Judge Rejects Sheriff's Suit Against Craigslist 121
jjohn24680 passes along word that a federal judge has thrown out a local sheriff's lawsuit accusing the online classified group Craigslist of facilitating prostitution. We discussed the case when it was filed back in March. Here is the decision (PDF). "As was pretty clear at the time, Craigslist is the service provider and is quite obviously protected by Section 230 immunity. ... Even after all of this was clearly explained to Sheriff Dart, he still insisted that his lawsuit made sense. It looks like the court system, however, does not agree. As expected, the case has been dismissed on Section 230 grounds."
Re:Idiot Sheriff Strikes Again! (Score:5, Informative)
The sheriff in question was no doubt trying to just drum up some publicity for himself. Remind me again why he's enforcing laws he clearly doesn't understand?
You don't realize how right you are. From Mr. Dart's Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org]:
In October 2008, Dart made national news when he announced that he was suspending all foreclosure evictions in Cook County. The number of such evictions had increased dramatically since 2006 as a result of the national subprime mortgage crisis. Dart stated that many of the people being evicted were renters who had faithfully paid their rent but had not known that their landlord was in financial trouble. He explained that in many cases, mortgage companies had not fulfilled their obligation to identify tenants in the foreclosed properties, and said, "These mortgage companies only see pieces of paper, not people, and don't care [...] who gets hurt along the way ... We're not going to do their jobs for them anymore. We're just not going to evict innocent tenants. It stops today."
The Illinois Bankers Association was critical of Dart, accusing him of "ignoring his legal responsibilities" and of engaging in "vigilantism".
Dart says that he is enforcing an Illinois state law which requires the banks to determine whether the persons resident at an address are actually the persons to whom the foreclosure notice should be served.
Due largely to these efforts, Time Magazine named Dart one of its 100 most influential people for 2009.
That last sentence will probably have him championing things (or rather trying) for the rest of his life. I have the feeling this ain't the end of the Craigslist shenanigans nor is it the last thing Mr. Dart will overstep his duties on. He's got a J.D. from Loyola University and a Bachelor's Degree in History and General Social Studies from Providence College. What is he doing trying to practice law?
Re:The Pirate Bay (Score:3, Informative)
I think The Pirate Bay operates in a different legal jurisdiction...
Re:Idiot Sheriff Strikes Again! (Score:5, Informative)
Banks and other instutitions have flagrantly [market-ticker.org] ignored [market-ticker.org]federal and state laws [market-ticker.org], and in many cases it appears that they screwed up so badly that no one actually has legal standing [market-ticker.org] to forclose!
Re:Idiot Sheriff Strikes Again! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:and this is why (Score:1, Informative)
and posts like this are why slashdot is diseased with idiocy. do your homework, Dart is a lawyer, and knows more about the law than you do.
Re:Idiot Sheriff Strikes Again! (Score:4, Informative)
You do know what kind of degree a J.D. is, right?
Right?
It's a frickin' doctorate of law (Juris Doctor).
That said, he has perhaps overstepped his role as Sheriff... but this worked out well in the end. The courts denied his actions, and he brought attention to something he felt was a concern.
Re:Idiot Sheriff (Score:5, Informative)
Prostitution is one of the few crimes that make a person a criminal if he/she sells something that is normally "free".
Sometimes you can barter for it, but it's never free.
Re:Idiot Sheriff Strikes Again! (Score:3, Informative)
WHOOSH.
The GPs point was that some banks are cheating in the foreclosure process so they can evict the person without actually taking legal ownership of the house away until they get around to it, making the former owner legally responsible for it even after being evicted. That's not even remotely legal.