Slashdot Mirror
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.
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...
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.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
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.
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
As long as they don't mess with continued additions to the best of craigslist I'm ok with the changes
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
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.
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?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
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.
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."
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.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
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.
There goes my social life.
Well, I doubt they're allergic to golden showers. :-)
... 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)
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.
Breakfast served all day!
Don't forget "is".
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
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.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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.
"Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"
Perl - $Just @when->$you ${thought} s/yn/tax/ &couldn\'t %get $worse;