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

"I hope they work on cleaning the weird spammers"

[hxnwix]

Amen. The spammers from the ordinary personal adds are really dirty and urgently require cleaning of any kind. You'd think these guys are allergic to showers...

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

[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

[QCompson]

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.

I don't have numbers to back up how many craigslist prostitutes get "beaten up on a regular basis" and I bet you don't either.

In any case, coal miners risk their lives on a daily basis, and workers in such dangerous jobs often get paid more to risk their lives. Kinda like prostitutes.

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

[Captain Splendid]

I'm willing to bet that criminal market would be exactly as big as it is today.

So, even though prostitutes wouldn't have to spend precious time and resources looking over their shoulder, getting arrested, going to court, going to prison, going to halfway houses, being able to file charges on their pimp should they still bother to have one, NOTHING will change? I think you need to show your work there.

We do have a duty to reduce activity that harms others

It would also be nice if we didn't enact laws that do exactly the thing they're "supposed" to be protecting. Awww, who am I kidding, let's just go ban something else!

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

[Darby]

Prostitutes are almost always victims in several reguards.

And making it illegal only makes that worse, which was his point.

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.

Sum it up

[Itninja]

The last line in the article is awesome: "There are very few prostitutes who want to be called by Craigslist and asked to give additional identifying information."

This immediately made me think 'so you are saying that some prostitutes want Craigslist to call them?'. Now that's kinky.

Re:Sum it up

[moderatorrater]

Which makes me wonder, what is craigslist wearing?

Re:"I hope they work on cleaning the weird spammer

[nizo]

As long as they don't mess with continued additions to the best of craigslist I'm ok with the changes

"Mr. Buckmaster said"

[auLucifer]

I'm sure there's a joke right there ...

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

[guyminuslife]

I don't have first-hand knowledge, but I'm pretty sure that the smarter prostitutes pay income tax anyway, and list their occupation as something legal. You pretty much need a bank account, especially if you're in a job that dangerous. That's a paper trail; vice cops are one thing, but the IRS is a beast nobody wants to tangle with.

Of course, it's easy to tax brothels. I believe that one of the reasons why the Nevada cathouses have never been shut down is the fact that so much of the municipal government's revenue comes from taxing prostitution. Brothels, of course, have their own unique problems, though.

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.

Re:Censorship

[NiceGeek]

Even more mind-boggling is that making porn movies is legal. So it's only illegal if one of the people gets paid and the other doesn't.

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

[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

[jcr]

Pimps are kept in business by the ban on prostitution. Legalize it, and they'll have to find another way to make a living.

-jcr

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

[Jedi Alec]

remember that these women are earning thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars a month for basically unskilled labor.

Unskilled???

Combat child exploitation

[MartinSchou]

If they are donating money to a charity to combat child exploitation, can we please have that charity fight the constant "think of the kids", "harm to kids", "oh noes, kids might see this" exploitation?

Their motto should be a George Carlin quote: "Fuck the children!"

To quote Geroge Carlin...

[thenewguy001]

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

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[forkazoo]

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

The illegality of each of those things is negative. So, when you multiply them together, you are bound to wind up with a result that has positive illegality, duh. It's pretty basic arithmetic. Of course, it does lead to the little known fact that doing any two legal things together is illegal. Aside from selling fucking, driving while blindfolded is another relatively obvious example. Most minor cases of doing two legal things at the same time are never prosecuted, but standing while muttering is technically not legal, thanks to math.

Of course, the circumvent the issue, you just need to do a third legal thing while you whore yourself out, like read a book. Then the extra minus sign multiplies through and they can't do anything to you.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[guyminuslife]

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

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[VShael]

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

So true. But also other women of the non-prostitute variety, would also like to control men's access to pussy.

Which is why many of them look at prostitutes as if they were scabs crossing a picket line.

Re:Censorship

[sexconker]

I'll pay $100 if you:

Contract a performer that I represent for a $50 fee.
Star in an art performance with the performer (who may or may not be me), in which you give him a blow job.

Drum up some paperwork at legalzoom.com and it's air tight.

Re:Censorship

[nurb432]

*porn* is not protected by the first amendment. *adult films* are.

Not that i agree, but thats how the supreme court ruled long ago. Its why they have to have a plot ( however thin ) and a dialog ( however small )

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."

Bummer

[xs650]

There goes my social life.

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some are real - it's all about being careful and cross referencing with other sites (like TER or BD). I mainly "hobby" during business trips, where I don't know the local landscape. I use (or I guess, used, past tense) CL for the quantity and a good representation of who is still in business and active. These are the ones I can xref to other sites and narrow my search to 1 or 2 final candidates. It works (or used to) well, I've gotten my fix on nearly every business trip the last 4 years.

Re:"I hope they work on cleaning the weird spammer

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think these guys are allergic to showers...

Well, I doubt they're allergic to golden showers. :-)

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[houstonbofh]

... how many /.ers are pro prostitute.

It is less "pro prostitute" and more "anti restrictions." The government should not stop me from doing anything! (Unless it is someone else doing it to me)

"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"

[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:Censorship

[dgatwood]

Don't forget "is".

In related news ...

[PPH]

...CraigsList will be sending their representatives wearing big floppy hats, full length fur coats and numerous gold chains around to collect their fee from erotic service workers.

Re:Analogy to copyright?

[Captain Splendid]

Would I have had better luck with a car analogy?

Yes. What you did was like slowing down the car with the handbrake instead of downshifting.

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.

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[Junior J. Junior III]

I'm anti-prostitution, and I'll tell you why:

At some point, some pointy-haired boss type will realize that, if prostitution is legal, that means they can add sexual services to whatever job description they want.

After that sucking corporate cock won't just be a metaphor for hating your shitty job, it'll be the literal truth.

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?"