Friday, March 6, 2009

(prostitution) is craigslist "knowingly promoting and facilitating prostitution"?

EVEN MORE: best Twitter exchanges from yesterday were from

@ricksanchezcnn What your guest is essentially saying is that Craigslist and Craig Newmark are running a fence for prostitution.
craignewmark @ricksanchezcnn Some honesty regarding the Cook County thing:
farhanmemon @craignewmark I think you're on shaky ground on this. You've set up a marketplace for human traffiking. The law may have to be changed.@craignewmark Read your "honest approach" Arg not compelling The facts on the ground: your system is being used for illegal underage sex@craignewmark True or false -- Prostitution is illegal? True or false -- CL has ads for prostitutes (True True).@craignewmark The law will shield digital media for only so long. Congress will get righteous and change the law esp. for human traffiking@craignewmark I have a law degree. Twit too short for analysis. Even if law shields you today may not continue as such if you don't clean up@craignewmark I'm defending VAWA immigrants against deportation. Know anyone in DHS?@craignewmark All I am saying is that CL is a marketplace for human traffiking like it or not. By creating "erotic" category you opened door@craignewmark Don't know anyone in power? You know the daddy mac...Obama.@LawProf You're right which is why CL needs to clean up act by policing erotic category.@craignewmark Your problem is following the advice of cops in good faith in one jurisdiction will not shield you from liability in another.@craignewmark Craig imagine your liability (you personally and CL) if a teenage prostitute gets murdered by a John who found her on CL?@craignewmark PS None of what I am saying should be thought of as legal advice. I'm sure you have plenty of lawyers working overtime.MORE: Twitter:

why do best things happen that odd day when you go to a wedding? (great developments on Twitter re:craigslist yesterday); we'll see if there is some spark left for today D

@ricksanchezcnn congratulation on your talk with Dart! (just saw the transcript) your Twitter reference gave a very different impression...D

STILL MORE: Twitter:

@ricksanchezcnn the question is whether or not craigslist is "knowingly promoting and facilitating prostitution"?

EVEN MORE: Twitter:

is craigslist "knowingly promoting and facilitating prostitution"?

MORE: it's disappointing to see how little critical thinking went into this article but on the positive side it does bring to light some good info (packaged neatly in all of two paragraphs...):

(8th and 9th paragraphs):

"Dart said the agreement between Craigslist and the attorneys general has resulted in *no appreciable reduction of ads for prostitution on the site*. Furthermore, he said, Craigslist does not monitor the "erotic services" section of the site, and when his officers have attempted to contact Craigslist *they have been ignored or not gotten the kind of help they need*.

Dart is asking a federal judge to order Craigslist to eliminate its "Erotic Services" section, where most prostitution ads are posted. He also is *seeking reimbursement for tax dollars spent* paying the salaries of officers who investigate and arrest those responsible for trafficking women on the Web site."

[my emphasis]

significant and telling misinformation: not mentioning the fact that we really don't know where the fees from the "erotic services" ads are going... (this should have been included in the 7th paragraph... as for presenting craigslist as "profit-adverse" (end of paragraph)... has this guy seen conservative estimates of craigslist's profits? doesn't look like it... D.


(as stated in the new federal case)

-- does the existence of the "erotic services" section result in an increased number of incidents of prostitution? I would think so... it certainly appears to provide an efficient and effective way of engaging in prostitution (at least some individuals would not have done it outside of craigslist) so how is this not knowingly promoting and facilitation prostitution?

-- craigslist's (too) long standing lame defense has been that if they got rid of that section, those ads would pop up elsewhere on craigslist... except that it would be much less efficient and effective than providing a centralized place for those ads and would thus result in less increase in prostitution...

-- and that's a red herring anyways because what craigslist provides in those sections is ADS, so they should screen those ads like advertisers are legally required to do... this is easily doable (a program that makes sure certain words are not mentioned in those ads -- nothing too sophisticated -- would accomplish the same function as the screeners employed by paper publications)

but that would take some time and money and craigslist appears to want to hold on to that money instead...

keeping those ads also appears to significantly increase the number of overall hits craigslist gets (and presumably attracts more advertisers to the pay sections)

-- EEF continues to miss the point... (willingly?): they keep talking non-sense about "freedom of speech"! those posts are just...ADS... they are in the advertisement segments of craigslist and as such should abide by legal requirements for ads... the posts in the craigslist FORUMS should definitely have the benefit of free speech (not that they always do, often a snap decision is made to move forum posts to the Isle of Misfits or delete them altogether...)


No comments: