WikipediaThe California Supreme Court this week refused to hear the appeal of Village Voice Media Holdings-owned SF Weekly's adverse ruling in the antitrust suit brought by rival weekly Bay Guardian, according to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle (www.sfgate.com).

With only one of the seven-member high court willing to hear the appeal in Bay Guardian v. New Times Media (Case No. S186497), the $21 million judgment against the defendant for attempting to shut down the Bay Guardian by selling its own ad space below cost.  The California Supreme Court rejected the defendant's argument that its low advertising rate constituted legitimate business competition that was a boon to local businesses.

Both the Bay Guardian and SF Weekly are free publications heavily reliant on advertising revenue for their existence. In 2008, a jury found for the homegrown Bay Guardian, awarding $6.2 million in damages against the defendant for illegal predatory pricing (114 Cal. Rptr. 3d 392 (2008)). The verdict was upped to $16 million by the trial judge pursuant to antitrust law penalties, and interest accrued brought the total award to $21 million.  An appeals court subsequently allowed the Bay Guardian to collect half of SF Weekly's ad revenue in partial satisfaction of the judgment.