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.
Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
People trying to make Craigslist into this big bad fraud sex site is getting old. It's about 2% of US internet traffic, no duh it's got a few hookers on it.
Re: (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: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:Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
Very good point. There is an organization called Coyote [coyotela.org] that argues that "prostitution businesses such as brothels, massage parlors and escort services, should be operated like any other business in the community, [and] such businesses should be subject only to the same business and civil regulations which are imposed on other businesses in the area." The member base of this group is composed of social services personnel, researchers, feminists, sex workers, and others, all working in tandem to decriminalize prostitution and remove the social stigma attached to sex work.
Obviously there are a number of dangers associated with sex work, including coerced participation, abusive "management" and clients, STDS, poor working conditions, and the need to balance the impact of the trade with the needs of the community, all of which could be addressed with proper recognition and regulation. Although people tend to cry out that prostitution is demeaning to women, it is really interesting to read the firsthand accounts of sex workers and see that this is not necessarily the case. There are those who actually enjoy their jobs, feel empowered by them, and wish that they could be recognized as having legitimate professional skills and receive the respect they deserve for their services. Additionally, many point out that the aspects of these services that ARE demeaning to women could actually be addressed by proper regulation of the profession as a trade, rather than criminalization that results in abuse going unreported and unchecked.
So, yes, the demand is there, and maybe it's time to realize that the supply is not necessarily just a group of women (and men) under duress (and that those that are under duress need support, not stigmatization). Personally, I don't have a strong position on these issues, but I think the most important point, as the parent post mentions, is that there is merit to examining exactly why some things are stigmatized and outlawed, and doing a reality check as to whether those ethics / moral qualms are still appropriate for contemporary society.
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Spot on, you always pay SOMEHOW.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Funny)
I'd say that leaky dikes are problem, actually.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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."
He added: "Unfortunately, we had to inform them of possible state criminal violations concerning their past practices to produce a serious response. We trust they will now adhere to the higher standards they have promised," he said. He added that his office would continue to monitor the site.
So a serious reaction is to sue someone? Very adult. Rather
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bullshit - They didn't have a "hooker" or "buy sex here" section.
What they had is an "Erotic Services" section, which doesn't necessarily mean prostitution. I can see the replies right now asking me "oh, so then what is an erotic service if not prostitution?" It would be things like Tantric workshops, sensual massage, and many other things that aren't just code for prostitution. Certainly sensual massage can be, but isn't always.
You cannot just say that all of these ads are fronts for hookers, because they
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The conservatives would destroy any politician who suggested it and the democrats don't want logic enough to fight the conservatives on this battle.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In general, the liberals will pitch a fit, yet defend your right to do it. That's why the ACLU protects Nazi marches.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
George Carlin Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You will invariably find that in any clampdown on prostitution it is only the prostitutes who are targeted by authorities. Never the clients.
That is just BS. Phoenix, AZ often has prostitution stings and the prostitutes are NEVER the targets. Undercover policewomen pose as hookers and as soon as the John solicites sex they are arrested and sent to prison for a long time. It's not a small deal here.
Sin tax? (Score:2)
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:Good. (Score:5, Informative)
No Nevada city that has legalized prostitution has any significant amount of street walkers or off-the-books prostitutes. I grew up there and know the normal type of people that would have those connections (drug dealers, ex-cons, etc.) and have never heard of anything of the like. Maybe it would be different in a city large enough to matter (it's illegal in both Washoe and Clark counties), but I don't think there's any reason to believe that it would be a huge social problem like it is now. And I think you will find that prices with illegal prostitutes are pretty comparable with legal ones. The risk associated with performing an illegal activity costs just as much or more as "regulatory overhead."
Legalized prostitution in Nevada is better for johns (safety, both from dealing with criminals and possible VD), better for the prostitutes (better working conditions, access to legal solutions in case of abuse, generally better pay, legally legitimate), and society (they get to regulate where brothels are located, brothels can't advertize so there's not tacky ads on all the taxis, cops have more time to deal with real crimes). The only people who don't benefit are pimps. I really don't understand why this is still an issue in our country. Legalize it already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But the real reason it is illegal is because Americans have the annoying habit to want to make anything they find morally wrong illegal. Simple as that. If they don't like it, don't want to do it, and don't want their kids to do it, they will try to make it illegal.
Educate vs Legislate (Score:3, Insightful)
It's so much easier to mandate than to teach or try to convince.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Prostitution cannot be made legal after womens' suffrage. Women dislike the competition, and because they vote in greater numbers than men, they will neve
Re:Good. (Score:4, Interesting)
Prostitution cannot be made legal after womens' suffrage. Women dislike the competition, and because they vote in greater numbers than men, they will never allow prostitution to be legalized.
There are so many counter examples to your claims that it is ridiculous.
Start with all the places prostitution is legal in one form or another. Like, Rhode Island, for example. Or Canada. Or most countries in Europe. All these places have the exact same set of marital problems as all the uptight places do.
Then look at SE asia - notorious for the cheap and easy sex trade which, while illegal, is pretty much condoned in countries like Thailand and the Philippines where it is also regulated and flourishes. So, if your theory about "lowering the asking price" were correct, with all the cheap sex available in SE asia even the "good girls" would be extreme sluts. While non-prostitutes in those countries aren't known for being "cold fish," they certainly have a lot of what most westerners would consider "old fashioned values" like being chaperoned on your first few dates.
Re: (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 marria
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re:Good. (Score:5, Funny)
I had no idea I was generating that much traffic. I'll try to cut back.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
(0.20 seconds)
Stop chasing fast women.
It's about time (Score:5, Insightful)
that and I like Craigslist.
Re: (Score:2)
He should gain respect from all of the people who think their spouse/child should be free of temptation while using the internet.
Im not debating that this is possible, or useful, or wanted, but I do think there are quite a few people in SC that would enjoy forcing beliefs on the world.
Re:It's about time (Score:4, Interesting)
As a SC resident, I can say that I'll most certainly be voting against him when he makes his bid for the Governer's office. Not everyone here is backwoods redneck. Hell we have our hookers on the internet!
How to get around the wsj sub wall (Score:5, Informative)
2) Copy and paste into google, resulting in a link like this [google.com]
Click link and read page.
Not pasting full text of article though, so you're gonna have to do it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Or use BugMeNot.com for an anonymous login.
Re: (Score:2)
BugMeNot has blocked the site, so the google trick is your best bet right now.
Ah, good call. I couldn't get on because SmartFilter (I work at a school) classifies it as "Hacking."
Re: (Score:2)
But a clear waste of time. The WSJ article is only four paragraphs long and hasn't been updated since it was originally posted. The CNET article from the main /. post has lots more detail, includes complete quotes from both the SC AG and Craigslist CEO, and shows that it was updated with new information twice just this morning.
Go to the CNET story and save yourself a lot of trouble.
Let's Each Post A Word... (Score:2, Funny)
and claim fair use. I'll start.
The
SC newspaper coverage (Score:2)
A civil case? (Score:3, Interesting)
That his sidebar remarks that Craiglist executives could have criminal charges filed against them cost them revenue? Affected their listings?
McMaster is an asshole, no doubt. He may as well have said that Hugh Hefner was going to go to jail for publishing that salacious playboy magazine all these years. He is just looking to grandstand, possibly because he thinks he's going to run for governor someday.
I'd like to see Craigslist attorneys hand that douche a slapdown, but I'm not holding my breath that the actual tort here won't get tossed.
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:A civil case? (Score:5, Informative)
http://blog.craigslist.org/2009/05/an-apology-is-in-order/ [craigslist.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"...Craigslist says it is "seeking declaratory relief and a restraining order"..."
Re: (Score:2)
Its not a federal case because its against a state's attorney general, as that is not a basis for federal jurisdiction. It is a federal case because it is alleging an violateions of both the federal Constitution and federal statute law through a prior restraint on free speech.
(Which also answers the "alleging what?" question -- the suit is alleging an illegal prior restraint on free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a Federal case because it involves parties in two different jurisdictions (one in SC, one in CA). If Craigslist had offices in SC they could've easily filed suit in that state's superior court with the same allegations.
Re:A civil case? (Score:4, Informative)
Certainly, diversity jurisdiction is one of the bases on which federal jurisdiction could be established here, but so is federal question jurisdiction.
Assuming that the federal statute under which the statutory claim is raised (I believe its the Communications Decency Act) doesn't provide for exclusive federal jurisdiction (which I don't know off the top of my head), they could have filed it in SC courts even given the diversity of citizenship. Neither federal question nor diversity of citizenship generally requires a case to be filed in federal court, they just provide a basis for federal court jurisdiction, giving the plaintiff the opportunity to file in federal court, and, failing that, the defendant the opportunity to seek to have the case moved to federal court.
Re: (Score:2)
They are filing a civil case against a state's attorney general (which will make it a federal hearing) - alleging what?
Alleging that they are not doing anything wrong. A declaratory judgment only states what is and is not legal/required in a particular case. So, Craigslist wants the court to state that what they are doing is legal. A restraining order prevents someone from doing something. Here, Craigslist wants the court to tell the AG to stop threatening criminal proceedings. Basically, Craigslist wants the court to say to the AG, "They're right, you're wrong, stop harassing them."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bingo. This DA has gotten SC in hot water more than once. This nationally publicized attack of something that even SC judges have been mumbling over whether is technically even illegal or not (in many places, including outside Vegas, prostitution IS legal, so who's to say how Craigslist was to validate the geographic location of both the poster and searcher to see if they could both conduct that kind of transaction leggally or not?) is just a play at TV time so he can position himself for a job with a mas
Corruption? (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: This is total speculation. I have no facts to back this up:
I'm wondering if there are some power printing/publishing interests lobbying the state government to hamstring Craiglists because of the thread that site represents to print advertising.
Consider this section of TFA:
Emphasis mine.
If it weren't for the thread that craigslist represents to print media advertising, I would have concluded that this was just another puritan witch hunt. However, the fact that craigslist has fewer adult services ads than mainstream publishers in the state leads me to speculate that this is about smacking down "unfair competition" from an outsider.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Who modded this off topic? Insightful would of been more appropriate. What he is trying to do is make an analogy of Craigslist vs Newspapers and Linux Distros vs Microsoft. It's not a great analogy but its good enough for a +5 Slashdot comment.
Essentially, you don't have to pay to get craigslist, just like you don't have to pay to get Linux. Both are available wherever you have an Internet connection. Your alternative is to go pay money for a different service (eg buy Windows or buy a Newspaper) or pay
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't anyone read the warnings? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the sort of thing that is going to go on regardless of the existence of craigslist. Now at least there is some kind of paper trail if something bad goes down ( kidnapping, murder, etc ) since most people don't secure delete their emails, but if we make sure th
Re: (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: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.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
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.
My opposition to profiteering from illegal activity is stronger than my belief that it falls under free speech.
Re: (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:Doesn't anyone read the warnings? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure... (Score:2, Troll)
I don't know how the adult/erotic services was ever allowed. I figure they are facilitating a crime, and illegal industry, whether explicitly knowing or not.
Now, that is not to say that I think the government is in the right. I think it is futile that states prohibit the worlds oldest profession. I personally don't think states should bar women from making ends meet. If you are unmarried and not spreading disease, who are you doing wrong? It is about as logic as banning marijuana. If you have them
I also don
Re:I'm not sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (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
Re:I'm not sure... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily we don't have to rely on your trust mechanism. Just like we don't have to rely on Jack Thomspon's.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please explain how in the hell your post relates even remotely to the parent? Parent said that it would be silly for felons to register their guns since possession is illegal. You launch into a knee-jerk rant pointing out that criminals can still acquire weapons. I'm sure there's a connection somewhere, but it seems to me that you're just being a douche.
Back on topic, I've got to agree with at least the first half of scorp1us's comment - Why in the world is prostitution illegal when shooting po
Masters of PR (Score:2)
Parties (Score:5, Funny)
So this is an argument between Mr. Buckmaster and Mr. McMaster?
So this is all just a bunch of Master-debating?
-Peter
Re: (Score:2)
I keep thinking of Buckminster Fuller(inventor of Bucky Balls - fullerene molecules [wikipedia.org]) and McMaster-Carr [mcmaster.com] one of the most awesome sites on the internet, where you can find nearly anything.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Monitoring the site (Score:5, Funny)
I find it ironic that the SC AG's office promises to monitor Craigs. I can just see it now:
"Jimmy, you need to go troll an adult oriented web site all afternoon to see if they have taken down the dirty pictures yet."
"Yes sir!"
Pathetically slanted article (Score:5, Interesting)
A bit off-topic: I applaud Craigslist, but I noticed this article is arguably more about McMaster than it is about Craigslist.
The bias is not hostile or obvious, as one might expect from stereotyped hostile reporting source, which is not to say that the SJ Business Journal is such. Mostly it is an imbalance in coverage styles and content.
Most paragraphs describe what McMaster did, what he thinks, what he has to say, etc. He is often quoted with his reactions to the suit. His position is explained in detail.
Craigslist, on the other hand, gets comparatively little verbiage in its own words. Craigslist's reaction to McMaster's assertions are stated in broad terms, without McMaster's sense of specificity and precision.
The reader is left with a good idea of McMaster's position and less of Craigslist's. This is a great article for students of propaganda studies to cite when looking for media bias in the news, either deliberate or incidental.
Just a note.
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.
Reasonable cop/prosecutor (Score:2)
What do lazy fools that cares more about appearances than actually reducing illegal activies
A Very Stupid Prosecutor (Score:2)
The best prosecutor is all bite and no bark.
Threatening in the media is just an attempt to influence public opinion--including potential jury members.
This is also a public official trying to stigmatize a person with a crime without any crime even being charged.
This reminds me of Nifong and the lacrosse players. This prosecutor is bad and should not be reelected. He places his own selfish need for publicity above the defendant's right to its day in court.
SC Adult Industry (Score:3, Informative)
Just drive down I-85 or I-95 and see how many nudie bars are advertising on billboards all the way down the corridor.
The hypocracy of this guy is illuminated in Buckmaster's request for an apology, summarized by Cnet:
The attorney general, Buckmaster said, "has persisted with his threats despite the fact that craigslist:
http://blog.craigslist.org/2009/05/an-apology-is-in-order/ [craigslist.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely he'll end up in private practice again or become like Jack Thompson, a incensed crazed freak hell bent on enforcing his morals on everyone.
Implied illegal purpose of Adult Section (Score:3, Interesting)
The Adult Section is just like any of hundreds of online and print services meant to match people of similar interests. It's like Match.com, or Cupid.com for people who really intend to get physical. Often these people do not want a relationship and desire only one time meet-ups. Obviously a desire to do so goes against some conventions, and success in looking for that can be difficult. But there's nothing at all illegal about it.
One might suggest that a purposefully misleading portrait of the Adult Section as an intended service to promote prostitution is an agenda to aid in policing morality. That would be extremely dangerous precedent for a State's AG to pursue.
Interesting.. (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Craigslist blog post regarding filing (Score:2)
two types of prostitution, two types of opposition (Score:5, Interesting)
In the US, there are (at least) two types of prostitution, and two main groups of opposition.
Some prostitutes choose to be prostitutes, because it offers them the best income per unit time: they're just doing business. That's what many Americans, particularly libertarians, think of, when they advocate legalizing prostitution. In many countries, this has been the model they've taken.
Some prostitutes are not willing prostitutes -- they've been forced into it. This is primarily seen in the US with child prostitution, where we don't recognize the child's right to choose that particular profession, but in much of the world there is a large market for what is essentially sexual slavery.
Now, for the opposition: religious conservatives don't like the idea of sex outside marriage for a number of reasons. They're actively opposed to legalizing prostitution. Many other people are passively opposed to prostitution because they mentally model it as scabs crossing a union line called marriage, and dragging down the value of sex, to get all economic about it. This general group is going to oppose *any* type of prostitution, whether by choice or coercion.
The second type of opposition: many people oppose prostitution because either they're worried that even if it's primarily voluntary, it'll lead to a rise in involuntary/coerced prostitution, or they have decided that *any* prostitution is involuntary. (See Andrea Dworkin's work, for instance, where she generalizes to claim that any heterosexual act is essentially coercive. I don't agree, but it's unquestionably an influence.) So while this group -- typically on the left/liberal side -- might consider voluntary prostitution okay, they're still uncomfortable with the whole idea.
A lot of European countries have legalized prostitution while making pimping illegal and heavily prosecuted, which would tend (on first inspection) to select for only voluntary prostitution: just business. The problem with this is two-fold. Prostitutes find they make more money, and are safer, when they have someone to back them up in the case of a dispute with a client. One work-around is collectives, or unions, where prostitutes work with each other, but there's a fine line between that and pimping.
So it's not as simple as just saying 'legalize it'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps, but entanglements being such as they are, a female, sexual, roommate is not very far away from a wife, practically speaking.
Costs would likely attach that could be considered greater than those of prostitution. E.g. kids and jewelry.
Re:two types of prostitution, two types of opposit (Score:4, Informative)
I'm betting you're an American.
You should read about Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia some time.
Here's an interesting article [newyorker.com] detailing what's happening throughout those areas: women are hired in country A, by agents from country B, who tell the women that they're going to country C to be housekeepers, maids, or work in manufacturing jobs. Once they leave their country -- and often, pay for the ticket -- their passports are taken and they've become illegal aliens who are enslaved, for all practical purposes. The local police are involved, so that doesn't do them any good, and they're physically prevented from going to their embassies, who don't seem to have any interest in helping poor women, anyway.
The current estimates range between half a million and four million women being held this way. I have no idea how accurate that is, but as such, I don't think it's anything like a gross exaggeration to make the claim that involuntary prostitution is real.
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: (Score:2)
The legal paperwork meatspace DOS (Score:5, Informative)
Government officials, including the president, get sued all the time. Because they are being sued pursuant to their job, their employer defends them. Hell, I was just a lowly Officer with the IRS back in the day and I managed to get myself sued once or twice. The government has some really good lawyers and I was glad of it.
Sometimes, things get even more indisidious. Back in the day (20+ years ago) every local district office of the IRS had a director. There were 66 of them spread around the country and they were the public face of the IRS. Ours was a good guy, totally in the "firm but fair" mode, who even had a sense of humor. He used to donate his time (very occasionally) to charity to sit in a dunk tank and let the public try to drop him into the water.
So what was his reward for trying to be open, transparent, and just plain *human* to the public? Not only did he get sued pretty much every week, lots of anti-tax protestors would go to various county courthouses in the area and file "common law liens." These bogus documents were a bunch of rambling nonsense that basically says "The IRS is illegal so the local director should be held personally liable for all the damage they cause." Said "damage" was calculated in various ways, ranging from just the amount the aggrieved citizen-idiot owed all the way up to some approximation of the entire amount of money collected by the IRS in that city that year, typically billions.
The clerks at the county courthouses eventually learned to recognize this crap and refuse to accept bogus documents for filing but that put them on thin ice; they are supposed to let anything be filed and let the courts decide if a filing is fraudulent. Sometimes they just held the filings until the lawyers could have a look. Most time, the filings just went through.
Our guy was a good person, making a good salary, filing all required financial disclosure reports that showed he never defaulted on a loan or was late with bills. But at the courthouse, there were filings showing that he was a multi-billion dollar deadbeat. The poor guy had the worst credit in the world. Getting a loan to buy a house or car or just getting a credit card was an exercise in frustration for him.
So the answer to your question is "Lots of government lawyers spend their time going to court, time that could have been better spent doing work in the public interest. The few people filing frivoulous actions waste lots of your tax money. That's what happens."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The president is protected from civil suits while in office period.
Completely wrong [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How to fix all of this (Score:4, Informative)
They are protected by section 230. [cdt.org] The threats and allegations are unconstitutional and IMHO slanderous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)