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.'"

Comments

Re:Since when do judges

[KiahZero]

How exactly do you think this is corruption? Craigslist got a preliminary injunction because of their pending lawsuit claiming that the state's prosecution is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Mass moderation not possible

[Psyborgue]

With the sheer volume of ads on craigslist, how can anybody expect them to moderate everything on there. Isn't it easier and far more just for craigslist to take a neutural stance and let the justice system do it's job on a neutural basis. It's my understanding anyway that service providers are not responsible of the content of their websites anyway if they do not provide content under the safe harbor provisions of the communications decency act. Craigslist has already been granted immunity for hosting descriminatory housing ads. I'd be willing to bet they can get out of this too using the same legislation.

Re:Since when do judges

[MrMista_B]

'Corruption'?

You've got that backwards - this is a clear and wonderful example of a judge /doing the job of a judge/.

Don't Prosecute it - USE IT!

[RudeIota]

"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."

Yes, a hotel with 100,000,000 rooms. Brilliant analogy.

This is a perfect opportunity for law enforcement to USE CRAIGSLIST TO BUST THESE PEOPLE. Don't shut it down -- use it to your advantage! These 'criminals' will just go elsewhere and shutting down Craigslist is as effective as shutting down Pacific Blvd. after 9PM... In other words: ineffectual

Re:This is not moderation, this is accomodation.

[owlnation]

For those of you who think we should regulate prostitution, go read the Wikipedia article about Amsterdam and prostitution. It's a cesspool of human trafficking from 2nd/3rd world countries- tantamount to slavery.

Firstly, the last place anyone should go for real facts on something is Wikipedia.

Secondly, the situation in Amsterdam isn't as bad as you nor Wikipedia claims it to be (NGO's distort facts for funding).

Thirdly, even if that were true, there's plenty of other countries were legalized prostitution works extremely well, Germany, Switzerland etc.

Fourthly, organized crime is involved in prostitution everywhere, by legalizing it you are on the first step to reducing the problem of organized crime.

Fifthly, "Erotic Services" are not actually illegal -- it depends on what that service is, and how transactions occur. Phone sex, webcam sex services for example are "erotic services" and wholly legal.

Just because organized crime is involved in prostitution, doesn't mean that a legalized system can't be properly run to reduce that. See Prohibition for an example of how making something illegal leads to a black market and organized crime -- legalizing it reduces that problem.

whaaaa???

[superwiz]

How exactly is it even relevant if they are similar to hotel that knows that prostitution goes in it? Can a hotel be expected to refuse services to clients who are known prostitutes? Can it be illegal for a hotel to act otherwise? Doesn't it boil down to refusing service to a person because of previous criminal acts? Can the law really require a private business to refuse service to past criminals because they are likely (but not guaranteed) to use the business' services to repeat the criminal activity? When did we all become employees of the police? The last I checked their job is stopping crime -- not arresting anyone else who didn't stop crime.