I Love the Smell of the First Amendment Being Shredded...

I clipped this from another list:

I Love the Smell of the First Amendment Being Shredded...
Sometime late Friday Craigslist shuttered...er... I mean CENSORED (their word, literally) the “Adult Services” section for all its sites in the U.S. The story was first reported on TechCrunch; a flood of other outlets have followed, none of them with any more information than TechCrunch, save for an arrogant statement from Conn. AG and governor wannabe, Richard “I Did So Fight in Vietnam...no, wait” Blumenthal.

Here’s the WPost story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/04/AR2010090401719.html

Here’s the quote from Blumenthal:

In a statement, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) - who was among 17 attorneys general who last month asked Craigslist to shut down its "adult" section <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/24/AR2010082405813.html> - said he welcomed "Craigslist's apparent decision to close" the section.

"We welcome any steps toward eliminating the adult services section and prostitution ads on Craigslist, as we have urged, and we are seeking to verify the site's official policy going forward," Blumenthal said. "If Craigslist is doing the right thing voluntarily in response to our coalition of attorneys general, it could set an example for others."

And yes, that IS the sound of free expression you hear being shredded in the background.

Oh! One more thing... apparently if you live OUTSIDE the U.S., access to these Adult Services is still available.

What the AG really meant is “We don’t like prostitution.” So instead he says, [It causes human trafficking.] I love it. When someone wants to say something that is bossy or puritan or whatever they always break out the tried and trues. “It’s for the kids.”; “It’s a safety issue.”; or whatever who-doesn’t-like-puppies excuse they can make up.

Are some of the ads on Craiglist so poorly written that they are unguised solicitation? And if so, is that a First Amendment issue? I would assume it is a violation since it’s just a coalition of state AG’s applying pressure to Craigslist instead of going through the legal channels and prosecuting the .solicitation.

All I can say...it's a sad, sad day.

Of course Blumenthal is running for the Senate seat vacated by Chris Dodd. His opponent? Linda McMahon partner-owner of the WWF (even though she resigned). Blumenthal has been bagged too saying he served in Vietnam when he never was over there. No honor amoung thieves.

Lordy who do I vote for? Blumie cause he's cracking down on advertising for the world's oldest profession or the biotch carpet bagger who's company promotes steroid use? These two make attorneys look good.

Is it a violation of the first amendment when the act that is "censored" is illegal? Technically aren't those ads breaking the law in the US?

I logged onto the Canadian CL, and all is just as it was before.

Seems the Americans are the only ones blocked out, it's like we have our own China just south of us - without all the production factories to fuel the economy!

Forgive me for teasing, the US is a great place to visit.

It is perspective. The AG's cannot stop the activity. They can inhibit the media in which to advertise those activities. We all know if not craigs the ads will move elsewhere. Good old demand and supply. We know there's demand. and we know there's supply.

The poster who put together what I reposted, is a reporter, so his take is that it is violating the first amendment.

It is perspective. The AG's cannot stop the activity. They can inhibit the media in which to advertise those activities. We all know if not craigs the ads will move elsewhere. Good old demand and supply. We know there's demand. and we know there's supply.

The poster who put together what I reposted, is a reporter, so his take is that it is violating the first amendment. Originally Posted by SR Only

Exactly. I posted on the other CL thread here that I saw first (maybe JB can close one and consolidate the two as they are nearly identical?) something similar in a slightly different way.

The system worked. A private company made a business decision to discontinue a product.

It isn't going to keep someone that wants to find a call girl from finding one somewhere else.

Is it a violation of the first amendment when the act that is "censored" is illegal? Technically aren't those ads breaking the law in the US? Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

They may not be violating the law, but does CL want to expend resources to fight is a separate question. For example posting a manual on how one might break into a bank vault is probably not illegal, acting on it is.

It all comes down to dollars. But if the ACLU comes to Craigs ad then it will have legs.

Just to better focus the discussion, let's just put the First Amendment issue to bed.

Here's a copy of a post I made about the same topic a few months ago on a another board:

Commercial speech, including virtually all advertising, enjoys significantly less protection than other types of speech (with political speech being given the greatest priority in the eyes of the law). When it comes to advertising the government has an interest in protecting commerce from fraudulent and illegal activities. The state therefore has the power to heavily regulate advertising to ensure that it does not promote such activities.

The courts have upheld these kinds of advertising ordinances many, many times. All the state has to do is show that it has some interest in regulating or prohibiting the speech at issue and the law will stand up to First Amendment attack.

Quoteth the US Supreme Court in Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Rel. Comm'n, 413 US 376 (1973): "We have no doubt that a newspaper constitutionally could be forbidden to publish a want ad proposing a sale of narcotics or soliciting prostitutes."

And there are numerous later decisions in both the Supreme Court and the lower courts affirming that language.

This issue is, whatever you may think about it, over and done with as far as the law is concerned. It's finished, complete, wrapped up. Move along. There's nothing to see here. This issue was decided forty years ago and it's set in stone as far as the courts are concerned.

You can come on the internet all you want and talk about providers and prostition - that's protected free speech. But the state has the power to ban advertising for services in any jurisdiction where such activity is inherently illegal.

So there ya have it. The issue isn't whether they can shut down CL, it's whether they should. I have a feeling that pretty much everybody here is going to come down on one side of that argument.

All of that said, I also have the feeling that there's much more to this story than you may think. My suspicion is that there's a very crafty lawyer at work for CL here. I think what you're seeing with this "censored" label is somebody setting up the AG's for a fall. The Supreme Court's opinion in Pittsburgh Press has a hole in it based on a different part of the Constitution. I think CL may just be getting ready to shove a big, hard lawsuit into that hole (a process that some lawyers find irresistibly erotic).

Maybe I'm wrong and they really are going to just roll over and play dead, but somehow I don't think you've heard the last from CL about it just yet.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Is it a violation of the first amendment when the act that is "censored" is illegal? Technically aren't those ads breaking the law in the US? Originally Posted by Lauren Summerhill

They may not be violating the law, but does CL want to expend resources to fight is a separate question. For example posting a manual on how one might break into a bank vault is probably not illegal, acting on it is. Originally Posted by discreetgent

It's the same reason insurance companies* settle damage lawsuits. It's cheaper to settle than to fight. Even the settlement paperwork says that the insurance company is not settling because of any liability they might have, but merely to "buy peace."

In this instance, I fear Craigslist has done essentially the same thing. It measured the potential mire and cost with all the states' attorneys general chasing it, and deemed it was prudent to shut down this part of its business in the states.

*dealing, of course, on behalf of their insureds.

Strictly speaking, I don't think it's censorship for two reasons. 1) Craig's List did it voluntarily, albeit under pressure; and 2) advertisements for illegal good or services aren't Constitutionally protected, as Mazomaniac stated. That being said, it is unfortunate for those of us in the hobby. But it is predictable.

That being said, it is unfortunate for those of us in the hobby. But it is predictable. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Actually, TTH, I might disagree with this. First of all, with all the fake pics and cash and dashes that were stored on CL, it might save some of us from getting taken. And it might cause the provider cream to rise to the top now.

Of course, if you look at the hobby overall, the prices might go up substantially now that the CL bottomfeeders won't be around to anchor prices. OTH, LE won't have a focal point in which to focus their attention.

Actually, TTH, I might disagree with this. First of all, with all the fake pics and cash and dashes that were stored on CL, it might save some of us from getting taken. And it might cause the provider cream to rise to the top now.

Of course, if you look at the hobby overall, the prices might go up substantially now that the CL bottomfeeders won't be around to anchor prices. OTH, LE won't have a focal point in which to focus their attention. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Don't get your panties in a bunch over this Charles. The internet is a big place. This advertising will just figuratively move down the street taking with it the good and the bad...

I have never used CL much for hobby research. Too much guessing. Tried to sell some stuff a few times. When they started reporting about trafficking minors openly on CL, I couldn't believe it and took a look. In my local area CL, it seemed to be like the ads that could be found in what we used to call a Newspaper or Tabloid. None of it seemed too explicit and it all seemed to be AMPs, independents or agencies known to this board. And minors? I may be naive, but no ads that I could figure out hinted at underage. So whats the big deal.? I thought now that we have the most liberal administration EVER, all this would loosen up some.

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot: Interrogative (Emphatic)