Craigslist Fights Back, Sues SC Atty General

FredMastro writes "Craigslist has now stepped past just asking for an apology. The Wall Street Journal and CNet report that Craigslist is fighting back. 'Craigslist said it has sued South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster, in the latest escalation of a battle over adult-oriented ads on the company's site. Jim Buckmaster, Craigslist's chief executive, said in a blog post that the company filed its suit in federal court in South Carolina. ...'" Unfortunately, the WSJ's piece requires a subscription, but reader Locke2005 adds a link to coverage in the San Jose Business Journal.

Comments

Corruption?

[javacowboy]

Disclaimer: This is total speculation. I have no facts to back this up:

I'm wondering if there are some power printing/publishing interests lobbying the state government to hamstring Craiglists because of the thread that site represents to print advertising.

Consider this section of TFA:

The attorney general, Buckmaster said, "has persisted with his threats despite the fact that craigslist:"

        â is operating in full compliance with all applicable laws
        â has earned a reputation for being unusually responsive to requests from law enforcement
        â has eliminated its "erotic services" category for all US cities
        â has adopted screening measures far stricter than those Mr McMaster himself personally endorsed with his signature just 6 months ago
â has far fewer and far tamer adult service ads than many mainstream print and online venues operating in South Carolina ...

Emphasis mine.

If it weren't for the thread that craigslist represents to print media advertising, I would have concluded that this was just another puritan witch hunt. However, the fact that craigslist has fewer adult services ads than mainstream publishers in the state leads me to speculate that this is about smacking down "unfair competition" from an outsider.

Pathetically slanted article

[GMFTatsujin]

A bit off-topic: I applaud Craigslist, but I noticed this article is arguably more about McMaster than it is about Craigslist.

The bias is not hostile or obvious, as one might expect from stereotyped hostile reporting source, which is not to say that the SJ Business Journal is such. Mostly it is an imbalance in coverage styles and content.

Most paragraphs describe what McMaster did, what he thinks, what he has to say, etc. He is often quoted with his reactions to the suit. His position is explained in detail.

Craigslist, on the other hand, gets comparatively little verbiage in its own words. Craigslist's reaction to McMaster's assertions are stated in broad terms, without McMaster's sense of specificity and precision.

The reader is left with a good idea of McMaster's position and less of Craigslist's. This is a great article for students of propaganda studies to cite when looking for media bias in the news, either deliberate or incidental.

Just a note.

Re:Good.

[princessproton]

Very good point. There is an organization called Coyote that argues that "prostitution businesses such as brothels, massage parlors and escort services, should be operated like any other business in the community, [and] such businesses should be subject only to the same business and civil regulations which are imposed on other businesses in the area." The member base of this group is composed of social services personnel, researchers, feminists, sex workers, and others, all working in tandem to decriminalize prostitution and remove the social stigma attached to sex work.

Obviously there are a number of dangers associated with sex work, including coerced participation, abusive "management" and clients, STDS, poor working conditions, and the need to balance the impact of the trade with the needs of the community, all of which could be addressed with proper recognition and regulation. Although people tend to cry out that prostitution is demeaning to women, it is really interesting to read the firsthand accounts of sex workers and see that this is not necessarily the case. There are those who actually enjoy their jobs, feel empowered by them, and wish that they could be recognized as having legitimate professional skills and receive the respect they deserve for their services. Additionally, many point out that the aspects of these services that ARE demeaning to women could actually be addressed by proper regulation of the profession as a trade, rather than criminalization that results in abuse going unreported and unchecked.

So, yes, the demand is there, and maybe it's time to realize that the supply is not necessarily just a group of women (and men) under duress (and that those that are under duress need support, not stigmatization). Personally, I don't have a strong position on these issues, but I think the most important point, as the parent post mentions, is that there is merit to examining exactly why some things are stigmatized and outlawed, and doing a reality check as to whether those ethics / moral qualms are still appropriate for contemporary society.