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."
Idiot Sheriff (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiot Sheriff (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Idiot Sheriff (Score:5, Insightful)
There are cases(most notably just about anything having to do with "asset forfeiture" or the possibility of real consequences for police misconduct) where law enforcement, as a body, are led by self-interest to run roughshod over the public and the law; but in cases like this, the sheriff is almost certainly running roughshod over the law because he has calculated(probably correctly) that that is exactly what the public wants.
Re:Idiot Sheriff (Score:4, Insightful)
Give the guy a break man. He just wants to protect the public. From themselves..
Prostitution is one of the few crimes that make a person a criminal if he/she sells something that is normally "free". Strange, but whatever. That "industry" is so frigging shady it begs to be regulated. But then we'd have to admit we like sex, so of course that's out of the question.
Re:Idiot Sheriff Strikes Again! (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if his suspension of foreclosures was a stunt to get him publicity, there are still reasonable people (like me) who thought it was the right thing to do.
Why? Because people a huge number of the foreclosures are going forward even though banks themselves can't even produce the mortgage paperwork! Because of all weird financial instruments that helped cause the mortgage crisis (cutting the mortgages up into securities and such) these corporations can't find the original paperwork. I don't know the exact numbers on this, but it's a big percentage.
There are Members of Congress that are saying the same thing: make the companies actually PRODUCE the paperwork! This is how lax the U.S. has become on the financial industry.
So, Dart might be a pompous windbag, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is wrong.
Re:Idiot Sheriff Strikes Again! (Score:3, Insightful)
He did exactly the right move in suspending foreclosures, in which he prevented innocent people being kicked out of there homes because of mistakes made by the banks or land lords.
He was enforcing the law, and doing a morally correct act before anyone even knew who he was. I'm not sure why you try to make his actions appear as though they were just for publicity.
I'm not sure how to take his trying to sue craigslist though.
To add a little context... (Score:5, Insightful)
When you say "local sheriff", it makes it sound like he's the sheriff of some small town. In fact, Tom Dart is the sheriff of Cook County, which contains Chicago, is the second most populous county in the U.S, and his department is the second largest in the U.S.
People claiming Dart is drumming up publicity are pretty much correct. Keep in mind, we're talking Chicago here, so consider the history of the political machine here. Dart also refused to evict renters from houses when their landlords lost the mortgage. In a way, this is an honorable thing to do, but the way it played out, everyone read it as once again more publicity for Dart. The Craigslist case just further proves his motives.
Re:Idiot Sheriff Strikes Again! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Idiot Sheriff (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because anyone whose view on the law is different than the generally espoused views on slashdot MUST be expressing those views out of dishonesty or corruption or a desire for publicity or because they were bribed. Year in, year out, I see that viewpoint repeated again and again and again here and I just don't understand it. Every bad legal opinion, and a bunch of people pipe up that the judge in the case was probably bribed.
Man, I've got to take a break from slashdot, not worth getting annoyed every morning.
ANYWAY, first of all, the cause of action here was not for "facilitating prostitution," it was for public nuisance. Secondly, the sheriff here is a former prosecutor, so he probably understands the law pretty well. He's probably also familiar with the fact that the 7th Circuit, which interprets law for this district, has held that 230(c) does not provide blanket immunity for internet service providers; he was likely hoping that the court might find this case to be one of those where it doesn't apply. Thirdly, it's entirely possible that he intended all along, if necessary, to appeal the constitutionality of the safe harbor provisions of the law.
I don't agree with his position. But that doesn't mean I think it was a frivolous case, or he's somehow a horrible person because of it. And if you read the position the Court, while agreeing with the Defendant, doesn't seem to think so either. It's not an especially harshly worded decision, the word "frivolous" and "obvious" do not appear.
Finally, the way the techdirt article is phrased is just silly; "[e]ven after this was clearly explained to Sheriff Dart"? By who? The defendant? What's he supposed to do, "well I was going to prosecute this case, but the defendant is arguing that it's wrong, so I better just stop what I'm doing"? The headline is ridiculous too; should we just phrase all legal headlines like that? "Court Teaches EFF About DMCA"?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The police do this shit all the time (Score:3, Insightful)
If only we went back to the old American model in which the police not only did not have a monopoly on enforcing the law (any private citizen could arrest you and bring you to a court)
I don't know how it works where you live, but in California if you witness a misdemeanor or have reason to believe a felony has been committed, you may execute a citizen's arrest. Don't be wrong, the court hates it when you do that shit and if you don't have evidence expect to be nailed for false arrest. Once you have placed someone under citizen's arrest you are legally permitted to utilize necessary force to subdue the subject. I don't know shit about how it works when a private citizen wants to be a prosecutor, though. I suspect they'd have to hire a lawyer to assist them at minimum.
Re:Idiot Sheriff Strikes Again! (Score:3, Insightful)
Those academic credentials SUPPORT his knowledge of the law, which is directly opposed to the conclusion OP tried to make. Basically, eldavojohn talked out his ass again...
or it was a particularly clever troll, which is possible, considering how many times he posts a generally-good-enough-for-karma-whoring-post with an obvious error in it.
Need to draw the line somewhere (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pimps take notices (Score:3, Insightful)
They've been on to the wording game long ago. It varies slightly, but the online variety of escort service owner/pimp basically has the following legal disclaimer:
"This website does not condone illegal activity. This is not an offer of prostitution. All services contracted for are legal arrangements for the model's time and company only. Anything additional that may or may not occur is a matter of personal preference between two consenting adults."
There's nothing against the law about contracting for a girl's company. Even for a stripper or lingerie modeling services. It's only the sex part that's illegal, and the girls for the most part know to speak and behave. You walk in and ask about sex and they'll politely ask you to leave (or they'll leave if they visited you). The assumption is that if you're pushing that issue you're either a cop or a clueless "newbie" to the industry (they don't use the word "newbie" but it's the same concept), and they don't want to take the risk. Generally, you walk in and just start talking normally. Chat for a while. Eventually the cue comes where she says "I'm going to the restroom to freshen up - make yourself comfortable.". Making yourself comfortable means you go ahead and undress. When she comes back the sight of your naked body presumably drives her mad with lust and you, as two consenting adults, get it on.
To any common sense person yeah, that's prostitution, but from "beyond a shadow of a doubt" standpoint there was never a verbal arrangement on the sexual services. That's the insanity that happens when you try to outlaw something that is completely legal if there's no money involved. I mean, if a woman is sleeping with the pool boy then it's the same situation - they paid for one service and when he got there they ended up having consensual sex. Drawing that line can be hard (near impossible if those involved really stick to their stories).
If both parties know how to choose their wording and don't slip up it can be a very hard case for the prosecution.