• by Wendy Davis , Staff Writer @wendyndavis, September 6, 2016

Online classifieds company Backpage is asking the Supreme Court to block a lower court order requiring the company to disclose documents to a Senate committee investigating sex trafficking.

"This case highlights a disturbing -- and growing -- trend of government actors issuing blunderbuss demands for documents to online publishers of content created by third parties (such as classified ads) in a manner that chills First Amendment rights," Backpage writes in papers filed Tuesday with the Supreme Court.

The battle between Backpage and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations dates to last year, when the subcommittee demanded that the site turn over materials about its classified ads. Among other information, lawmakers sought documents that could shed light on how Backpage edits or deletes ads. The Senate wants the information as part of an investigation into sex trafficking.

The federal lawmakers, like various state attorneys general and other authorities, obviously blame Backpage for contributing to sex trafficking. The officials argue that the company facilitates human trafficking with its "adult" ads -- often thinly veiled prostitution ads. Backpage has historically argued that it isn't responsible for the activity of people who use the platform.

The classifieds site turned over more than 16,000 pages of documents to the Senate, but obviously didn't give lawmakers all the material they requested. The Senate responded by voting in March to hold Backpage in contempt. The subcommittee then sought a court order requiring Backpage.com CEO Carl Ferrer to provide the documents.

Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer in Washington sided with the Senate and ordered Backpage to disclose the material. On Friday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block that order.

Backpage is now asking the Supreme Court to stay Collyer's ruling pending appeal.

The company argues that lawmakers have no right to ask online publishers like itself for information about judgment calls regarding ads -- including decisions about deleting or modifying ads.

"This case presents a question of exceptional nationwide importance involving the protection the First Amendment provides to online publishers of third-party content," the company says in its petition for a stay.

Backpage goes on to compare itself to other Web companies, including Google and Facebook, which have had their own share of pushback regarding material on their sites.

For instance, in late 2014, Google sued Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood after he demanded the company turn over documents relating to alleged copyright infringement by outside sides indexed in Google's search engine. (Google and Hood recently agreed to settle their differences out of court.)

More recently, Facebook found received a letter by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune (R-South Dakota), who had questions about whether the social networking service's "trending" news stories were biased against conservatives. First Amendment experts came to Facebook's defense, arguing that the company has the same right as any other publisher to decide what to highlight.

Backpage argues that its case, like the controversies involving Google and Facebook, raise presents questions about online publishers' rights.

"The unresolved question of the level of protection that online intermediary publishers enjoy under the First Amendment is of critical importance not only to Backpage, but to all online publishers of third-party content," Backpage says in its petition to the Supreme Court. "Given the exponential growth of the digital economy in recent years, the question has become ever more pressing."

This isn't the first time Backpage has faced down authorities over its adult ads. Historically, Backpage has won its battles with government officials. Last year, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined Cook County, Illinois Sheriff Thomas Dart from continuing to lobby credit card companies to stop doing business with Backpage. Before that, the company successfully sued to invalidate state laws in Washington and Tennessee.