Wow, wow, wow, this is pretty messed up
 

...fucking "woman haters" :disgust

http://gizmodo.com/5971914/site-accu...wn?tag=privacy

sounds like a nalem scam

I can not see the booking form
Some great looking girls on there

i say it gets shut down by Spring, if not before...

extortion
incoming lawsuit .

Whats your point?

This is just a spin off of sites that post mug shots and then will take them down for a fee, extorting ex cons essentially.

Unlike criminal convictions that are documented, this site feels hearsay is good enough... The site owners are in for a surprise very soon if they leave this up any longer. Huge civil cases.

Extortion is a felony.

.

:2 cents::2 cents:

Fucked up shit... one of the girls is going to have friends who don't put up with that shit. Then the owners are buried deep in the ground saving a lot of tax payer dollars for an investigation.

I'm submitting my ex-wife. Hoo-rah!

in their faqs they say they have been sued several times and won each time... serious doushbaggery right here. The extortion is the fee for the work they have to do to remove a profile, yeah right

They should be given the option of hook their way out of the 100 buck fee ...

Unbelievable

these guys are so cutting edge and liberal, they just want to do all the thinking for the women!

That statement in their FAQ is an obvious lie.

How do I know?

Look up the domain creation date; it's October 28, 2012. There is no way in hell that they have been sued, and the cases have been fully adjudicated, "on many occasions" in the amount of time that site has existed. No way.

The wheels of civil jurisprudence simply do not turn that quickly.

Let's say someone filed a lawsuit against them the day after that domain was created; by now, they might have been through a pretrial hearing or two on matters of jurisdiction and standing... maybe. In all likelihood, though, the case wouldn't even be that far along.

If what they'd like us to believe is that they have been awarded multiple very quick summary judgments and dismissals in that time, because the cases never got past the first motion to dismiss, then I'm still calling bullshit.

Judges aren't quick to dismiss a case that appears to have at least some merit, and despite their claim about being covered by Section 230, the fact that they charge to have profiles removed would definitely give a judge pause, even if he thought their CDA argument was compelling.

The legal information in their FAQ was written by someone with a decent basic understanding of Section 230 of the CDA (although, most likely, much of that text was lifted from another site, possibly one with a more legitimate claim of having ironclad Section 230 immunity), but IMO, the author of it also happens to be entirely full of shit. :2 cents:

I google searched a bunch of phone numbers for girls in my state, and nearly every one of them were listed on The Erotic Review, which also linked to the girls' backpage ad, where all of them were offering their "escort" services. If it wasn't for the "user submission" option, it would look to me like a site that just compiles escort listings from other places and presents itself in a shocking manner to get traffic (so hence the news article about it).

If all of these girls are posting escorting ads along with naked pics of themselves, how wrong is it really to make the jump to "potential prostitute?" Without the PP site, if I see the listings the girls themselves have up on BP and other places, I'm going to make that assumption anyway. :2 cents: