• by Wendy Davis  @wendyndavis, December 12, 2016

A judge in San Francisco has dismissed "pimping" charges against three Backpage executives.

The move is a blow to Attorney General Kamala Harris (elected last month to the U.S. Senate), who sought to hold Backpage CEO Carl Ferrer and stockholders Michael Lacey and James Larkin criminally responsible for the company's "escort ads," which often are thinly veiled prostitution ads.

Ferrer and the other executives sought dismissal of the case, arguing they were protected by the Communications Decency Act. That law says Web site operators aren't responsible for users' activity.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Bowman agreed with the executives. "Congress has precluded liability for online publishers for the action of publishing third party speech," he wrote in a decision issued late Friday. "Congress has spoken on this matter and it is for Congress, not this Court, to revisit."

Bowman indicated last month that he was inclined to throw out the charges, but didn't finalize the ruling until late last week.

Harris argued in a 76-page supplemental brief that the executives shouldn't be immunized from prosection by the Communications Decency Act because they allegedly "designed Backpage to function in furtherance of prostitution."

"Defendants did not provide services for legal or legitimate purposes," she argued.

She also said the executives "created and developed" illegal content by allegedly creating two other sites -- Evil Empire and Big City -- and populating them with ads drawn from Backpage.

Bowman rejected that argument as well. "Reposting content created by a third party is immune from liability for the offensive content under the CDA," he wrote.

The dismissal comes around two months after Harris drew worldwide headlines by announcing the executives' arrest. Ferrer was jailed for one week in October before he was granted bail, while Lacey and Larkin were jailed for four days before they were released on bail.

Backpage faces other potential challenges. Among others, a group of teen sex-trafficking victims want the Supreme Court to revive a lawsuit accusing Backpage of enabling sex trafficking through the design of its site.

A federal appellate court and trial judge previously ruled that the teens couldn't sue Backpage because the site is immune from liability based on users' crimes. But lawyers for the teens are seeking to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court. Also, the Senate recently held Backpage in contempt for refusing to turn over materials to a subcommittee investigating online sex trafficking.