Craigslist Fights Back, Sues SC Atty General 286
FredMastro writes "Craigslist has now stepped past just asking for an apology. The Wall Street Journal and CNet report that Craigslist is fighting back. 'Craigslist said it has sued South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, in the latest escalation of a battle over adult-oriented ads on the company's site. Jim Buckmaster, Craigslist's chief executive, said in a blog post that the company filed its suit in federal court in South Carolina. ...'" Unfortunately, the WSJ's piece requires a subscription, but reader Locke2005 adds a link to coverage in the San Jose Business Journal.
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
that and I like Craigslist.
Suppy & Demand (Score:0, Insightful)
Anyone else seeing a pattern here? I mean they made a big deal about Napster, had their 15 minutes of fame but that hasn't really stopped anything. I don't recall ever hearing about court cases, for Kazza, Frostwire, LimeWire, Edonkey ect.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
True, a few hookers posting cryptic, discreet ads is inevitable. But Craigslist had an entire section devoted to it and allowed it. Try to post an ad with a racist word or offer drugs for sale, somehow craigs list manages to get it offline in minutes, outright offers of prostitution are ok. Sorry, but this isn't a free speech issue, Craigslist has in fact been participating in facilitating an illegal act. You simply can't pretend otherwise.
Re:Doesn't anyone read the warnings? (Score:2, Insightful)
As for illegal activity, it's a public forum so you can expect a certain amount of that sort of thing.
When I read about this several days ago, Craigslist admitted that it was going to spend more time manually checking the sex related ads rather than relying on the community to flag "inappropriate" content.
Craigslist makes money and regardless of my feelings on free speech, it shouldn't be profiting from illegal activity.
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sufficient demand for a service will create a market. Maybe, instead of trying to plug the extraordinarily leaky dike holding back vice, we should embrace, tax, and regulate it [nytimes.com]. Craigslist prostitution ads aren't a problem per se: they merely constitute another signal telling us it's time to re-examine some of our old prejudices.
Re:How to fix all of this (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a horrible idea.
And what happens when all the frivolous lawsuits that people love tossing around get used like a DoS attack against unpopular people, or people that someone has a vendetta against?
What happens when 10,000 anti-war activists all file individual suits against the president? He's supposed to put out of pocket to defend himself?
And if I'm the CEO of Apple, and someone doesn't like their iPhone and can't get a refund because they're past the purchase date allowance, if they sue me because they feel wronged, do I pay for it myself?
Unreasonable plan.
Re:Corruption? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A civil case? (Score:5, Insightful)
He improperly used his office to personally threaten Craigslist into doing what he wanted. He also publicly and improperly stated that the operators of Craigslist were criminally responsible for prostitution, essentially calling them pimps in the national media. I'm not saying they're going to win, but I believe that those two issues are the basis for their case.
Re:Doesn't anyone read the warnings? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you implying that your opposition to illegal activity is stronger than your commitment to free speech? That's the sentiment evil men use to create nightmare police states.
Tie him to a dynamo (Score:5, Insightful)
In a statement, Mr. McMaster called Craigslist's legal action "good news" because "it shows that Craigslist is taking the matter seriously for the first time."
The logical disconnect is astounding, like if McBride claimed to be glad that Novell was suing because is demonstrates their serious intent.
And what about every other medium utilized? (Score:1, Insightful)
So, who is going to get criminal charges brought against them for all the hookers on the streets and sidewalks?
Hey, let's throw hotel management in jail, too -- I heard hookers do things there.
Wait, wait - they do it in cars, also. We're gonna need to get those automakers in here. Holy crap, I just thought of something, the UAW has been giving it deep to the automakers for decades - it's a massive conspiracy for prostitution!
Re:I'm not sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm not sure... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
The conservatives would destroy any politician who suggested it and the democrats don't want logic enough to fight the conservatives on this battle.
Oh, please. The liberals are equally likely to pitch a fit about the moneyed objectification of women or something similar.
Craigslist always took these matters seriously (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy in SC is a real bozo. He claims this is the first time they have taken the matter seriously. He's being a idiot. He's making idiotic statements.
Craigslist was always in the right. They were protecting freedom of speech and to be able to conduct business without the interference if right wing politicians bent on making a name for themselves while seeking higher office.
These SC residents need to vote this guy out of office and he needs to pay some with is personal income for violation of the constitution by trying to enforce prior restraint against free speech.
He's incompetent.
Re:Doesn't anyone read the warnings? (Score:2, Insightful)
My opposition to profiteering from illegal activity is stronger than my belief that it falls under free speech.
How far of a jump is it to go from preventing two consensual adults acting in a manner that will not harm them, their children, my children, me or anyone else to a point where they also prevent two consensual adults from *speaking* in a manner that will not harm them, their children, my children, me or anyone else?
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
I still don't understand why prostitution is illegal. Regulate it, slap a sin tax on it.
I agree completely as a matter of policy, but in practice there will still be plenty of illegal and unregulated prostitution going on (which is still, IMO, a problem). First and foremost, many hookers will try to avoid taxes (they already get paid in cash, which means every dollar they make is like $1.35 in taxed salary) and pimps who rely on drug-addicted (or otherwise abused) hookers will want to stay off the radar. Girls that don't meet health standards will still turn to the black/gray market to make ends meet. Nevada's experiment with legal prostitution shows that, unless legal prostitution can compete on price with illegal prostitution, you still get plenty of street walkers. Your average working-class John cannot afford to pay for the regulatory overhead (hehehe) and taxes that it would take to legalize it and turns to the street.
After all that noise, Craigslist will still be vilified for helping prostitutes meet Johns outside the regulatory framework. Look the furor in Chicago regarding the discriminatory housing posts, which you see all the fucking time on Craigslist because many people have preferences that are illegal to advertise (not illegal to have though, in a bizarre twist of law). Many folks (thankfully not the courts) thought that Craigslist was responsible for the users that were using a legal service in a manner that violates housing advertising regulations. Think about the howls when Craigslist is advertising for sexual services that don't meet regulations.
Like I said, I agree totally from a policy point of view, but I'm just a lot more cynical about the results when that policy hits the real world.
Re:I'm not sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
The wives and girlfriends of your customers?
That's not really a matter for the government to decide. I don't have forced public records showing how often I eat at Arbys, or how often and what movies I'm renting from Blockbuster. Or for a more similarly themed venue, I don't have to show public records detailing how often I go to or how much money I spend in a strip club.
As well, any activity that one wishes to partake in they can choose to either keep secret from their significant other or to divulge it. If the other finds out then they have their own issues to workout separate from the legal system (unless divorce comes into play, but that's a separate matter).
The bottom line is that it's not the government's business to enforce morality. If a guy wants to cheat on his wife/girlfriend then he's an asshole, but it's not the government's concern, regardless of if the cheating involved a financial contract or if it was mere charity work.
As well, forcing public records allows another form of coercion. I for example work with a bunch of extremely religious people. That's cool - they do their thing and I do mine. No harm done. If prostitution was made legal though, I wouldn't want to have to worry about public records making me more likely to get let go more so than someone else next time lay-offs come around.
Should Google be next? (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%2Bescort+%2B%22south+carolina%22&btnG=Search [google.com]
this returns :
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,490,000 for +escort +"south carolina". (0.20 seconds)
far more than craigslist.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Last I checked the federal government, the Democrats don't need the Republicans' permission to do anything. Perhaps the Democrats need to become liberal? For damn sure the Republicans need to become conservative!
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
The sex trade is as old as civilization itself and it doesn't look like it's going away anytime soon.
Legislators are going at this the same way they dealt with drugs: outlaw everything, create a thriving underground market, sanction expensive studies, waste money in propaganda, throw some more cops at it..total failure.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Educate vs Legislate (Score:3, Insightful)
It's so much easier to mandate than to teach or try to convince.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm not sure... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm not sure... (Score:2, Insightful)
The law exist to enforce the rights of a person. Those rights are protected by the law. I can't take from you that which is not mine to take, whether that be your property, your freedom or your life. Everything stems from that, and morality is not a part of the equation. In fact it should remain specifically absent from the equation in order to protect both your rights and mine.
I can't murder you because that takes your rights away, not because it's wrong to kill (although the effect is the same). I can't steal from you, not because it's immoral, but rather because you have the right to maintain your property. But I can get drunk and smoke cigars while watching porn all I want because it doesn't impact you in the slightest, no matter how immoral you think it is.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
The outrage prevents a rational discourse on the subject, which keeps hidden the real reason (anti-competition) for outlawing it. If we could talk as rationally about sexual services as we do about, say, vehicle maintenance services, then we might be able to create a more efficient society. ('efficient' = creates more safety, comfort, pleasure, and joy for a given amount of resources consumed.)
Back in the farming days when marriage was an economic necessity, there was an argument to be made for shielding it from damaging temptations... but all of that is becoming obsolete now, at least for the middle and upper classes. Maybe the lower class still needs a ban on prostitution, though, because the lower class still needs marriage in order to afford a family.
Wives don't have monopoly power, because they are not the only suppliers. What they have right now is a legal barrier to entry, of the sort that telco CEOs can only dream about.
As far as mistresses are concerned, that has always been an issue and it does not change upon legalization.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Spot on, you always pay SOMEHOW.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
The funny part is as long as someone video tapes it or takes photos during, it is legal as pornography.
That always seemed like a loophole to me that could be exploited if a brothel just called itself a "Porn Studio" instead.
Re:Good. (Score:1, Insightful)
Not a total failure as far as the cops are concerned, they get to steal...er, confiscate all kinds of valuable stuff on vice busts, up to and including your vehicle. And of course, the pols get their names in the news, which is all they really care about.