mailing list archives
Re: Craigslist to sheriff: Federal law protects site [CNet News]
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:39:00 -0400
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tilghman Lesher <tilghman () mail jeffandtilghman com>
Date: March 10, 2009 11:49:25 AM EDT
To: "Matthew Tarpy" <tarpy () tarpify com>
Cc: dave () farber net, "Ronald J Riley (RJR Com)" <rjr () rjriley com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Craigslist to sheriff: Federal law protects
site [CNet News]
Okay, let's take a look at some of these ads. I just pulled up
http://chicago.craigslist.org/m4m/. Remember, according to the
lawsuit, this is one of the URLs that is chock-full of prostitution
just reviewed the 10 most recent ads. Of these, 1 was already flagged
removal and of the remaining 9, NONE of them had any terms related to
prostitution. I'd say that's pretty damning evidence that the sheriff's
lawsuit has no merit.
Let's try /m4w/. Top 10, NO prostitution.
/w4w/. Top 10, one ad for a website, 9 with no prostitution.
Remember, all 3 of these, according to the sheriff's lawsuit, are rife
prostitution ads. Look for yourself. Make your own determination.
On Tuesday 10 March 2009 07:01:04 Matthew Tarpy wrote:
Yes, that's obviously what I'm advocating.
Rather what I am ultimately advocating that public officials ought
free to go after the distribution methods in which prostitution is the
predominant message. I see this as no different than if someone had
some people to stand out on street corners in the Loop advertising
"massages" and throwing in a couple legit ads so that they can claim
they're just an advertising flier.
The point that the Sherriff is making is that it's not just one or
that slipped by, rather the erotic services section is chock-a-block
of advertisements for illegal services (the best of which is
the worst of which is child exploitation). If that's true (and
jury to decide) then at that point, I do not think it unreasonable to
expect Craigslist to take a more proactive role in policing their own
Just to be clear, your position is that public officials are free to
waste money on frivolous lawsuits, when they don't want to pursue
criminals? That's essentially what I'm reading here. Yes, I
enforcement officers to set up sting operations on prostitution
that's what it takes to shut down the prostitution rings. I don't
them to sue newspapers, bulletin boards, or other methods of public
advertising, simply because an ad slipped by that happens to
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com