

What Craigslist's "Adult Services" Decision Means for Free Speech - there
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/craigslist-beyond-censored

======
kevinpet
There's one small piece of history that I consider very relevant in any
discussion of CL and prostitution. CL did not always have an erotic services
or adult services section. They initially had normal personal ads (m4w, m4m,
w4m, w4w, casual encounters, friendship and missed connections IIRC), but the
professionals were flooding those categories with sex for pay. Craigslist
didn't create the sections to attract prostitutes, it created those categories
to keep the ads out of the other sections.

------
hugh3
_No one (including Craigslist) disputes that sex trafficking is a
reprehensible practice that should be vigorously opposed._

Wait, what does "sex trafficking" mean in this context? Is it just
"prostitution"? Because many people disagree with the banning of prostitution.

~~~
tptacek
This is a hand-wavy argument. If most people disagreed with the banning of
prostitution, there'd be popular ballot measures aimed at legalizing it, like
there are for cannabis.

~~~
enjo
[http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/poll-says-
yes-t...](http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/poll-says-yes-to-
paterson-no-to-legalized-prostitution/)

In this poll of New York voters 30% supported legalizing it. Clearly the
parent is correct, the use. of "no one" in the quote is clearly not true

~~~
tptacek
Of course it isn't, though, because "trafficking" involves the specific kinds
of prostitution in which people are transported from one locale to another
with the intent of alienating them from the local population and locking them
into a lifestyle that depends on the sex trade.

------
tptacek
All I'll say here is that it's not entirely apparent that craigslist is immune
from liability because of the CDA:

[http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho...](http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-1101_021.pdf)

That case, the one I believe most people are citing when they use the words
"common carrier" in conjunction with craigslist, was about an advocacy group
targeting craigslist for allowing discriminatory rental housing ads. "Go sue
the people posting the ads", it said. But note also this, from the opinion:

 _Nothing in the service craigslist offers induces anyone to post any
particular listing or express a preference for discrimination; for example,
craigslist does not offer a lower price to people who include discriminatory
statements in their postings._

This is clearly true for rental ads, where craigslist provides a forum for a
huge variety of different real estate ads, most legitimate, in which it is
prohibitively difficult for craigslist to isolate the offensive ads. It is not
as clearly true for the "adult services" ads, where craigslist has gone out of
its way to segregate the ads most likely to violate state pandering and
prostitution laws.

~~~
mariorz
They go "out of their way" to segregate the ads? isn't it just the users
posting their ads to the corresponding section?

~~~
tptacek
Users can't make up their own sections.

~~~
mariorz
yes, but the section isn't "prostitution". there are legit adult services in
those sections as well.

------
pyre
Maybe we should fire those AGs because they are not making any 'discernible'
impact on sex trafficking in their respective states.

------
zalew
'How Censoring Craigslist Helps Pimps, Child Traffickers and Other Abusive
Scumbags'

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danah-boyd/how-censoring-
craig...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danah-boyd/how-censoring-craigslist-
_b_706789.html)

------
sliverstorm
I still don't understand how this is a free speech issue. The particulars of
this case aside, I'm not exactly concerned that the government may be
censoring people advertising illegal services. Would it still be censoring if
Craigslist had a "hit men" section, and that was taken down?

Put aside your views on the legality of prostitution for a moment, and
remember that it is currently illegal.

~~~
kscaldef
not all "adult services" are prostitution.

------
ck2
Sometimes I wish HN had a filter I could use because the constant flow of
these articles and some of the opinions that follow really enrage me. Keep
voting me down though and just keep wondering why the number of women in tech
are so low with these kinds of chauvinistic attitudes.

It's illegal to yell fire in a crowded movie theater. That's not stepping on
free speech, it's an adjustment by society to keep things sane and fair. Same
thing for asking business to stop helping the selling of women.

And it's not "many people disagree with banning prostitution" - it's most MEN
want to reserve the right to trade money for instant sex, regardless of the
cost to society because they don't know how to regulate their cravings.

~~~
hnhg
I know a few guys who worked as escorts for female clients. The clients were
usually aged late 30s onwards, some lonely, some just looking for sex. Mostly
they were affluent, busy professionals. Women seem to like paying for instant
sex too if the social conditions are right.

~~~
jamesbritt
" Women seem to like paying for instant sex too if the social conditions are
right."

Indeed, it's said that you don't pay the [man|woman] for the sex; you pay them
to leave.

