Thread by @stephenlemons

Court out in the Lacey Larkin Trial just a few minutes ago. After the Young woman left the stand her mother took the stand. And basically just discussed her activism trying to get a law in Washington state passed to require in person ID for any adult online activity 1/

That law, which was passed, actually was found to be unconstitutional and was overturned. Under questioning the mom had to admit that the law would’ve applied to a lot of different websites including google Twitter etc. any website they might have adult content on it 2/

In other words it was a dangerous law. And you know why it was overturned? Because Backpage challenged it. The mom was also asked about this supposed quote from Lacey where she says he looked at her and referred to her and the people she was with as yahoos. 3/

This supposedly happened at a Senate hearing in 2017 where Lacey appeared. The statement was prejudicial and shld never been allowed in court. Under questioning from Paul Cambria, Mike Lacey‘s lawyer, the mom admitted that Lacey was surrounded by journalists at the time 4/

She also could not say what Lacey said before or after the supposed comment. She said she was standing about 10 ft away From him when he made this comment, once again in the presence of reporters, and she says he looked at her while he said it 5/

This was as he was leaving the Senate hearing and she was supposedly going into the Senate hearing to testify before the same committee. I was one of the journalists who was present and following Lacey. I don’t remember any such “confrontation.” 6/

Apparently despite the presence of journalists no one has reported the statement. Now any journalist who heard this supposed conversation would’ve made it part of a piece he was writing. Cuz that’s what they called news.7/

Sorry, call news. The remainder of the afternoon was taken up by the California cop and him discussing nude images and short videos that apparently were allegedly on BP at the time. 8/

And guess what? None of these images was illegal. Paul Cambria took him apart under cross examination. The cop admitted that he never arrested anyone based on these ads.9/

More than that he said he had never arrested someone based solely upon an adult escort ad. Gee, I wonder why? 10/

The cop also admitted that stripper ads we’re not illegal. Ditto ads for massage and ads for dominatrixes. In fact the thing that would make a massage or stripper ad illegal would be the exchange of money for sex. 11/

Cambria also asked the cop if he had counted the number of non-adult ads on Backpage at the time he was doing his investigation. Cop had to admit he had not done so. Cambria asked him if he could’ve done that. And the cop said that he could have. But he didn’t. 12/

When it came to non-adult ads it seems the cop mostly confined himself to the furniture section. Which apparently was not too busy at the time in the Sacramento section of BP. 13/

You may recall from the cop’s earlier testimony that at the same time he posted his fake adult escort ad, he posted an ad for a green couch on Backpage so he could compare the number of responses. 14/

And of course the adult ad got a lot more responses. Even though there was no offer of money for sex on it. Cambria opened up by asking him why he picked an ugly green couch to sell? “Who wants a green couch?”Cambria asked. “You couldn’t have made it black?” 15/

If you ask me, he would’ve had to pay someone to move that hunk of crap off his premises. Anyway, Cambria destroyed the guy. 16/

Interestingly, at the very end of the day a certain reporter from the Arizona Republic showed up who generally has been non-present and obviously reporting just by listening to a phone line offered by the court 17/

Dressed in shorts and sandals and a Hawaiian shirt this goofball made a beeline for the mom and the daughter Who had testified earlier. I could actually write his story for him with his bias in tact. 18/

This reporter for the Republic has an obvious bias. According to sources, he once applied for a job with the Phoenix New Times and was turned down. So there is an ax to grind 19/

So that’s it for another day at the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st-century, where people are accused of things they are not actually charged with, And witnesses are allowed to testify about things that have nada to do with the actual indictment 20/

Why should you care? The reason is, if the prosecution succeeds in railroading Lacey and Larkin, they will use this case as a sledgehammer against any interactive website based in America, making the site responsible for everything posted by users. 21/

And this will lead to a chilling of free speech that we have not seen since the actual passage of FOSTA/SESTA. It will be far worse than 2018, with ALL sexual expression endangered. 22/

So if you care about that, You should care about this case. That’s it for today. TGIF. Look for a more detailed account at the website frontpageconfidential.com. #FirstAmendment #Backpage 23/23