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

Somehow, this must be Bush's fault

Somehow, this must be Bush's fault Originally Posted by pjorourke

You said it; not me.

So far i do not understand the problem. Just use a HTTP proxy outside the US for *.craiglist.org.
e.g. http://anonymouse.org

Over the past couple of years, I have heard countless arguments about Craigslist and its treatment of adult services violating the 1st Amendment. For those of who are concerned with Craigslist's censorship encroaching on your freedom of speech…


Consider this. Speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment when it is characterized as ‘obscene.’ Obscene speech refers many types of expression, most importantly, in this case, child pornography and its related exploitation of minors. Child pornography (and by extension, promotion of child prostitutes) is considered obscene not because of the sexual material involved, but because of the AGE of those involved. Theoretically, a child under the age of 18 is not legally entitled to enter into a contract, and is unlikely to enter into a business such as escorting without coercion or persuasion by an adult.



Additionally, Craigslist cannot, no matter what it does, violate your Constitutional right to free speech or ‘freedom of the press.’ Why? Because the Bill of Rights was not designed to protect individuals from other individuals, or to protect individuals from corporations. It was designed to protect individuals from the government. Because Craigslist is not a ‘government actor’ initiating some sort of restriction on your Constitutional rights, it’s incorrect to say that Craig’s new policy is somehow interfering with the protections extended to you by the 1st Amendment.



Why is this so important? Because anything Craigslist does, it is doing to protect its own interests as a business. The government claims that it is primarily interested in reducing pimping/pandering and child exploitation, but the fact remains that while escorting in and of itself is illegal, exchanging sex for money IS still against the law, and if law enforcement cracks down on the sad practice of child prostitution, and in the meantime happens to catch some adults involved in prostitution as well, they are simply doing their jobs.



Law enforcement exists to ENFORCE the laws enacted by the legislature. If you truly want to crusade against the injustices present in this situation, rally together and promote legalization of prostitution a la the great state of Nevada.



If you’d rather stay under the radar, keep quiet. If you're a provider, get a day job, find another way to advertise your services, and operate with the understanding that one day, you may get caught. If you're a hobbyist, find new avenues of locating providers, and operate with the understanding that one day, you may get caught. I personally think Craigslist's adult services and adult gigs sections are far too risky for either providers or hobbyists to be perusing them with any degree of seriousness, but that's just my humble opinion.



Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession. It was rampant long before the invention of the Internet or the advent of Craigslist, and it will be here long after. Elimination of CL's adult sections may reduce opportunities for human traffickers to profit off of their 'slaves,' but is there any reliable method of measuring that reduction?

You said it; not me. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

You did note the sarcasm smiley right?

Elimination of CL's adult sections may reduce opportunities for human traffickers to profit off of their 'slaves,' but is there any reliable method of measuring that reduction? Originally Posted by Natalie Reign

If there is no measure....how can they attribute any human trafficking to CL?

I have found very little data that supports the idea that there is in fact a huge problem in this country in human trafficking.

There must be some some ulterior motive on the side of CL, other than business, for AFAIK, there hasn't been any lawsuits or judgments that have stuck regarding them promoting any illegal business. Plus the 'therapeutic' listings are still there, which unless LE is completely blind, is about as blatant as can be in certain cities. I'm curious to see how this plays out.

@WTF: There is a significant amount of research and data regarding human trafficking in the United States, namely in the academic realm (in databases like JSTOR or EBSCO), but I've also managed to gain access to some government/law enforcement databases for academic research purposes. Most human trafficking involving foreigners, i.e. mail-order brides or indentured sex servants/slaves, is governed primarily by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and then by state or local law enforcement.

The most positive aspect of the Internet - that it allows instant connection and communication between people across the globe - is also the most powerful "new" tool in the sex trade. Online advertising has taken the place of newspapers and word-of-mouth, and has opened the door for anyone with access to a camera and a computer to become a "professional" sex worker. The anonymity provided by the Internet and its various methods of rerouting information makes a lot of us feel "safer" than we actually are, and enhances the expectation of personal privacy in the hobby to some degree.

When I questioned whether there is some reliable method of measuring how effective Craigslist's elimination of adult services sections would be on the human trafficking issue, I am considering two things. One, has there been any measurement of how prominent CL ads have been in promoting human trafficking up to this point? For example, can ICE state that 87% (or some other random number) of all promotion of prostitution cases involving children or sex slaves used Craigslist as a means to sell their product? If so, how will they measure a reduction in those types of cases?

I'm thinking CL's largest motive is money. Adult Services account for most of CL's income, and they don't want to lose those advertisers... but they also don't want LE breathing down their necks every day. Skimming over adultsearch.com reveals that CL advertisers have already found another home... perhaps the most important issue for CL was to separate the adult content from its everyday audience. Only time will tell.

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

But Craigslist won't be the last web site that this bunch attacks. All the advertising web sites will eventually come under attack.

I Love the Smell of the First Amendment Being Shredded... Originally Posted by SR Only

Is it anything like "napalm in the morning"?

In the last 12 – 15 months, there have been 3 high profile cases that have resulted in either death (Boston) or human trafficking (both NM). Were other sites used to procure these crimes? Probably, but the issue is that CL was the site used in all 3 of these cases to make contact with the victim and the crime (meaning death or HT, not prostitution) committed. All 3 cases were US domestic only (involved US victims) which is likely why only the US portion of the adult forum on CL is down and also why public opinion is rallying so high. Before these crimes, several LE officials lobbied hard for to get rid of CL. Public opinion wasn’t that high really, and these officials were struggling. Now that LE have this leverage, public opinion in the US has rallied enormously.
Since it’s been reported that CL generates somewhere in the region of $45 million a year (also reported to be about 30% of gross revenue) from these adult ads it’s not really a surprise that they have shut down only the US potion of that site. I’m sure its cost them a huge amount of revenue (I’ll bet the US was their biggest money spinner) but they haven’t conceded defeat by shutting down the rest of the same type ads elsewhere. Backpage, who have been grooming themselves in the background, will now pick up the slack until they are faced with the same issues. The risk on return of investment is likely worth it to backpage since they have seen that legally CL could not be forced to take down their site. It was their own decision.
Additionally, as reported by the WSJ, CL tried to adjust their “screening” last year after the Markoff incident. Each ad was read by a lawyer (so CL say). Fat lot of good that did, because as one poster said earlier, it’s not easy to spot the “wrong” type of ad. If it slipped by a lawyer who is specialized in this area then CL are effectively saying they cannot manage the ads even with legal help. They really were running out of humane options to fight this. The same fight would have been going on if the issue had been directly linked to Eros or TER or whoever. It just happened to be CL.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/te....html?_r=1&hpw


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 4, 2010
Craigslist Blocks Access to ‘Adult Services’ Pages
By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER
Craigslist, the popular Web site for classified ads, has blocked access to its “adult services” section and replaced the link with a black label showing the word “censored.”

Law-enforcement officials and groups that oppose human trafficking have been highly critical of Craigslist, saying that the adult ads helped facilitate prostitution and the selling of women against their will.

Craigslist, which is based in San Francisco, did not respond to requests for comment, and it was unclear whether the block represented a permanent shift in policy or a temporary protest against the outside pressure on the company, which has lasted several years.

Last month the attorneys general from 17 states sent a letter to Craigslist’s chief executive, Jim Buckmaster, and its founder, Craig Newmark, asking the company to immediately remove the adult services section.

The controversy is the one of the most prominent in the debate over free speech on the Web, where anyone can easily and anonymously post anything: just how much responsibility does a Web site have for what is posted by its users, or for potential criminal activity that results from the posts?

The company, while promising to provide more rigorous oversight of the ads, has defended its right to run them and says it is protected under federal law — the Communications Decency Act — a position that judges and legal experts have generally backed.

“They can absolutely keep it up. The law is pretty crystal clear on this,” said M. Ryan Calo, a senior research fellow at the Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet & Society. “What’s happened here is the states’ attorneys general, having failed to win in court and in litigation, have decided to revisit this in the court of public opinion, and in the court of public opinion, they have been much more successful.”

Richard Blumenthal, the Connecticut attorney general who helped lead the effort against Craigslist, said by phone on Saturday that “these prostitution ads did not promote a victimless crime. There is human trafficking in children, assaults on women.”

He said he was pleased that Craigslist appeared to be “doing the right thing voluntarily” but added that his office would continue to monitor the site and was trying to determine if Craigslist was closing the section permanently. Craigslist continued to block access to the section on Sunday.

The ads in the adult section, which cost $10 to post and $5 to repost, are a big revenue source, analysts say. Craigslist is private and does not report financial figures. But adult ads are expected to bring the company $45 million in revenue this year, according to the Advanced Interactive Media Group, an organization that analyzes Craigslist.

Some Internet law analysts said on Saturday that Craigslist could be sending more than one signal — that it was both capitulating to law enforcement and thumbing its nose at it.

“There are multiple ways in which to censor speech — one is directly through the courts, and the other is through a form of protest that says, even if you can do this, stop doing it,” said Thomas R. Burke, a lawyer at Davis Wright Tremaine who specializes in Internet law and is not involved with Craigslist. “Maybe their point in saying they were censored is that people need to understand the law better.”

But Malika Saada Saar, executive director of the Rebecca Project for Human Rights, a nonprofit group that has urged Craigslist to shut the adult services section and screen the entire site for such ads, said the company should be held responsible for what appears on its site. She said Craigslist “has the legal responsibility as well as the moral responsibility” to close the section. Craigslist has taken steps to appease critics before. In May 2009, it removed its “erotic services” category and replaced it with “adult services,” for “postings by legal adult service providers,” and had all adult services ads manually screened by a lawyer before posting.

But criticism has continued, fueled by prominent cases like that of Philip Markoff, a Boston medical student who was charged with murdering a woman he had met on Craigslist. He pleaded not guilty, and he died in jail last month in an apparent suicide.

The section in question appears not to have been blocked abroad. In France visitors to the site have access to the Érotique link and can see material intended for adults.

If gov't shuts you up, it's censorship. If you shut yourself up, it's not.

If you shut yourself up due to gov't pressure and threats, it's still not censorship.

If you shut yourself up due to gov't pressure and threats, it's still not censorship. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

The hell it ain't.

Just like BP made a "voluntary" $20 billion contribution to a trust fund.

If you shut yourself up due to gov't pressure and threats, it's still not censorship. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

The hell it ain't.

Just like BP made a "voluntary" $20 billion contribution to a trust fund. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Looks like that proposed Mosque at ground Zero could hire you for their PR, PJ.