‘I Am Jane Doe’ Documentary Exposes How Sites Like 'Backpage' Help Child Sex Traffickers

Can you imagine seeing your missing daughter in a prostitution ad? Parents shared their real-life nightmares in the new documentary “I Am Jane Doe,” which takes a sobering look at the child sex trafficking industry facilitated by websites like Backpage.com.

“It’s horrifying, and it’s happening, and people are making millions of dollars on it,” Glenn said on radio Monday while introducing director Mary Mazzio.

She talked about her horrifying revelation that children were being enslaved in droves in the U.S. as well as what Backpage does to help sex traffickers find clients who will rape children by the hour. Backpage and other sites have been allowed to host ads selling children, getting away with it by filtering out terms like “Lolita” or “amber alert” before publishing the ads pimping out kids anyway.

“People call this human trafficking … that’s kind of a sanitized term,” Mazzio said. “What we’re talking about is serial child rape. These children are carted from motel room to motel room.”

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

GLENN: There's some things that don't matter at all. Some things that matter a lot. But what matters most?

We're being sucked into things that, really, don't matter at all. We're being sucked into arguments about free speech and safe zones that, quite honestly, I'm sorry, if you're on a college campus, get over it. There are going to be some communists that you are talking to you. And there are going to be some Nazis that are talking to you, and they all have a right to say it. There are going to be some pro-global warming people and some anti-global warming people. You're on a college campus. Get over it. That's where you should be challenged on everything that you think. That's why there is tenure, so somebody can ask outrageous questions. We're not a society that was built on timidity. We have to be able to challenge each other.

So Hollywood, college campuses, communists, Nazis, the NFL, one, a right to stand. You have a right to take a knee. Because, quite honestly, that's a sideshow. Anybody else feel like you were in the Roman Colosseum this weekend? Real things are happening, that actually matter. And we're watching -- we're watching lions and Christians. What are we doing?

There is free speech. And there's an argument that -- it is the argument that has to be made that speech must be protected. And the only kind of speech that has to be protected is the speech that the majority doesn't like.

However, there are people that hide behind free speech. And they do real damage. Right now, in Congress, they are talking about the Communications Act and the Communications Decency Act of 1996. And there is -- there is something that came from The Village Voice, it's called the Backpage. And it is the literal auction platform for slavery today.

And people have been trying to shut this down for quite some time, and they have some really good attorneys.

This needs to be heard by you. There is a movie that is out, that just came out. It's on Netflix and i Tunes and Vimeo and Google Play, Amazon DVD. It is called I Am Jane Doe. Parents -- it's hard to watch. It's parents who sent their kids off to school one day, and they didn't come back. Kids that left home and didn't come back, until their parents found them being sold on the Backpage of the Village Voice. It's horrifying, and it's happening. And people are making millions of dollars on it.

A woman who didn't know anything about human trafficking just a few years ago is the producer and director of I Am Jane Doe. And she's with em now. Mary Mazzio. Hi, Mary, how are you?

MARY: Glenn, how are you this morning? Thank you for having me on.

GLENN: You're welcome. So explain to the audience exactly what's happening.

MARY: So this started, Glenn, when I read an article in the Boston Globe about Jane Doe number one, Jane Doe number two, and Jane Doe number three, age 13, 14, and 15 years old, that sued backpage.com and the Village Voice empire for -- for compensation for injuries they sustained by virtue of being bought and sold for commercial sex online. And people call this human trafficking and sex trafficking. And sex trafficking of minors. That's kind of a sanitized term, right?

What we're talking about is serial child rape, right?

These children are carted from motel room to motel room. They are with the admin of technology, right? They're schedule on the hour by the hour.

And I had not a clue that this was happening in numbers that would make your head spin in this country. I think, like most Americans, I assumed this was happening in developing countries, right? Where children are bought and sold for sex.

And when I read this article, I remember thinking, "What the hell?" This is ten minutes from where I live. Jane Doe one, two, and three. And they're represented, by the way, by Ropes & Gray, one of sort of the oldest white-shoe law firms in the country. And, oh, by the way, how did Ropes & Gray get the case? Like, how did they lose their motion, right? How did they lose this lawsuit?

That made no sense to me. And I'm a recovering lawyer, which is like highly irritating to many people, by the way. But I'm really thinking at the time -- I read the decision, and I remember thinking, "How is it legal in this country for websites like Backpage -- and there are many others, by the way, to host ads selling children? How is that legal? And yet, it is.

GLENN: Okay. So now -- so people understand, this is some -- you know, this comes from The Village Voice. And a lot of people on the left were protecting The Village Voice. And they were like, "No. There's no way they understand. There's no way this is happening." Because to a lot of people on the left, The Village Voice is, you know, the voice of a generation, and a hero outlet to many.

MARY: Oh, yeah. Fighting -- fighting truth to power, right? I mean, exposing corruption. Exposing wrongdoing.

And yet -- and listen, I'm a liberal, right? I swing very left. And it pains me, right? That Backpage and the Village Voice -- and we'll talk about Google in a minute. But the dirty little secret to all the alternative weeklies was that their editorial was supported by the sex ad. And, listen, back in the '70s, it was free love, free sex, right? Whatever goes. And I think the term -- the lexicon around human trafficking, nobody really started talking about it until ten years ago, 12 years ago. What is it? And I think that really exposed -- what you said before, this is -- particularly as it relates to children, modern day slavery. And the numbers are escalating with technology online. And what I mean by that is that the problem is getting worse, rather than better. There's an estimate of around 15 percent of all homeless and runaway children, will be victimized. And when you think about the numbers, there's anywhere between 1.6 and 2.5 million children on the street at any one time.

Fifteen percent of those children -- oh, my God, we're not talking about a kid here or there that shows up at the Port Authority. We are talking about conservatively, hundreds of thousands of children. And, by the way, I received this report from the University of Louisville. And they said, "Mary, you know, we understand that 15 percent is sort of the estimate. It's in the shadows. Nobody quite knows. But make no mistake, we -- we did a study of children in Kentucky and Indiana, we have concluded that 40 percent of homeless and runaway children were victimized by child sex trafficking. Forty percent. So this is a problem that is escalating in size and scale. And it sits along the opioid epidemic. And that is something that nobody is talking about. Because those children are the most vulnerable.

GLENN: Okay. Mary, I'm going to run out of time. So I would like to -- because I want to get -- I want to build this in layers because there's a lot of information that people need to absorb.

First, I want you to watch the video. It's free. It's everywhere. It's I Am Jane Doe. It is a really well-produced documentary. And I warn you, when you start talking about freedom of speech, you will -- you will -- if you're a Libertarian, start to say, "Well, wait a minute. Hang on just a second. Do they have a right -- do they have a responsibility to know exactly what's happening on the other side, if somebody is just putting in a classified ad?" But that's not what's happening here. You know, if somebody wants to post something on Facebook -- Facebook isn't responsible for what everybody says online. They can't be. It will put them out of business.

Nobody can do that. But that's not what's happening. Can you quickly, Mary, explain what the Backpage is doing.

MARY: Yeah, and so this is really interesting. Because a Senate investigation sprang up, which provided all kinds of evidence that -- for example, a pimp or a trafficker might post an ad for a child and would use terms that would signal a child: New in town, fresh off the boat, schoolgirl.

These are indicia, of a child, right? And Backpage developed filters, according to the congressional report, that would automatically scrub the term "Lolita" or "schoolgirl," right? Or Amber Alert, and yet the ad would then be posted.

So there was some conscious decision to mask indicia of a child. And I think that is what is so troubling about the Wild West online is that Backpage and those that have supported Backpage -- which, by the way, includes Google and others that are desperate to keep this Wild West culture online have said, even if you're a website that encourages illegality, you still bear no responsibility for the harm that happens, including the sale of children.

STU: Mary, just to clarify, were you saying that they put the term Amber Alert in the ads?

MARY: Some traffickers apparently put the term "Amber Alert," because it was a term that Congress discovered that was filtered out automatically by Backpage.

STU: That is absolutely unbelievable.

MARY: I kid you not. I kid you not. There's a new child to the cause, and there's an effort in Congress right now to really close the loophole, right? If you're a bad actor and you're encouraging this activity, you ought to bear some responsibility. Right? There should be a financial incentive for you to clean up your act.

And one of the mothers, her child, she lost her child at Christmas time to a Backpage buyer. Her daughter was 16 years old. What did the ad say? Fresh. New in town.

GLENN: I learned this from working with Operation Underground Railroad, that there are, you know, low miles. There are terms.

MARY: Precisely.

GLENN: There are terms that people who are buying children clearly understand. And for Backpage to be censoring those and then not turning those people into police is really quite reprehensible and frightening.

I want you to -- here's what I want you to do: Mary, would you be willing to come back later this week? Because I want to talk to you about the Google connection.

MARY: Yes, of course.

GLENN: Because Mary is -- you know, correct me if I'm wrong, Mary, but you and I don't agree on much, I would imagine.

(laughter)

MARY: Exactly. You could probably count it on one hand, Glenn.

GLENN: Yes. So we don't agree on much. However, we do agree on this. And what she's going through now, what Google appears to be doing to her, they are making her look like me. They're making her -- you know, treating her --

STU: This is terrible, Mary. I'm so sorry for you.

GLENN: Yeah, no. They're treating her like they would treat me. So something is really wrong. I get it when they're treating me that way. But when they're treating one of their own, there's something really wrong. And I want her to explain that.

But the first thing I want you to do is, please today watch I Am Jane Doe and bring yourself up to speed on this. Because there's something going through Congress that needs to happen. Later this week, I hope to have Mike Lee on to talk -- have you talked to Mike Lee about this at all, Mary?

MARY: No -- no, I have not.

GLENN: Okay. So I would like to get Mike involved in this. Because I trust Mike as a real strict constitutionalist, but he's also a deeply moral man. And so we'll -- you know, we'll not excuse -- will not excuse the -- the horrors done to people over -- you know, for rights, if you will.

MARY: Right. Exactly. And he's a First Amendment specialist. And I think both he and I fundamentally agree, this is about conduct online. It has nothing to do with speech.

GLENN: Nothing to do with speech. Okay. Mary, thank you so much. I appreciate it.

The name of the movie is I am Jane Doe. We'll talk again, Mary. Thanks.

5 Democrats who have endorsed Kamala (and two who haven't)

Zach Gibson / Stringer, Brandon Bell / Staff | Getty Images

With Biden removed from the 2024 election and only a month to find a replacement before the DNC, Democrats continue to fall in line and back Vice President Kamala Harris to headline the party's ticket. Her proximity and familiarity with the Biden campaign along with an endorsement from Biden sets Harris up to step into Biden's shoes and preserve the momentum from his campaign.

Glenn doesn't think Kamala Harris is likely to survive as the assumed Democratic nominee, and once the DNC starts, anything could happen. Plenty of powerful and important Democrats have rallied around Harris over the last few days, but there have been some crucial exemptions. Here are five democrats that have thrown their name behind Harris, and two SHOCKING names that didn't...

Sen. Dick Durbin: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

High-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin officially put in his support for Harris in a statement that came out the day after Biden stepped down: “I’m proud to endorse my former Senate colleague and good friend, Vice President Kamala Harris . . . our nation needs to continue moving forward with unity and not MAGA chaos. Vice President Harris was a critical partner in building the Biden record over the past four years . . . Count me in with Kamala Harris for President.”

Michigan Gov. Whitmer: ENDORSED

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

The Monday after Biden stepped down from the presidential VP hopeful, Gretchen Whitmer released the following statement on X: “Today, I am fired up to endorse Kamala Harris for president of the United States [...] In Vice President Harris, Michigan voters have a presidential candidate they can count on to focus on lowering their costs, restoring their freedoms, bringing jobs and supply chains back home from overseas, and building an economy that works for working people.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

Mere hours after Joe Biden made his announcement, AOC hopped on X and made the following post showing her support: "Kamala Harris will be the next President of the United States. I pledge my full support to ensure her victory in November. Now more than ever, it is crucial that our party and country swiftly unite to defeat Donald Trump and the threat to American democracy. Let’s get to work."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi: ENDORSED

Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who is arguably one of the most influential democrats, backed Harris's campaign with the following statement given the day after Biden's decision: “I have full confidence she will lead us to victory in November . . . My enthusiastic support for Kamala Harris for President is official, personal, and political.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren: ENDORSED

Drew Angerer / Stringer | Getty Images

Massasschesets Senator Elizabeth Warren was quick to endorse Kamala, releasing the following statement shortly after Harris placed her presidential bid: "I endorse Kamala Harris for President. She is a proven fighter who has been a national leader in safeguarding consumers and protecting access to abortion. As a former prosecutor, she can press a forceful case against allowing Donald Trump to regain the White House. We have many talented people in our party, but Vice President Harris is the person who was chosen by the voters to succeed Joe Biden if needed. She can unite our party, take on Donald Trump, and win in November."

Former President Barack Obama: DID NOT ENDORSE

Spencer Platt / Staff | Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama wasted no time releasing the following statement which glaringly omits any support for Harris or any other candidate. Instead, he suggests someone will be chosen at the DNC in August: "We will be navigating uncharted waters in the days ahead. But I have extraordinary confidence that the leaders of our party will be able to create a process from which an outstanding nominee emerges. I believe that Joe Biden's vision of a generous, prosperous, and united America that provides opportunity for everyone will be on full display at the Democratic Convention in August. And I expect that every single one of us are prepared to carry that message of hope and progress forward into November and beyond."

Prominent Democratic Donor John Morgan: DID NOT ENDORSE

AP Photo/John Raoux

Prominent and wealthy Florida lawyer and democrat donor John Morgan was clearly very pessimistic about Kamala's odds aginst Trump when he gave the following statement: “You have to be enthusiastic or hoping for a political appointment to be asking friends for money. I am neither. It’s others turn now . . . The donors holding the 90 million can release those funds in the morning. It’s all yours. You can keep my million. And good luck . . . [Harris] would not be my first choice, but it’s a done deal.”

How did Trump's would-be assassin get past Secret Service?

PATRICK T. FALLON / Contributor | Getty Images

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Former President Donald Trump on Saturday was targeted in an assassination attempt during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. It occurred just after 6:10 p.m. while Trump was delivering his speech.

Here are the details of the “official” story. The shooter was Thomas Matthew Crooks. He was 20 years old from Bethel Park, Pennsylvania. He used an AR-15 rifle and managed to reach the rooftop of a nearby building unnoticed. The Secret Service's counter-response team responded swiftly, according to "the facts," killing Crooks and preventing further harm.

Did it though? That’s what the official story says, so far, but calling this a mere lapse in security by Secret Service doesn't add up. There are some glaring questions that need to be answered.

If Trump had been killed on Saturday, we would be in a civil war today. We would have seen for the first time the president's brains splattered on live television, and because of the details of this, I have a hard time thinking it wouldn't have been viewed as JFK 2.0.

How does someone sneak a rifle onto the rally grounds? How does someone even know that that building is there? How is it that Thomas Matthew Crooks was acting so weird and pacing in front of the metal detectors, and no one seemed to notice? People tried to follow him, but, oops, he got away.

How could the kid possibly even think that the highest ground at the venue wouldn't be watched? If I were Crooks, my first guess would be, "That’s the one place I shouldn't crawl up to with a rifle because there's most definitely going to be Secret Service there." Why wasn't anyone there? Why wasn't anyone watching it? Nobody except the shooter decided that the highest ground with the best view of the rally would be the greatest vulnerability to Trump’s safety.

Moreover, a handy ladder just happened to be there. Are we supposed to believe that nobody in the Secret Service, none of the drones, none of the things we pay millions of dollars for caught him? How did he get a ladder there? If the ladder was there, was it always there? Why was the ladder there? Secret Service welds manhole covers closed when a president drives down a road. How was there a ladder sitting around, ready to climb up to the highest ground at the venue, and the Secret Service failed to take it away?

There is plenty of video of eyewitnesses yelling that there was a guy with a rifle climbing up on a ladder to the roof for at least 120 seconds before the first shot was fired. Why were the police looking for him while Secret Service wasn't? Why did the sniper have him in his sights for over a minute before he took a shot? Why did a cop climb up the ladder to look around? When Thomas Matthew Cooks pointed a gun at him, he then ducked and came down off the ladder. Did he call anyone to warn that this young man had a rifle within range of the president?

How is it the Secret Service has a female bodyguard who doesn't even reach Trump's nipples? How was she going to guard the president's body with hers? How is it another female Secret Service agent pulled her gun out a good four minutes too late, then looked around, apparently not knowing what to do? She then couldn't even get the pistol back into the holster because she's a Melissa McCarthy body double. I don't think it's a good idea to have Melissa McCarthy guarding the president.

Here’s the critical question now: Who trusts the FBI with the shooter’s computer? Will his hard drive get filed with the Nashville manifesto? How is it that the Secret Service almost didn't have snipers at all but decided to supply them only one day before the rally because all the local resources were going to be put on Jill Biden? I want Jill Biden safe, of course. I want Jill Biden to have what the first lady should have for security, but you can’t hire a few extra guys to make sure our candidates are safe?

How is it that we have a Secret Service director, Kimberly Cheatle, whose experience is literally guarding two liters of Squirt and spicy Doritos? Did you know that's her background? She's in charge of the United States Secret Service, and her last job was as the head of security for Pepsi.

This is a game, and that's what makes this sick. This is a joke. There are people in our country who thought it was OK to post themselves screaming about the shooter’s incompetence: “How do you miss that shot?” Do you realize how close we came to another JFK? If the president hadn't turned his head at the exact moment he did, it would have gone into the center of his head, and we would be a different country today.

Now, Joe Biden is also saying that we shouldn't make assumptions about the motive of the shooter. Well, I think we can assume one thing: He wanted to kill the Republican presidential candidate. Can we agree on that at least? Can we assume that much?

How can the media even think of blaming Trump for the rhetoric when the Democrats and the media constantly call him literally worse than Hitler who must be stopped at all costs?

These questions need to be answered if we want to know the truth behind what could have been one of the most consequential days in U.S. history. Yet, the FBI has its hands clasped on all the sources that could point to the truth. There must be an independent investigation to get to the bottom of these glaring “mistakes.”

POLL: Do you think Trump is going to win the election?

Kevin Dietsch / Staff, Chip Somodevilla / Staff, Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Image

It feels like all of the tension that has been building over the last four years has finally burst to the surface over the past month. Many predicted 2024 was going to be one of the most important and tumultuous elections in our lifetimes, but the last two weeks will go down in the history books. And it's not over yet.

The Democratic National Convention is in August, and while Kamala seems to be the likely candidate to replace Biden, anything could happen in Chicago. And if Biden is too old to campaign, isn't he too old to be president? Glenn doesn't think he'll make it as President through January, but who knows?

There is a lot of uncertainty that surrounds the current political landscape. Trump came out of the attempted assassination, and the RNC is looking stronger than ever, but who knows what tricks the Democrats have up their sleeves? Let us know your predictions in the poll below:

Is Trump going to win the election?

Did the assassination attempt increase Trump's chances at winning in November?

Did Trump's pick of J.D. Vance help his odds?

Did the Trump-Biden debate in June help Trump's chances?

Did Biden's resignation from the election hand Trump a victory in November? 

Do the Democrats have any chance of winning this election?

What is the Secret Service trying to hide about Trump's assassination attempt?

KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor, Anadolu / Contributor | Getty Images

This past weekend we were mere inches away from a radically different America than the one we have today. This was the first time a president had been wounded by a would-be assassin since 1981, and the horrific event has many people questioning the competency and motives of the supposedly elite agents trusted with the president's life.

The director of the Secret Service apparently knew about the assassin's rooftop before the shooting—and did nothing.

Kimberly Cheatle has come under intense scrutiny these last couple of weeks, as Secret Service director she is responsible for the president's well-being, along with all security operations onsite. In a recent interview with ABC, Cheatle admitted that she was aware of the building where the assassin made his mark on American history. She even said that she was mindful of the potential risk but decided against securing the site due to "safety concerns" with the slope of the roof. This statement has called her competence into question. Clearly, the rooftop wasn't that unsafe if the 20-year-old shooter managed to access it.

Glenn pointed out recently that Cheatle seems to be unqualified for the job. Her previous position was senior director in global security at America's second-favorite soda tycoon, PepsiCo. While guarding soda pop and potato chips sounds like an important job to some, it doesn't seem like a position that would qualify you to protect the life of America's most important and controversial people. Even considering her lack of appropriate experience, this seems like a major oversight that even a layperson would have seen. Can we really chalk this up to incompetence?

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI / Contributor | Getty Images

The Secret Service and DHS said they'd be transparent with the investigation...

Shortly after the attempted assassination, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees the Secret Service, launched an investigation into the shooting and the security protocols in place at the rally. The DHS promised full transparency during the investigation, but House Republicans don't feel that they've been living up to that promise. Republican members of the House Oversight Committee are frustrated with Director Cheatle after she seemingly dodged a meeting scheduled for Tuesday. This has resulted in calls for Cheatle to step down from her position.

Two FBI agents investigate the assassin's rooftop Jeff Swensen / Stringer | Getty Images

Why is the Secret Service being so elusive? Are they just trying to cover their blunder? We seem to be left with two unsettling options: either the government is even more incompetent than we'd ever believed, or there is more going on here than they want us to know.

Cheatle steps down

Following a horrendous testimony to the House Oversight Committee Director Cheatle finally stepped down from her position ten days after the assassination attempt. Cheatle failed to give any meaningful answer to the barrage of questions she faced from the committee. These questions, coming from both Republicans and Democrats, were often regarding basic information that Cheatle should have had hours after the shooting, yet Cheatle struggled with each and every one. Glenn pointed out that Director Cheatle's resignation should not signal the end of the investigation, the American people deserve to know what happened.