Woodhull Joins FIRE & the Reason Foundation for Amicus Brief in US. v. Lacey, Spear and Brunst
When the courts get it wrong, the only option is to go back to the courts and appeal their decisions. In the case of U.S. v. Lacey, Spear, and Brunst, the courts got it wrong from the outset. We’re supporting the appeal by former Backpage.com executives who were convicted for allegedly facilitating prostitution through their online classified advertising platform. The government argued that by allowing adult-oriented ads, the defendants were complicit in illegal activity by third-party advertisers, even without direct involvement or specific knowledge of individual illegal acts. Woodhull Freedom Foundation joined an amicus brief in support of Lacey, Spear, and Brunst, along with allies from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the Reason Foundation. We argue that this approach disregards established First Amendment protections for publishers and online platforms.
Our brief emphasizes that the First Amendment protects speech, including adult-oriented ads, unless the government can prove the speech is unprotected, such as direct offers of illegal transactions. We argue that holding publishers criminally liable for third-party content without proof of specific intent sets a dangerous precedent and runs contrary to established free speech protections. We also warn that this could force platforms to over-censor or eliminate entire categories of lawful speech to avoid liability, chilling public discourse, and access to information.
We support the appellants in this case because we are particularly concerned that government attempts to censor or punish online speech about sexual expression will create a chilling effect, making it harder for individuals and advocates to communicate, organize, and educate online about human sexuality.
Our brief also criticizes the district court for allowing the government to present its case without requiring proof of specific intent or knowledge by the defendants regarding the allegedly illegal ads and without sufficiently informing the jury about the role of the First Amendment. We specifically fault the court for excluding evidence of prior cases that upheld Backpage.com’s First Amendment rights, which would have supported the defense’s good faith in following the law. The brief concludes that upholding the convictions would endanger free speech rights for all online publishers and platforms, not just those involved in adult-oriented content.
In summary, our support for the appellants is rooted in our commitment to protecting sexual expression and preventing government overreach that could silence lawful, constitutionally protected speech online.