Slashdot Mirror
Craigslist Fires Back Over Adult Services Accusations
Craigslist has fired back at South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster in an open letter defending the company's policies and procedures surrounding the much debated "adult services." Stating not only the measures that have been taken to minimize illegal behavior, CEO Jim Buckmaster suggests that Craigslist is doing much better at minimizing questionable ads than other major competitors like Yahoo!, Google, and others. "Mr McMaster, I strongly recommend you reconsider and retract your remarks, and positively affirm that you have no intention of launching criminal investigations aimed at any of these upstanding companies, because in truth none of them are deserving of such treatment. [...] We're willing to accept our share of criticism, but wrongfully accusing craigslist of criminal misconduct is simply beyond the pale. We would very much appreciate an apology at your very earliest convenience. As I'm sure would all of the other fine companies whose executives you've called out as criminals."
The problem with politicians is, well, that they exist as a profession.
Instead of having a dedicated, small group of individuals in charge of everything (leading to ridiculous situations like this, where they posture for the electorate), why not have anyone be as involved in government as they wish?
Sounds like somebody is setting himself up for a run at the Governor's Manson.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
In trying to understand why he seems so adamant to grandstand at this particular time, it might help to know that he's planning to run for governor next year. I'm not saying he's a whore who's only doing it for that reason, mind you. Perish the thought that a politician would be so cynical!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Craigslist is the place to purchase a blowjob from a nigger.
Kudos to Craigslist. Sex sells. They have done more than they should have to prevent this kind of activity on their site. The way I see it, they are keeping officers employed by busting the prostitutes and the people who use their services. Its a personal choice if you choose to use the services. they control their content but honestly stopping craigslist from have an adult section is gonna do absolutely nothing to stop prostitution in cities. There are plenty of other websites such as backpage or citypages that do the same exact thing at no charge and I've yet to see any of them make the news. The claim that the "prosititute" was killed because she posted on craigsiist is bogus. She's the one taking the chance by sleeping around and she'd do it whether or not craigslist existed or not. It's about time someone grew a pair and stood up to the corrupt legislatures in this country and told them to politely f*ck off.
...but I'd be willing to bet that South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster has had some direct personal experience with these so called "Adult Services". Perhaps even through Craigslist?
Like I said, it's just a hunch.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
... when they refused to grow a pair and claim First Amendment protection, not to mention the safe-harbor provision of the CDA. Paternalistic, moralizing governors and DAs have no Constitutional basis to object to anything Craigslist was doing, and the company should have told them to STFU and GBTW.
But instead they tried to "negotiate," "compromise," and otherwise find a middle ground with religiously-motivated censors and nanny-statists.
Yeah. That always works. Because those sorts of people always go away and leave you in peace once you give in to their demands. <rolleyes>
Google's motto is "do no evil". Craiglist's is apparently "do no evil and don't be a pussy".
Good for them.
If he wrote it down, sue him for libel, too. It's pretty obvious that saying your business is a criminal enterprise that endangers its customers' lives would be damaging to your business, and there seems to be plenty of evidence showing that it is better run than many unmentioned competitors.
They should threaten to pull one Henry McMaster's Craigslist ad soliciting sex.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
So what are some other sites that the AG should try to take down for prostitution?
Purely for sake of argument of course. cough cough
... when they refused to grow a pair and claim First Amendment protection, not to mention the safe-harbor provision of the CDA. Paternalistic, moralizing governors and DAs have no Constitutional basis to object to anything Craigslist was doing, and the company should have told them to STFU and GBTW.
But instead they tried to "negotiate," "compromise," and otherwise find a middle ground with religiously-motivated censors and nanny-statists.
Yeah. That always works. Because those sorts of people always go away and leave you in peace once you give in to their demands. <rolleyes>
Ah. So, you're calling Craigslist out for trying to be civil. Good man! We need more people flying right off the deep end without any sense of negotiation. We also need more stereotyping, darnit, because without that, we might be seen as a serious culture! We have to preserve our l33t, underground status as overreacting outsiders whom nobody should try to understand because we get in huge screaming fits over what the other 90% of the planet just doesn't give a rat's ass about!
Shame on you, Craigslist! Shame on you for trying to be civil! Next time somebody looks at you funny, break his/her nose to restore the balance!
Just look at the Yellow Pages for any moderately large city... it will have hundreds of ads for "escorts" and "escort agencies'. This kind of activity has been going on for ages, but no one ever made a big stink. Now that it's on the intewebs prosecutors somehow feel that there is cause for concern? I say, Quit wasting my tax money!
But I doubt your state has exhausted its backlog of murders, rapes, armed robberies, child molestation cases, etc. Until you do, here's a polite suggestion: get your fucking priorities straight you worthless politician.
I swear, the fatal flaw of democracy is that it relies on the public to make the highest office holders do their job and not just use the office as a means of personal advancement. At least under a monarchy, the king could bitch slap a guy like this for grandstanding (not saying we should go back to a monarchy).
While I do agree that Government has no business intervening in the running of Craigslist. And I do believe that genuine sex workers have a right to advertise their services, Craigslist protestations are not from a position of strength.
Ever visited a Craigslist site that's not in the US? Try it now. There is not one single genuine ad on any of them. There's literally thousands of scams on any foreign Craigslist site. Craigslist absolutely fails to control its sites.
Prositutes, Dommes and other sex workers are making a genuine living, and many of them are honest, but that's not the majority of ads on Craigslist. It's premium rate phone scams, ID thieving fake Dating sites and webcam operators, and Nigerian scammers.
When Craigslist makes an effort to genuinely clean up its site, people might take its protestations seriously.
There is absolutely no point whatsoever in visiting any Craigslist site that's not in the US. They would be better just to take down all foreign sites. All of them.
... is that "...measures that have been taken to minimize illegal behavior"?
That's cool - I wish I had the same standard with regard to my personal conduct.
"Officer, I've done everything I can to minimize speeding, but today I just couldn't help it."
"Gee, your honor, I did everything I could to minimize my need to bash the victim's brains in, but this one slipped thru the cracks. I know you'll understand."
Since when is mostly legal "good enough"? Isn't obeying the law a zero-tolerance situation?
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
To me, it sounds like you're advocating reasoning with people that may well be unreasonable. Embarking on that is like arguing with pigs.
...and prosecutions against successful businesses are up. Go figure.
They probably have a case for slander.
Actually, the GP poster has a point. It's not pretty, but there are a lot of people out there who see compromise as weakness. If you look at recent history of the Basque separatist movement, for example, as soon as there was some level of conciliation, the level of violence skyrocketed.
Part of it may also be that people who have lived for so long fighting a particular cause end up being more attached to the fight than the cause itself, and as soon as it looks like their way of life is threatened, they try to do things which encourage the fight to continue.
In this case, however, I feel it's a much baser motivation. Like a shark smelling blood, this guy decided he could have a little PR feeding frenzy to fuel his gubernatorial run. Silly AG, don't you know that a well-educated populace would never fall for such a thing?
The CB App. What's your 20?
If only a) I had mod points and b) you hadn't posted as AC...
The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
Yep, how stupid of them to try to be reasonably and cooperate with other organizations. Why, if everyone did what they did... oh wait. If everyone did what they did the world would run a lot smoother and we wouldn't need to go to the courts over every tiny little issue. Now, obviously not everyone is going to cooperate, but that just means the organizations that do deserve our appreciation and encouragement, not our disdain
But I think it would have been better had he left out things like the "NSFW" acronym, the "bold" quotes (*sure*) and the ??? at the end of a couple of questions. I hate nothing more then those annoying emails that come from a coworker asking "Where are the files you just showed me two minutes ago!?? I can't find them?????"
I mean, like OMG, are we *really sure* that the target audience knows what these very web based conventions are and mean????
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Who knew?
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
The sign of a good compromise is when both sides are unhappy. Just because you have the right to free speech, it doesn't always mean it is in your best interests to use it all the time. People are complaining about something even though it is in your rights you can always choose to back down too. Or are you the guy who never lets some one in front of you when the lanes are merging in the road.
Putting your self fully in the firing line. Espectially with "religiously-motivated censors and nanny-statists" is always a big fight. If they see that you can at least meet them half way they tend to back off a lot, so they can focus on the next big evil. Sure you not in the clear there will be some point where you need to draw the line. However to keep things running smooth it is easier to compromise.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Ads for firearms.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Craigslist has the support of the people. Why wouldn't they? It's free, has no ads, and always works as promised. There are no ulterior motives, Craig isn't looking to get wealthy. The government shutting down or censoring Craigslist would be the fast path to a miniature revolt. I don't see any elected official actually doing anything to it.
Besides, it's not like Craigs list has given up its first amendment rights. If they ever wanted to, they could use them in a court of law. My guess is they just wanted to avoid court because it would cut into their already-small profits.
To try and take away any focus on why he is not able to do his job better.
So I am guessing your view is what we all really need is more dismissive, flippant, sarcasm that offers nothing but a woefully uneducated opinion? Brother, this Stewart/Colbert bit getting old. Can we get some constructive criticism for a change?
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
So you're saying that instantaneous and peaceful acquiescence is ideal? Sure, I can see it now. If everyone did that, the trains would be the only thing running smoothly.
The only Reasonable thing to do, when someone challenges your rights, is to stand up and fight if you feel you're in the right. The only unfortunate thing about going to court, to protect your rights, is that lawyers are expensive. There's enough of 'em that they should be cheaper.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
I know you're probably saying that as a hyperbole, but sometimes I do kinda wonder.
Way I see it, any working democracy nowadays has the politicians and some non-elected body to fix the politicians' deliberate self-promoting screw-ups. In some countries (e.g., the USA) it's the judges. In some (e.g., the UK) there are some non-elected lords who get to say "that's stupid and unconstitutional, screw that."
Seriously, you'd expect the aristocracy to be the self-serving self-centered barstards, and the politicians to represent the common man. But the way it seems to work entirely too often is that the politicians pull some populist stunt as a law, and then keep their fingers crossed that the non-elected guys have the balls to strike it down. I'm thinking just of the slew of recent "think of the children" laws (saving them even from non-threats like video games) that seem to crop up everywhere before elections.
Except sometimes the non-elected guys don't intervene, or nobody challenges it all the way to the apropriate level to strike it down, and the rest of the country is saddled with the stupidity its politicians wrought. And even in the best case scenario, often it can take several years before its escalated to the point where it can be removed.
Now I'm not entirely deluded. I know how totalitarian regimes historically were worse, and why some people shed blood to get, say, the Magna Carta signed by the king.
But I still wonder. It seems to me like at the very least for each two evils we avoided via democracy, we introduce a new one _because_ of the way modern democracies work.
I'm not sure what a better system would look like, but sometimes I wish someone would invent it already.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
There's no point in arguing with -- much less negotiating or compromising with -- someone whose objection to your conduct is based on religious or moral grounds. They're not just going to give up because you tried to meet them in the middle; they're just going to wait until the time is right and then finish you off.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Since when is the populous well-educated? He could be shouting "VOTE FOR ME" in between every sentence and we'd mostly not get it
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Exactly, just like The Pirate Bay doesn't host anything illegal, so they can't be held responsible for where their links go. Unless, of course, a technophobe judge thinks so.
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
By attempting to reason with unreasonable people and failing, you can more easily demonstrate to the rest of the world that they're unreasonable.
This is handy when you're dealing with, say, an elected official.
I am officially gone from
They elected, and then re-elected Bush. Now, what is it you were saying?
Bush was elected and re-elected by the electoral college, and the populace is not educated. What was it you were saying?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Ok, sorry, slimeballs."
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
When you start treating politicians like there's nothing they can do to you, they quickly remind you that you're wrong.
They found their middle ground, and now they're pushing back against the smaller group who didn't sign off on the compromise. It's called picking your battles. This was a wise moev for craigslist both legally and for PR - or hadn't you notice that they were getting a bad name from this one section of their site?
Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. -Groucho Marx
A republic tries to protect the minority from mob rule. While the democratic representation delays mob rule but gives the majority power. Tyranny of the majority is the preferable bias.
Naturally, ANY system can be hacked. Maintenance is the only real protection one can have (detect and prevent or clean up problems.) The majority is poor at maintenance and the better the society does the more they slack off.
Despotism is where all governments end up. It doesn't really matter what form of government, its how you measure its success.
How about Politician duty? Like jury duty. Can't be much worse than we have at this point.
Big mistake in the USA was the direct election of Senators. Just watch the EU fall in similar ways within our lifetime. It'll likely happen that fast; even if people don't realize the nearly unrecoverable position they get themselves into.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Where is this mythical well-educated populace? The average person seems to be deeply ignorant, uninterested in anything remotely political most of the time, and regularly falls for the outright lies made by many politicians when they are trying to get elected, but isn't motivated enough to call them on it after they win and fail to follow through.
The average person is incredibly stupid and uneducated. Quite frankly, any system that relies on ignorant, uneducated people electing politicians based on their understanding of issues is highly suspect. Sadly, its the best system we have :P
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Yeah! And they elected Obama, too!
(stupid populace.)
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
Silly AG, don't you know that a well-educated populace would never fall for such a thing?
Lucky for this guy that he's running in South Carolina then, eh?
Craigslist has the support of the people. Why wouldn't they? It's free, has no ads, and always works as promised.
If it really had no ads, I don't think that could be described as "working as promised"... ;-P
Point was that SC voters consistently vote Republican in large numbers, so ranting about immorality associated with that hippie-commie craigslist (they let people advertise for free, and their symbol is a peace sign, for pete's sake!) may actually be an effective strategy to win the governorship.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Actually, 54% of voters in SC voted for McCain, so they did not elect Obama. I agree that there is a seemingly endless supply of stupid people in both parties.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Shame on you, Craigslist! Shame on you for trying to be civil! Next time somebody looks at you funny, break his/her nose to restore the balance!
It's funny you should put it that way. People died so that the Bill of Rights wouldn't be open to this sort of "compromise."
Popular rights aren't the ones that need to be defended, now, are they?
"don't you know that a well-educated populace would never fall for such a thing"
You do realize that we're talking about South Carolina don't you?
Now that I cannot find any "erotic services", I'll have more time to read slashdot.
By attempting to reason with unreasonable people and failing by talking to unreasonable people about being reasonable to otherwise reasonable people who are behaving unreasonably about a reasonable situation, you provide - hang on my head fell off...
Would it be ethical to remove South Carolina posts until Henry McMaster is voted out of office?
Technically, they only elected him once.
To do list for Windows
........
You have a good point. Now it looks as if craigslist should be held liable for everything one of their posters/buyers does. Once they start policing their interwebs, they have to stay on it.
So... a guy killed some people he met through craigslist? That isn't craig's fault, it's the murderers fault - he committed the act. Even more, someone posted an ad, decided to meet up with an anonymous person without taking any precautions, and ended up dead.
It's not that what they were doing was legally questionable so it was okay to die, but even street walkers have pimps for protection. Why couldn't these victims left notes with attorneys or something? Had a bodyguard?
I just think there has to be a case where someone met a person through a personal ad or classified and did this before and the newspaper wasn't liable. If it was classifieds wouldn't have been their biggest business - because the risk to possible income ratio would have been way to high to sustain the business.
Craigslist should have just stayed quiet and stayed out of it. We have free weeklies in my town that have the same type of ads, and they aren't being shut down (unless they are undercover police). And I live in a city once made famous for going after (and winning against) Larry Flynt (twice).
Get your Unix fortune now!
They elected, and then re-elected Bush. Now, what is it you were saying?
Well, Bush had the advantage of being consistent, even if his policies were disturbing. Kerry on the other hand appeared lost in trying to make everyone happy, but making few happy. People generally vote for someone who is firm in where they are going, than someone who isn't. You generally expect politicians to break promises, but when the politician isn't sure what is being promised, then you have real issues.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
But not so handy when you're dealing with a fraudster.
Attempting to reason with a belligerent, absolutist, overbearing and unreasonable person is less than futile. It is counterproductive. You will never persuade them of anything, and they have no real intention of persuading you. Their objective, gained on your inevitable "climbdown" is to achieve a victory for their ideology in the eyes of the undecided and uneducated. If you try to reason with them, you will only give the oxygen they crave, and you'll do lasting damage to your own society.
It's far better to simply label unreasonable people as unreasonable and let their actions prove the point. Appeal to reason and reasonable people, instead of trying to calm the hysterical unreasonable and in the process risk becoming one yourself. Most people will sympathise with you more if you talk to them directly, rather than upon seeing you at the receiving end of a farcical tirade.
Case in point. Abortion. President Obama's calm appeal to reason and reconciliation at Notre Dame have done infinitely more to discredit radicals than any amount of futile debate with them could ever have accomplished.
May the Maths Be with you!
i believe the saying is:
"Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig" (Robert Heinlein)
Take yer pick:
"The children" (A winner every time)
"Gun control" (Depends where you live)
"Terrorism" (JACKPOT)
"Prostitution" (Till you get caught)
"The war on drugs" (Lets confiscate our new police car)
"911" (Always a crowd pleaser)
"Gay Marriage" (Depends where you live)
"Family values" (Talk much, say little)
"Support our troops" (Mom, apple pie & baseball)
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
...or posting to slashdot.
Except that such "it would work, if we all did X" solutions generally tend to not work. They're sorta like a prisoner's dilemma with a couple hundred million people.
And the problem gets only worse when there are some people with the means and _incentive_ to manipulate the others into a frenzy, and create a mass psychosis about something that until yesterday wasn't even a problem. Suddenly from at most "hey, that neighbour kid sure could use a bit more sunlight" it turns into "auugh, such people will murder my kid! The nice man on TV told me so!" It's hard to keep seeing it as everyone minding their own business, when it gets presented as that someone else won't mind theirs and might even kill you and your family. (And if you're the ignorant and gullible sort, of course.)
It's something that we really don't have safeguards against. The free press was supposed to balance the government, but lately it's only in as much occasionally a scary lie cancels out the opposite scary lie. But both have something to gain from creating a new scare where there used to be none. And sometimes those invented scares just support each other, instead of cancelling each other out.
To not pick on the USA for a change, and to illustrate that the rest of the world does the same (and a good thing to think about, when it comes to the war on drugs too, incidentally), take the criminalization of absynthe. A couple of alarmist tabloids in France, waay back then, rand whole weeks of horror stories in which they hammered on the idea that absynthe is some dangerous drug and turns people into raving murderers.
They only had a couple of coincidences, actually, where some murderer was also known to be an absynthe drinker. A couple more were spun into maybe also having been absynthe drinkers, but nobody had any proof or anything. But a media scare was manufactured anyway, and some scared ignorant people fully supported criminalizing it. Which the parliament promptly did.
What also didn't help absynthe's case was the bunch of pretentious artist types -- make no mistake, including some very famous and very talented ones -- who swore that absynthe has some consciousness altering abilities, and lets them see reality in ways they couldn't possibly see otherwise. What the press lacked in actual examples of people actually turning murderous on absynthe, it had in testimonies by all these artists about the psychoactive effects of absynthe. It was hard to make the case that none of those people who swear their reality perception is altered radically by it, could possibly have it altered in a way that makes them dangerous. I mean, sure, these artists just proceeded to write dadaits or surrealist plays on absynthe, but who knows what a more base and brutal person would do?
In reality, when they finally tested that stuff in a proper fashion, it turns out that the _only_ psychoactive substance absynthe turns out to be the alcohol. Wormwood doesn't really do jack squat. And certainly not in the quantities you'd possibly get before getting in an alcohol coma from the alcohol in that absynthe. Both those who saw in it some murderer-maker _and_ those who swore that it lets them see reality in various altered-consciousness way, were simply deluded. Neither the murderers nor the artists had been any more altered-consciousness on absynthe than they'd have been on a bottle of Vodka or even on enough beer.
It was one of those chapters that would have been worthy of a chapter in MacKay's book, if it hadn't been more than half a century after that book. People were pretending to have all sorts of altered consciousness effects on absynthe, just because it was fashionable for a proper artist type to say that he does. An Emperor's New Clothes situation, if you will. Or like proper audiophiles convince even themselves that they actually hear different bass over a $500 network cable (digital!!!) or with a wooden volume knob. Back then it was that if you're the creative type, you're supposed to rant at length about how you got all these revel
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Just because you have the right to free speech, ...br>...
However to keep things running smooth it is easier to compromise.
These two ideas are incompatible.
Either free speech is a Constitutional guarantee or it is compromisable.
I mean, if we're forcing compromises in free speech, how about gun rights? quartering soldiers in private homes? I'd bring up the 4th through 6th amendments, but that's already been compromised by the war on terror(r). How about those Constitutional limits on congressional and presidential terms? Compromising on those would keep things running smooth.
Reductio ad absurdum: sometimes it sets up a strawman, other times it points out your argument's absurdity.
But what if it's "the rest of the world", or the large majority of it, that's unreasonable?
"By attempting to reason with unreasonable people and failing, you can more easily demonstrate to the rest of the world that they're unreasonable.
This is handy when you're dealing with, say, an elected official."
Keep in mind that South Carolina is a Bible Belt state, socially backward, tech illiterate (a few students don't count), and for the AG to play to that audience makes sense. For Craigslist to hand him ammo wouldn't be smart.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=82193692538&ref=mf
The internet is a medium just like the phone system. If two people get together on the phone to do a dope deal - is the phone company an indictable co-conspirator? Nope. Sorry. There is precedent here.
Good sir, you forget that there are varying degrees of compromisable.
> Embarking on that is like arguing with pigs.
Indeed, I do find it challenging to hold any degree of intellectual discourse with law enforcement officers, over a subject we disagree on.
But the ones that can't make it in private practice and have to get a government job are the most clueless of all.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Yet you continue to argue with other people on the internet. Fascinating.
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8
Assuming the rest of the world is as reasonable as you... not a safe assumption.
"executives you've called out as criminals."
Isn't that redundatnt
Can we get some constructive criticism for a change?
Sure. Construct a half-mile long gallows. Then start putting these assholes on it.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue.
And every single news outlet everywhere since forever.
The difference is if you willingly compromise your rights to a degree in order to obtain what you see as a greater good than strict adherence to an absolute ideal. Versus someone else forcing you to compromise your rights against your will. For instance, in some places, you have the right to kill an intruder in your home in self-defense. What if rather than killing the intruder, you shoot them in the leg? You exercised your rights to the degree you chose, rather than as far as the law allows. Why is that a bad thing?
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
I'd bet dollars to donuts that they're not ruled by fear.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Full Franklin Quote: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
The Solution to the problem of adult services advertised on websites is simple; legalize, tax and regulate adult services just like any other service industry.
Legalization makes everyone safer, puts pimps out of business and provides additional revenue for struggling governments.
I don't understand the state that our society is in. Someone does something illegal and it's the fault of the medium in which they perform that illegal act? Bit Torrent, Craigslist, etc. And yet who is asking the gun companies to watch who gets access to their guns, or the auto makers to watch who is driving their cars? It's a complete shut-off of the brains of the people levelling these complaints.
Actually, some people voted for Obama multiple times. (Paid by ACORN.) It's a fact that one man registered to vote over 72 times because ACORN wouldn't take 'no' for an answer. I'd post a link, but you can google as easily as I can.
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."