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.'"
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.
I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
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.
'Corruption'?
You've got that backwards - this is a clear and wonderful example of a judge /doing the job of a judge/.
I see that New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo just indicted 7 people for running a prostitution ring on Craigslist. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/20/craigslist.prostitution/index.html
The last New York State Attorney General to indict people on prostitution charges was Elliot Spitzer.
Just saying.
Yes :
Excerpted from an old advert:
"Generous , kind , sugardaddy wanted." What part of generous
and sugardaddy did you not understand?
Since when do judges get to decide who can be prosecuted?
Since when do pilots get to fly planes?
Since when to mechanics get to fix cars?
Who, pray tell, do you believe is supposed to judge who has a valid case or not? What would you call the person who you have the job of making that judgement?
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
"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
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
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.
Chances are good your local yellow pages also has a section dedicated to "erotic services". I don't see those going away. SC just thinks it can play "but it's on the internet" card and get away with it.
South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster says Craigslist deserves to be prosecuted because the site is like "...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."
Perhaps Mr. McMaster himself should be prosecuted. Prostitutes openly flaunt their wares on the streets of every major city in his state, yet McMaster has failed to limit their activities in any meaningful way. If he put half the time and effort into cleaning up South Carolina's sin-soaked streets as he has attempting to prosecute a glorified Want Ads site, perhaps that situation could be improved.
Of course, that might involve busting a few familiar faces (cough Spitzer cough).
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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.
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.
No matter how other people said,all of people Should be determined by law,People is not laws!!
Of course not, they is SOYLENT GREEN!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
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
We've had legalized prostitution in New Zealand since 2003.
I agree wholly with your reading of the situation, but one small correction: prostitution hasn't been legalised, it's been decriminalised. As I understand it (IANAL) that means basically that it's unregulated -- no employment or health-and-safety regulations, for example, other than the kind of endangerment and contractual issues that apply to everyone regardless of their line of work.
In some ways I find this a much preferable situation to legalisation, as (a) it's purer capitalism -- less regulation --, and (b) it's not about promulgating an arbitrary set of social values, or protecting an industry, but more about protecting the rights and safety of the sex worker. (There may be unwelcome side effects as well, of course.)
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.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.