Slashdot Mirror
Craigslist Shielded From Prosecution In SC
viyh writes with an update to the ongoing legal troubles faced by Craigslist over their adult-services ads. According to CNN, a South Carolina judge has told the office of the state's Attorney General, Henry McMaster, to cease their efforts to bring criminal charges against the operators of Craigslist.
"On Friday, Judge Weston Houck granted Craigslist's request for a temporary restraining order preventing McMaster and his employees from 'initiating or pursuing [any] prosecution against Craigslist or its officers and employees in relation to content posted by third parties on Craigslist's Web site' until the court rules on the merits of the site's lawsuit. Craigslist's lawsuit cites an interview McMaster gave to Fox News on Monday, in which he likened the site 'to a hotel or motel owner that knows prostitution is going on on their premises and fails to do anything about it especially after having been told.'"
Erotic services are illegal? Ah, so that is why there are no strip clubs in USA?
Helping people find such services is illegal? Oh, that is why the advertisers, etc. of such clubs are thrown into jail.
Spending money in order to get sex is illegal? Oh, cops should have thrown me to jail many times when I've offered a drink to someone.
What exactly is illegal is far, far narrower than "erotic services" and it makes a big difference here. And while I frequently use Wikipedia myself, I don't think that it always gives completely fair, unbiased and balanced image in large scale political issues that offend a lot of people either way.
Corruption?!? A declaratory judgment action is actually an essential legal right.
http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/ED8E9D0B-38C9-4D40-ADC1E5392D91A929/alpha/D/
The prosecutor has threatened to bring charges against Craigslist. Why should Craigslist have to wait for the Attorney General to decide to bring charges. He could keep making threats without bringing any charges as long as he wants. These threats cast a cloud over Craigslist, so they have the right to have the issue resolved, i.e., have the court determine whether Craigslist is protected by the first or fourteenth amendment.
An Attorney General can and should bring charges against whomever he or she wants. What an Attorney General should not be allowed to do is make public threats against an individual or a corporation.
Thirdly, even if that were true, there's plenty of other countries were legalized prostitution works extremely well, Germany, Switzerland etc.
Don't forget the United States. There's legalized and regulated prostitution in Nevada.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
We've had legalized prostitution in New Zealand since 2003.
Contrary to the scaremongering promulgated by people with hidden agendas, the sky has not fallen, and people working in the world's oldest profession have the full protection of the law behind them, just like everyone else.
Doesn't mean there isn't still a social stigma associated with it, but at least they're not forced into the underground and exploited by criminals, and they pay their taxes just like everyone else.
Er, since there have been judges and courts?
Can you read? Do you understand how the courts work?
Judges can issue temporary injunctions against -anybody-. If they are unfounded, all the AG has to do is talk to another judge to get it removed. That doesn't work if the injunction is issued for legitimate reasons, because judge #2 will just say "Looks like they did the right thing to me, better just wait it out".
In this case, Craigslist has a pending lawsuit against the SC AG in its initial stages. The SC AG has been threatening Craigslist with prosecution for months. Without an injunction, the AG could prosecute in the middle of the Craigslist lawsuit, which would stop the lawsuit in its tracks withough going through the legal process. Also, the AG being able to prosecute mid-lawsuit is a clear conflict of interest. The lawsuit needs to be settled first, otherwise any criminal charges will be greatly suspect.
To prevent this potential abuse of the court system, CL asked a judge to issue an injunction against prosecution by the AG until their lawsuit is decided. The judge agreed.
This does NOT mean the AG doesn't get to prosecute, or the AG doesn't get to decide who it prosecutes. What it means is that, should the AG wish to make good on its threats, it can't prosecute Craigslist until their lawsuit has been decided.
This is WELL within the Judiciary's power, and it happens all the time when two cases conflict, or there is potential for one case to influence the outcome of another.
Seriously, it's a good idea to at least know a tiny bit about the subject before you speak. What's the old saying? Better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Very applicable here.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller