Craigslist Agrees With State AGs To Curb "Erotic Services" Ads

The New York Times reports that Craigslist has reached an agreement with 40 state attorneys general to tame its notoriously unruly "erotic services" listings. Clever diplomacy: according to the article, Craigslist "said that it will charge erotic services vendors a small fee for each ad — about $10, Mr. Buckmaster said — and require that they use a credit card for the payment. It will donate the money to charities that combat child exploitation and human trafficking. This, theoretically, will let the company confirm not just a phone number but also an identity." I hope they work on cleaning the weird spammers from the ordinary personal ads, too.

Comments

back on the streets

[opencity]

Putting hookers back on the streets is good why?
This will just push the pros into the personals, though if Craigslist starts charging for personals as well they'll make a lot more money.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly why Craigslist created the ERS section--because they realized they couldn't eradicate prostitution ads from the site, so the next-best solution was to corral it into a section where it wouldn't bother anybody who wasn't interested. And that worked.

So...what does this accomplish? The pro's will move back into the personals, or into "Casual Encounters" or "Adult Gigs." They won't post in ERS, since their whole strategy is to slam ERS with as many ads as possible to keep theirs on the front page, and they're sure as hell not going to pay $10 per ad. Which raises the question: Who *will* post in ERS, if not prostitutes? Isn't this creating a fiction similar to the "non-prostitute escorts"?

These ads have been in newspaper classifieds since time immemorial, and they've been on Craigslist since its inception. This strategy won't drive them off. It just upsets the compromise that, frankly, had been working (eve for law enforcement, who could easily surf ERS to set up a quick sting on a slow week).

PS--Will this new "fee" will apply in areas where prostitution is legal (e.g., Rhode Island, parts of Nevada, maybe San Francisco)?

Re:back on the streets

[zappepcs]

What is wrong with the whole damned thing is this: prostitution is illegal, even though there are no victims for this crime, and I don't care what you think about how there is illegal activity all through the sex industry, it would not be nearly as prevalent if it were a legal business for which folk could lose their license if they were doing bad things.

Because it remains illegal, this sort of problem will plague online sites and newspapers etc. You can't get rid of it, can't keep it in a special section, can't clean it up. All those problems would be easy to deal with if it was licensed and legal.

This is just one of the places that government could tax and regulate to ensure a better public health, a safer society, and aid in decreasing or eliminating personal income tax.

Regulating morality does NOT work. Legislating a prohibition never has worked, especially on things that are victimless crimes.

Re:back on the streets

[QCompson]

Prostitutes are almost always victims in several reguards.

So are minimum wage workers. What's your point?

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

While I generally agree it won't go away, it also won't go away even if it were legal. There would still be a black market of people working "off the grid" as it were. I'm willing to bet that criminal market would be exactly as big as it is today.

In countries were it's legal it's still one of the most seedy underground criminal infested markets. Just like gambling. People trading other people as basically slaves and things of that nature. The legality makes no difference.

While I don't agree with regulating morality, the fact is we do it all the time. It's basically what most laws are. We do have a duty to reduce activity that harms others (crime and things of that nature). Certain things just attract that that "bad" element no matter what you do (legal or not).

Re:back on the streets

[zappepcs]

Pardon the pun, but morally speaking, there is more than one section of society which is in a bad place. If prostitutes had a legal standing their position would be a much better one. Lets not forget that the prostitutes you seem to be thinking about did not have the advantage of working for Heidi Fliess. Sex for trade or sale is as common as muck, most of it is simply covered by a marriage license. Argue all you wish with that, but it is true. It's only when partners change and money changes hands that anyone gets upset. Oddly, the people who get upset are those that would not be in the business anyway.

Most victimization of prostitutes is a direct result of the legality of their situation. If you could report your pimp for not paying you the agreed amount without going to jail, many problems would solve themselves regarding victimization. It is sad to see, but the LAW victimizes them as much as anything else.

Re:back on the streets

[frosty_tsm]

[quote]and aid in decreasing or eliminating personal income tax.[/quote]

I've heard the argument of taxing vices to eliminate taxes for the rest of us. The reality is that if you attempt to tax them enough to lift the tax burden from everyone else, a combination of 1) people won't do it as much and the revenue won't be there or 2) people will do it illegally or seek loopholes to avoid the steep taxes.

It would be a valid form of revenue, but not capable of supporting the country.

Re:back on the streets

[Mistshadow2k4]

Get real. Minimum wage workers in most places don't have to put up with being beaten on a regular basis, not to mention risking their life on daily basis to do their jobs.

Re:back on the streets

[jack2000]

Well if it was legal and regulated we wouldn't have that, now would we ? And all those woman and man could fuck for profit safely!

Re:back on the streets

[glwtta]

I've heard the argument of taxing vices to eliminate taxes for the rest of us.

Also, I'm not all that confident that if they started taxing "vice" I would end up in the "rest of us" category.

Re:back on the streets

[MarcQuadra]

I agree with your point of view. I live in a state where prostitution is -totally legal-, provided it's not promoted or enforced by management, and done completely indoors.

I live up the street from a place you can get a $60 handjob and $120 sex, and it's legal.

Most residents don't even know that this is the case here, since it's all very quiet and private, but it's a huge industry. We do -not- have a problem with 'streetwalkers' here, though, which is nice.

So long and short, we have legal prostitution, the world hasn't ended, and we have no outdoor streetwalkers or burgeoning women's prisons because of it. Most people don't know about it, and those who find out that it's legal don't usually go off on a rant about having to end it, since things are fine the way they are.

By the way, the state is Rhode Island, and this stuff happens at virtually every 'spa' and almost every strip club here. Come visit!

Re:back on the streets

[maiden_taiwan]

...even though there are no victims for this crime...

Ah. You believe the myth of the happy prostitute.

Picking up runaways off the street, forcing them into prostitution, and getting them indebted and hooked on drugs so they can't leave, is not a victimless crime. Making prostitution legal will not prevent this; there are always girls down on their luck, and always scum ready to prey on them.

Re:back on the streets

[icebrain]

Oh, yeah. Prostitution's bad. So let's throw these girls in jail, and give them a criminal record on top of whatever problem they've likely faced that pushed them to it in the first place. And that way, when they get out of jail, nobody will want to hire them and they'll be to ashamed to go do anything else.

It's one thing if it is truly 100% voluntary on the hooker's part; I have no problem with that. But most of them need help, not prison. Let's go after the pimps and the johns that take advantage of the ones in bad situations.

Re:back on the streets

[zappepcs]

An excellent point! If it were legal and safe? Uh, why wouldn't people go to prostitutes? I did say 'aid' in decreasing or eliminating...... not wipe it out in one swift move.

The other argument fails. Studies (no links to hand) have shown that legalization of victimless crimes (typically drugs) did not lead to higher drug use, or back alley dealing of drugs in spite of legal paths. Once there is a legal market, it sorts itself out. As for frosty saying people won't do it as much... ahem! When did sex ever get unpopular? In the history of the fucking world? Jebus, it's still popular in the Vatican FFS.

frosty simply offers arguments that the government as always offered. They have not fixed the problem, or made life any better for either the prostitutes or the johns. You'd think the legislators in Washington DC would be all for this? They seem to be regular customers. Well, some just hang out in bathrooms.

Even in dire times of financial crisis alcohol, sex, drugs, and gambling are top earners for those that deal in those businesses. Prohibition does NOT work, and only strengthens the bottom feeders who take advantage of people. And yes, sometimes those bottom feeders are the government!

Re:back on the streets

[zappepcs]

Your argument is invalid on several levels. I will probably offend some people here, but will try not to while still speaking frankly:

Women are born with the qualifications for prostitution. If they choose to be prostitutes in a safe clean environment, it is victimless. What you are talking about is a crime that has little to do with prostitution, in the same way that rape has little to do with sex. Sex just seems to be the hinging factor in both.

Slavery is what you are talking about, and that is wrong. Whether they are used as prostitute slaves, or kitchen slaves, it's wrong. So lets get that straight right now. Enslavement is wrong; prostitution is not.

What you describe are victims of slavery, not prostitution. Not all prostitution establishments are run off the backs of slaves. Just visit some legal brothels in the USA, or Europe etc. Your claims are used to validate making a victimless business into a criminal enterprise. You in essence force morality of your choosing on other people and THAT is wrong. The happy prostitute is not a myth, there just are not as many of them as there should be because people like you want to ruin their lives to suit your own sense of morality. That's sick!

Because of your self-serving morality and unwillingness to actually help people who are enslaved in any real manner, YOU are the one that is helping to enslave them by creating and perpetuating the situation that enslaved them in the first place. So take your pious reasonings, and walk on down to the jail, pick out one or two prostitutes and get them back on their feet... go on, lets see you hold up your part of the argument.

Re:back on the streets

[zappepcs]

On the sex and marriage part? Tell me what woman has not used sex to gain some advantage? Yeah, Mother Theresa doesn't count! I know a guy who makes a good deal of money, has a mistress, and a deal with his wife: sex and a hummer once a week, and she can have all the money she needs for her kids. That's true, not made up. I think you are probably naive if you believe marriage is sacred, and nothing bad happens in marriages. The divorce rate in the US is what? 50+ percent? Yep, that speaks volumes for how great marriage is.

For those who read the other post, no, I'm not bitter much. I just have a realistic view of the world. How many of the guys here in relationships haven't been offered an easy time in bed then asked for some gift or permission to spend money? say on a new car, or something for the house? That's legal prostitution in anyone's view, and because it is within the marriage, it's ok.

Yes, it comes down to what IS love, and when is sex not part of love. Everyone has to judge for themselves when it's just sex, or when it's truly love. The truth is that everyone is at some point going to trade sex for merchandise, money, or favors. Sorry folks, that is how the human species is. Altruism is great, in theory, but rather tainted in practice.

No, I'm not saying that ALL humans will do this. I'm just saying it's a trend with a very long history.

Re:back on the streets

[Spasemunki]

If underage prostitution or sex slavery is increased under a legalized prostitution regime, I think that is primarily evidence of inadequate regulation and inspection. You designate licensed premises for prostitution; anything going on outside of these places is breaking the law. Anyone prostitute in a licensed facility is subject to random inspection to ensure that their paperwork (age verification, clean STD screen), in which they're talked to privately away from management to ensure that they aren't there against their will. Any violation results in the whole facility losing a license. You require criminal background checks to get a license to run a brothel. Inspections and enforcement are paid for out of the taxes and license fees paid by brothels and prostitutes. Legal prostitution in the Netherlands is missing several of these steps as mandatory features, and has a patchwork of local regulations that may make it easier to hide offenses.

The expectation isn't that the present-day crop of pimps will suddenly become saints; the expectation is that you put a lot of them out of the business because they can't meet the licensing requirements, and replace them with legitimate business people who realize that sex sells, and that with legal protections can be a profitable business in a lot of areas. Right now prostitutes have no choice in who they work for; given a choice, I doubt that most would work for the pimps that are currently in business if given a choice. The key is balancing licensing and fees in such a way that you don't create an incentive to go around the legal system. That's a balancing act, but it at least creates an opportunity to improve the current situation and manage the harm that can be created by the sex trade.

Re:back on the streets

[sukotto]

Why is it illegal to charge for an activity that's legal to give away for free?
-- George Carlin (paraphrased)

Useless

[sfbiker]

What a brilliant idea! Those stupid prostitutes will *never* think about putting their ads in the Craigslist sections that don't require ID!

It's not like they aren't already posting in the non-erotic services sections, the w4m section often has ads with "women" looking for a "generous" guy who will help out a girl who will "do anything". Along with more explict ads from women advertising their services. They eventually get flagged off but get reposted quickly.

Just make prostitution legal and regulate it -- charge enough taxes and the Governator won't need to push for a California sales tax increase.

Re:Useless

[Babbster]

Why wouldn't they? The "true" professionals would likely be more than happy to pay taxes if they could eliminate the chance to get arrested for conducting their day-to-day business. As it is, I'm also sure that many of them already pay income taxes to some degree to avoid legal hassles if they're investigated by the IRS, declaring themselves to be an "escort" or some such.

Keeping prostitution illegal is misguided and based on a puritanical ideal that has never, and will never, be achieved.

Re:Useless

[mooingyak]

I have heard that many prostitutes file income tax returns.

Reason being that prostitution is usually a misdemeanor offense, while tax evasion is a felony.

Re:Useless

[ProzacPatient]

Keeping prostitution illegal is misguided and based on a puritanical ideal that has never, and will never, be achieved.

I'm against pre-marital sex, and that prostitution is a waste of money, but I also realize that I live in a free country and my personal standard is not everybody's standards and I have no right to force that upon them.
With that in mind I believe I can say that I agree with you because legalizing prostitution means that it can be properly and formally regulated to prevent the spread of STDs and other potential strings that may come attached (although I suppose that if you go looking for sex from strangers then you'd be willing to take that risk).
A good example might be the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920's and all the promises that overly self-righteous people said that would come with it. So much for those promises because the prohibition brought with it an expansion of organized crime and poisonous moonshine liqueur. The prohibition created more violence and crime then it was ever promised to save.

Sarcasm

[Renraku]

Most of the times when the police set up stings for Craigslist ads, several things are required. First, the motive. Obviously money. Then they have to get the prostitute to agree to sex-for-money. I don't think agreeing to it over the phone or via Internet is enough for a conviction. Most stings involve a police officer setting up a 'date' with one of these posters and then springing the trap.

Usually they'll get one hotel room for it somewhere and arrest several in a night.

That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex? There are plenty of people that are too busy/socially inept/ugly/etc to get sex the usual way. So the result is to effectively outlaw their only means of sexual outlet with other people?

Re:Sarcasm

[vux984]

That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex?

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.

So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell, because it leads to extreme exploitation/harm. So, you can't sell your organs or sex.

Does this -really- bother you? If so, you are in the distinct minority.

There are plenty of people that are too busy/socially inept/ugly/etc to get sex the usual way. So the result is to effectively outlaw their only means of sexual outlet with other people?

There are plenty of people that need new organs too, some of them die from the lack. I sleep fine at night, I think I'll survive knowing some 'too busy dirty asshole' didn't get to buy sex.

Now, there is some legitimacy to a successful independent call-girl, living life on her own terms, exercising discretion when choosing her "customers", actually enjoying the sex, etc. Sure, maybe that really should be legal.

But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

Re:Sarcasm

[QRDeNameland]

George Carlin's line was (to my best recollection): "Selling is legal, and fucking is legal, so why isn't selling fucking legal?"

Re:Sarcasm

[evanbd]

But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

What makes you think making it illegal helps? The way to stop people having sex for money to survive is to make it so they don't need to. If they need to, they will, and making it illegal just makes it riskier for them. As you say, society shouldn't put them in that position; it certainly shouldn't put them in a position where they need to have illegal sex to survive.

People having sex to survive, and that sex being illegal, are two different problems. Solving either one while ignoring the other is better than doing nothing, though obviously solving both is better.

Re:Sarcasm

[jollyreaper]

There are plenty of people that need new organs too, some of them die from the lack. I sleep fine at night, I think I'll survive knowing some 'too busy dirty asshole' didn't get to buy sex.

Or some dirty filthy faggot isn't having gay sex, thank God. Or some dirty filthy hippie isn't living in a commune, thank God. And what about the dirty filthy atheists sleeping in on Sundays? Should get them to church where they can work it out with the Lord!

As for your talk of women having sex for money, I can't tell you how many failed marriages I've seen essentially amounted to the same thing. The woman is with the man because of his earning potential. He loses his job, can't pull down six figures at a new one, she moves on. A whore is honest, she tells you she's fucking for money. Women like this are dishonest whores.

(not trying to let men off the hook, the kind who churn through trophy wives, but we're talking about prostitution here, usually considered to be men soliciting women.)

Re:Sarcasm

[CodeBuster]

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there.

Hence the purpose of regulation. In certain counties of Nevada, for example, whore houses are regulated and legal businesses with employment applications, W-2's, on-site security, medical staff, and every thing else that one might expect in a professional, legal, and regulated business. Those who choose to operate outside that system are still busted, even in those counties. This sort of arrangement removes the coercion from the profession. Now, before you say, "no women would willing chose that profession" remember that these women are earning thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars a month for basically unskilled labor. The fact that some people might not choose to do a job if they weren't paid doesn't mean that the job should be outlawed for being exploitative (someone has to work all of those McJobs after all).

So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell, because it leads to extreme exploitation/harm. So, you can't sell your organs or sex.

Which it really has no right to do. There is no worse tyranny than to remove from adults the sovereign ability to have control, even choices that you might disagree with, over their own bodies. The state doesn't own your body, it belongs to you and you alone.

Does this -really- bother you? If so, you are in the distinct minority.

The Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the minority, the majority generally looks after itself.

but if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal?

There simply need to be fines large enough to prevent under the table competition to the official legalized venues. The system is already up and running in parts of Nevada. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to legalize, regulate, and tax prostitution.

Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

How is that different from someone taking any other job that you find undesirable (ala Dirty Jobs) to survive? Should society ban people from shoveling hog manure or cleaning up pigeon poop because you think the job is dirty and nasty and nobody should be "forced" to do it to survive?

Re:Sarcasm

[ion.simon.c]

Like, say being screamed at for fourty ear shattering hours a week in a "call center"?

To quote Geroge Carlin...

[thenewguy001]

Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why isn't selling fucking legal?

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[guyminuslife]

Eating is legal. Babies are legal. So why isn't eating babies legal? ;-)

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[Savatte]

It's like Matt Groening's great cinema paradox:

the french are funy
sex is funny
comedy is funny

yet no french sex comedy is funny

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[PPH]

So why isn't selling fucking legal?

Because it undermines the Church's attempt to monopolize men's source of pussy.

Re:Censorship

[glwtta]

Last iheard sex between 2 consenting adults was legal in this country, and so was talking about it.

I'm not sure where you are, but here in the US that's not always as certain as we'd like it to be.

Re:Censorship

[houstonbofh]

Last iheard sex between 2 consenting adults was legal in this country, and so was talking about it. I'm not sure where you are, but here in the US that's not always as certain as we'd like it to be.

Yep. We seem to have problems with definitions. Such as "consent" "adults" and even "sex."

Re:Censorship

[Babbster]

The difference between Max Hardcore and most of the porn industry is that his videos are entirely about dressing "barely legal" girls up to look like "non-legal" girls and then humiliate them, often involving urination...not that I think that should be illegal (if somebody wants to buy it and the people involved are consenting adults), but he's definitely at the more extreme edge of porn.

"No victims"

[PCM2]

What is wrong with the whole damned thing is this: prostitution is illegal, even though there are no victims for this crime

Let's get over this idea that there are "no victims" in the crime of prostitution. The victims are the prostitutes. Yes, some people do willingly trade sex for money. A great, great many do not. Prostitutes are preyed upon daily by pimps, johns, drug dealers, human traffickers, and sadists. If we decriminalized the business of prostitution, some of this would disappear but some of it would not. Amsterdam, which has legalized prostitution, has recently recognized the influence of international organized crime on its red light district.

Deregulating immorality does NOT work.

Re:"No victims"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

pop quiz: does making it illegal make prostitution more or less susceptible to criminal influence?

Re:"No victims"

[glwtta]

If we decriminalized the business of prostitution, some of this would disappear but some of it would not.

So, decriminalization would lead to improvements, but it's not perfect, so the status quo is better? Doesn't make much sense.

That said, I'm no expert here, since everything I know about prostitution I learned by watching that show where Billy Piper takes her kit off a lot. On mute.

Re:"No victims"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Prostitution on the other hand is completely different. There is no way to go back in time and suddenly make it part of society and acceptable. Even in certain past times when it was "acceptable" it was almost entirely in societies and were on the verge of failing with their eventual downfall not fall behind.

Lol. Shows what you know. Prostitution is legal in most of Europe as well as Canada.

It's not called the world's oldest profession as a joke.

Re:"No victims"

[JesseMcDonald]

there are no victims for this crime

Let's get over this idea that there are "no victims" in the crime of prostitution.

(Emphasis mine.)

What you say is true, but what the GP says is also true. The act of prostitution itself harms no one but the one choosing to commit it, and thus fits the definition of a victimless crime perfectly. The prostitute may in fact be a victim of other crimes, and there may exist victims of separate crimes associated with (but not caused by) prostitution, but it is nonetheless a crime for which there are no victims.

Re:"No victims"

[Ed Avis]

Your example is not of a case where prostitution was legalized, but of a case where it remained illegal but the police abdicated their responsibility to enforce the law. That is quite different.

If it were legal, prostitutes wouldn't need to be on the streets at all. They could set up premises, pay taxes, and be entitled to police protection just the same as any legitimate business. They wouldn't need pimps or to hide when a police car drove by.

Again, who is regulating these massage parlours? An ordinary business like a grocery store or a car parts factory cannot traffic people from China and keep them hostage. It would be difficult to explain to the tax authorities, health and safety inspections, the unions and all the rest of the framework society has developed to keep companies behaving responsibly. If nothing else, the customers would simply tell the police if they spotted something suspicious. So why doesn't it happen in San Francisco? Isn't it because these places are illegal and nobody who goes there wants the police to know about it? If prostitution were fully legalized then seedy backstreet massage parlours would soon be driven out of business by legitimate, clean, tax-paying and safe sex businesses. After all, which would you rather visit?

I fully agree that just turning a blind eye to breaking the law is not the right answer. If prostitution is illegal then that needs to be enforced vigorously, because often habitual lawbreaking in one area leads on to criminality elsewhere. So 'condoning prostitution' while keeping it legal is a bad idea; but legalizing prostitution is quite different.

Not so.

[Jane Q. Public]

In the few places where it is legal in the U.S., such as Nevada, the commercial operations show a very different side of the coin.

The workers tend to be happy, they make a good income, AIDS is simply unknown, and other diseases are extremely rare. They get regular tests and medical checkups. Nobody has to "see" anybody they don't want to. Beating the girls does not happen... nobody would work there, and the beater would go to jail. The owners and operators simply do not tolerate that kind of bullshit.

You can say that the vast majority are mistreated... but that same majority are doing it ILLEGALLY on the streets. If you honestly compare where it is legal and where it is not, the story is vastly different.

pre-paid credit cards

[NotQuiteReal]

Good enough to help elect a president, good enough to buy hooker ads.

Not much difference between the two (hookers and politicians, no offense).

Re:Analogy to copyright?

[EllisDees]

Exactly who would come after you for infringing the copyright of a work of unknown origin?

In the words of the late, great George Carlin...

[ZxCv]

"Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"

Church and State overlap forbids this

[Trip6]

There's still way too much crossover between church and state in this country to allow this to happen. Just look at the gay marraige ban votes and tell me they weren't religiously motivated.