5 ms·

Its their fault they forced craigslist to shut down a section openly advertising illegal content? I love the contortions people make. It's not like sex work is

by Noos 9y ago

Its their fault they forced craigslist to shut down a section openly advertising illegal content? I love the contortions people make. It's not like sex work is even legal in the majority of western nations

syshum 9y ago
>>It's not like sex work is even legal in the majority of western nations It should be legal that is the point >Its their fault they forced craigslist to shut down a section openly advertising illegal content? yes, that was the entire point of Section 230 of the communications act, to prevent platform from being liable for users content, even if the users were doing things that were illegal Further it is a violation, imo, of the 1st amendment to prohibit speech, while they may be able to make the ACT of prostitution illegal they should not be able to prohibit speech about prostitution.. There is a very very big difference
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > yes, that was the entire point of Section 230 of the communications act, to prevent platform from being liable for users content, even if the users were doing things that were illegal There was the assumption in this is that illegal content was removed. There's also a difference in CL actively putting a section in that says "Illegal Services advertised here". For clarity, there's no concern with legalizing these services, as far as I am concerned. You think it's a violation of your First Amendment rights to be unable to openly advertise criminal activities? Where does that line end?
  - syshum 9y ago
    >>You think it's a violation of your First Amendment rights to be unable to openly advertise criminal activities? I dont know... lets see Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, Yep seems pretty clear to me, that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.... So what part of that is unclear to you? >>Where does that line end? No where? Freedom of speech is absolute. It you have a limit on speech is stops being free speech, and become regulated speech
    - grzm 9y ago
      The Supreme Court (and other US courts) have repeatedly found that the US Constitution does not hold that freedom of speech is absolute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
      - syshum 9y ago
        You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. -- Thomas Jefferson
        grzm 9y ago
        Agreed that judges are not infallible, and we must keep watch, both in appointments being made and the judgements they make. That's why the Constitution is structured the way it is. It's important that we continue to do so, particularly now. I also trust, unless proven otherwise, that these judges have studied the law and are acting in good faith, both as arbiters of justice and as American citizens. These aren't isolated, unique cases. On the whole, I would defer to them over my own opinion, as I would for many experts. And, without additional information about you, I'd defer to their opinion over yours, as I'd expect you to, in the same situation, as well. I don't believe that there is some conspiracy across all of these judges and justices to systematically deprive citizens of rights. You are free to believe otherwise. I do believe that assuming bad faith across the board is a recipe for the destruction of community, society, and government. Perhaps you believe we're already at that point. I don't believe we are, at least not yet.
        9y ago
PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
>Its their fault they forced craigslist to shut down a section openly advertising illegal content? I love the contortions people make. Given how arbitrarily laws are applied, it is the fault of the people choosing when to arbitrarily apply a law as to the impacts of arbitrarily applying that law.
nitwit005 9y ago
They failed to stop the crime they were trying to stop, but did ruin something else, so the government's actions were a net negative. Are you at fault if you just make things worse? I suspect most people would say yes. Governments have a long history of enforcing laws in ways that harm everyone but the criminals they were trying to stop. You shouldn't expect people to be pleased.
- syshum 9y ago
  You assume they were trying to stop the criminals in the first place. Hierarchy of Government Rationality as it pertains to criminal law 1. Generate Revenue 2. Control the population 3. Protect Businesses and the Wealthy people that fund Campaigns .... many other items 9999999999999. Stop criminals
sw_aaaaa 9y ago
But sex work IS legal in the majority of western nations.

by Noos 9y ago

syshum 9y ago

>>It's not like sex work is even legal in the majority of western nations It should be legal that is the point >Its their fault they forced craigslist to shut down a section openly advertising illegal content? yes, that was the entire point of Section 230 of the communications act, to prevent platform from being liable for users content, even if the users were doing things that were illegal Further it is a violation, imo, of the 1st amendment to prohibit speech, while they may be able to make the ACT of prostitution illegal they should not be able to prohibit speech about prostitution.. There is a very very big difference

FireBeyond 9y ago
> yes, that was the entire point of Section 230 of the communications act, to prevent platform from being liable for users content, even if the users were doing things that were illegal There was the assumption in this is that illegal content was removed. There's also a difference in CL actively putting a section in that says "Illegal Services advertised here". For clarity, there's no concern with legalizing these services, as far as I am concerned. You think it's a violation of your First Amendment rights to be unable to openly advertise criminal activities? Where does that line end?
- syshum 9y ago
  >>You think it's a violation of your First Amendment rights to be unable to openly advertise criminal activities? I dont know... lets see Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, Yep seems pretty clear to me, that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.... So what part of that is unclear to you? >>Where does that line end? No where? Freedom of speech is absolute. It you have a limit on speech is stops being free speech, and become regulated speech
  - grzm 9y ago
    The Supreme Court (and other US courts) have repeatedly found that the US Constitution does not hold that freedom of speech is absolute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
    - syshum 9y ago
      You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. -- Thomas Jefferson
      - grzm 9y ago
        Agreed that judges are not infallible, and we must keep watch, both in appointments being made and the judgements they make. That's why the Constitution is structured the way it is. It's important that we continue to do so, particularly now. I also trust, unless proven otherwise, that these judges have studied the law and are acting in good faith, both as arbiters of justice and as American citizens. These aren't isolated, unique cases. On the whole, I would defer to them over my own opinion, as I would for many experts. And, without additional information about you, I'd defer to their opinion over yours, as I'd expect you to, in the same situation, as well. I don't believe that there is some conspiracy across all of these judges and justices to systematically deprive citizens of rights. You are free to believe otherwise. I do believe that assuming bad faith across the board is a recipe for the destruction of community, society, and government. Perhaps you believe we're already at that point. I don't believe we are, at least not yet.
      - 9y ago

PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago

>Its their fault they forced craigslist to shut down a section openly advertising illegal content? I love the contortions people make. Given how arbitrarily laws are applied, it is the fault of the people choosing when to arbitrarily apply a law as to the impacts of arbitrarily applying that law.

nitwit005 9y ago

They failed to stop the crime they were trying to stop, but did ruin something else, so the government's actions were a net negative. Are you at fault if you just make things worse? I suspect most people would say yes. Governments have a long history of enforcing laws in ways that harm everyone but the criminals they were trying to stop. You shouldn't expect people to be pleased.

syshum 9y ago
You assume they were trying to stop the criminals in the first place. Hierarchy of Government Rationality as it pertains to criminal law 1. Generate Revenue 2. Control the population 3. Protect Businesses and the Wealthy people that fund Campaigns .... many other items 9999999999999. Stop criminals

sw_aaaaa 9y ago

But sex work IS legal in the majority of western nations.