5 ms·

What Craigslist's "Adult Services" Decision Means for Free Speech

49 points by there 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
hugh3 16y ago
No one (including Craigslist) disputes that sex trafficking is a reprehensible practice that should be vigorously opposed. Wait, what does "sex trafficking" mean in this context? Is it just "prostitution"? Because many people disagree with the banning of prostitution.
- dangrossman 16y ago
  No, it means something more than just prostitution -- slavery and forced prostitution. Women, both from the US and forcibly smuggled from other countries, are forced to prostitute themselves while turning over their income under threat of violence or death.
  - ataggart 16y ago
    >it means something more than just prostitution And the prohibitionists love to use this type of package-deal language. That one can oppose criminalizing sex for money between two consenting adults, but still support criminalizing sex slavery is a notion intentionally excluded from the conversation.
    - todayiamme 16y ago
      I accidentally up voted you, but can you please tell me how this package-deal language works? Preferably with empirical evidence to prove just the same. I couldn't sleep at night even if one child's future was destroyed through something I had created like this.
- kevinpet 16y ago
  It depends who you ask. People who are opposed to prostitution like to argue against forced sex slavery, get everyone to agree, then redefine sex trafficking to include all sex for pay.
- tptacek 16y ago
  This is a hand-wavy argument. If most people disagreed with the banning of prostitution, there'd be popular ballot measures aimed at legalizing it, like there are for cannabis.
  - enjo 16y ago
    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/poll-says-yes-to-paterson-no-to-legalized-prostitution/ http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/poll-says-yes-t... In this poll of New York voters 30% supported legalizing it. Clearly the parent is correct, the use. of "no one" in the quote is clearly not true
    - tptacek 16y ago
      Of course it isn't, though, because "trafficking" involves the specific kinds of prostitution in which people are transported from one locale to another with the intent of alienating them from the local population and locking them into a lifestyle that depends on the sex trade.
  - gojomo 16y ago
    Give it time. Marijuana was legal; then it wasn't; and now after many decades, various stages of re-legalization are proceeding via legislation and ballot measures. Prostitution was once legal in many jurisdictions where it's illegal now; some jurisdictions have tried forms of re-legalization, or tacit acceptance in various kinds of 'red-light districts' (real or virtual), sometimes as a means of sex-trafficking harm-reduction. In 2008, a San Francisco proposition to decriminalize prostitution got a 42% 'yes' vote. 'Everyone' except for some rather heartless criminals is against 'sex trafficking'; views on the more general 'prostitution' are far more varied.
  - djcapelis 16y ago
    SF voted on legalizing prostitution in 2008. It was called Prop K and got 41% of the vote. http://www.yesonpropk.org/ http://www.yesonpropk.org/ Measure Q in Berkeley in 2004 pulled 36%. In the Bay Area a considerable number of people support decriminalization. Craigslist is hardly completely out of whack in terms of public opinion of the population in their region of the world.
pyre 16y ago
Maybe we should fire those AGs because they are not making any 'discernible' impact on sex trafficking in their respective states.
tptacek 16y ago
All I'll say here is that it's not entirely apparent that craigslist is immune from liability because of the CDA: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-1101_021.pdf http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&#3... That case, the one I believe most people are citing when they use the words "common carrier" in conjunction with craigslist, was about an advocacy group targeting craigslist for allowing discriminatory rental housing ads. "Go sue the people posting the ads", it said. But note also this, from the opinion: Nothing in the service craigslist offers induces anyone to post any particular listing or express a preference for discrimination; for example, craigslist does not offer a lower price to people who include discriminatory statements in their postings. This is clearly true for rental ads, where craigslist provides a forum for a huge variety of different real estate ads, most legitimate, in which it is prohibitively difficult for craigslist to isolate the offensive ads. It is not as clearly true for the "adult services" ads, where craigslist has gone out of its way to segregate the ads most likely to violate state pandering and prostitution laws.
- mariorz 16y ago
  They go "out of their way" to segregate the ads? isn't it just the users posting their ads to the corresponding section?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Users can't make up their own sections.
    - mariorz 16y ago
      yes, but the section isn't "prostitution". there are legit adult services in those sections as well.
ck2 16y ago
Sometimes I wish HN had a filter I could use because the constant flow of these articles and some of the opinions that follow really enrage me. Keep voting me down though and just keep wondering why the number of women in tech are so low with these kinds of chauvinistic attitudes. It's illegal to yell fire in a crowded movie theater. That's not stepping on free speech, it's an adjustment by society to keep things sane and fair. Same thing for asking business to stop helping the selling of women. And it's not "many people disagree with banning prostitution" - it's most MEN want to reserve the right to trade money for instant sex, regardless of the cost to society because they don't know how to regulate their cravings.
- _delirium 16y ago
  Is it really a mainly male POV? Most of the activist organizations I know of specifically for legalizing prostitution/sex-work are women-led, essentially the sex-workers' part of the union movement, and often explicitly feminist (from the radical branch of sex-positive feminism). That does seem to be a bigger trend in Europe than in the US, though. Some details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_workers%27_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_workers%27_rights
  - ck2 16y ago
    The women that support making it legal are doing it as what they see as the better option because they know it won't go away and they desperately want to see bad things stop happening to women. It's hard to deal with when you see it in real-life. They figure it's always going to be there and if so, it's better that it's out in the open so women can at least get legal support instead of the cops laughing them off when they get hurt. I say that's not the answer, it's a poor choice of lesser evils. Just imagine what if it would be like if everyone could get hard drugs and it was out in the open. Imagine CL full of ads for hard drugs being condoned. In a better society when you've made bad choices you should be able to get help for yourself regardless if it's prostitution or hard drugs. And yes I think those two are about the same level in bad choices for all involved, buyers and sellers. It means you've crossed certain lines where instant gratification is overriding long term thinking and it damages you and society. If you want prostitution LEGAL well then campaign for that but don't do an end run around the illegality by saying there should be open ads for illegal activity. That's a double standard.
sliverstorm 16y ago
I still don't understand how this is a free speech issue. The particulars of this case aside, I'm not exactly concerned that the government may be censoring people advertising illegal services. Would it still be censoring if Craigslist had a "hit men" section, and that was taken down? Put aside your views on the legality of prostitution for a moment, and remember that it is currently illegal.
- kscaldef 16y ago
  not all "adult services" are prostitution.
kevinpet 16y ago
There's one small piece of history that I consider very relevant in any discussion of CL and prostitution. CL did not always have an erotic services or adult services section. They initially had normal personal ads (m4w, m4m, w4m, w4w, casual encounters, friendship and missed connections IIRC), but the professionals were flooding those categories with sex for pay. Craigslist didn't create the sections to attract prostitutes, it created those categories to keep the ads out of the other sections.
zalew 16y ago
'How Censoring Craigslist Helps Pimps, Child Traffickers and Other Abusive Scumbags' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danah-boyd/how-censoring-craigslist-_b_706789.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danah-boyd/how-censoring-craig...

49 points by there 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

hugh3 16y ago

No one (including Craigslist) disputes that sex trafficking is a reprehensible practice that should be vigorously opposed. Wait, what does "sex trafficking" mean in this context? Is it just "prostitution"? Because many people disagree with the banning of prostitution.

dangrossman 16y ago
No, it means something more than just prostitution -- slavery and forced prostitution. Women, both from the US and forcibly smuggled from other countries, are forced to prostitute themselves while turning over their income under threat of violence or death.
- ataggart 16y ago
  >it means something more than just prostitution And the prohibitionists love to use this type of package-deal language. That one can oppose criminalizing sex for money between two consenting adults, but still support criminalizing sex slavery is a notion intentionally excluded from the conversation.
  - todayiamme 16y ago
    I accidentally up voted you, but can you please tell me how this package-deal language works? Preferably with empirical evidence to prove just the same. I couldn't sleep at night even if one child's future was destroyed through something I had created like this.
kevinpet 16y ago
It depends who you ask. People who are opposed to prostitution like to argue against forced sex slavery, get everyone to agree, then redefine sex trafficking to include all sex for pay.
tptacek 16y ago
This is a hand-wavy argument. If most people disagreed with the banning of prostitution, there'd be popular ballot measures aimed at legalizing it, like there are for cannabis.
- enjo 16y ago
  http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/poll-says-yes-to-paterson-no-to-legalized-prostitution/ http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/poll-says-yes-t... In this poll of New York voters 30% supported legalizing it. Clearly the parent is correct, the use. of "no one" in the quote is clearly not true
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Of course it isn't, though, because "trafficking" involves the specific kinds of prostitution in which people are transported from one locale to another with the intent of alienating them from the local population and locking them into a lifestyle that depends on the sex trade.
- gojomo 16y ago
  Give it time. Marijuana was legal; then it wasn't; and now after many decades, various stages of re-legalization are proceeding via legislation and ballot measures. Prostitution was once legal in many jurisdictions where it's illegal now; some jurisdictions have tried forms of re-legalization, or tacit acceptance in various kinds of 'red-light districts' (real or virtual), sometimes as a means of sex-trafficking harm-reduction. In 2008, a San Francisco proposition to decriminalize prostitution got a 42% 'yes' vote. 'Everyone' except for some rather heartless criminals is against 'sex trafficking'; views on the more general 'prostitution' are far more varied.
- djcapelis 16y ago
  SF voted on legalizing prostitution in 2008. It was called Prop K and got 41% of the vote. http://www.yesonpropk.org/ http://www.yesonpropk.org/ Measure Q in Berkeley in 2004 pulled 36%. In the Bay Area a considerable number of people support decriminalization. Craigslist is hardly completely out of whack in terms of public opinion of the population in their region of the world.

pyre 16y ago

Maybe we should fire those AGs because they are not making any 'discernible' impact on sex trafficking in their respective states.

tptacek 16y ago

All I'll say here is that it's not entirely apparent that craigslist is immune from liability because of the CDA: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&shofile=07-1101_021.pdf http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=rss_sho&#3... That case, the one I believe most people are citing when they use the words "common carrier" in conjunction with craigslist, was about an advocacy group targeting craigslist for allowing discriminatory rental housing ads. "Go sue the people posting the ads", it said. But note also this, from the opinion: Nothing in the service craigslist offers induces anyone to post any particular listing or express a preference for discrimination; for example, craigslist does not offer a lower price to people who include discriminatory statements in their postings. This is clearly true for rental ads, where craigslist provides a forum for a huge variety of different real estate ads, most legitimate, in which it is prohibitively difficult for craigslist to isolate the offensive ads. It is not as clearly true for the "adult services" ads, where craigslist has gone out of its way to segregate the ads most likely to violate state pandering and prostitution laws.

mariorz 16y ago
They go "out of their way" to segregate the ads? isn't it just the users posting their ads to the corresponding section?
- tptacek 16y ago
  Users can't make up their own sections.
  - mariorz 16y ago
    yes, but the section isn't "prostitution". there are legit adult services in those sections as well.

ck2 16y ago

Sometimes I wish HN had a filter I could use because the constant flow of these articles and some of the opinions that follow really enrage me. Keep voting me down though and just keep wondering why the number of women in tech are so low with these kinds of chauvinistic attitudes. It's illegal to yell fire in a crowded movie theater. That's not stepping on free speech, it's an adjustment by society to keep things sane and fair. Same thing for asking business to stop helping the selling of women. And it's not "many people disagree with banning prostitution" - it's most MEN want to reserve the right to trade money for instant sex, regardless of the cost to society because they don't know how to regulate their cravings.

_delirium 16y ago
Is it really a mainly male POV? Most of the activist organizations I know of specifically for legalizing prostitution/sex-work are women-led, essentially the sex-workers' part of the union movement, and often explicitly feminist (from the radical branch of sex-positive feminism). That does seem to be a bigger trend in Europe than in the US, though. Some details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_workers%27_rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_workers%27_rights
- ck2 16y ago
  The women that support making it legal are doing it as what they see as the better option because they know it won't go away and they desperately want to see bad things stop happening to women. It's hard to deal with when you see it in real-life. They figure it's always going to be there and if so, it's better that it's out in the open so women can at least get legal support instead of the cops laughing them off when they get hurt. I say that's not the answer, it's a poor choice of lesser evils. Just imagine what if it would be like if everyone could get hard drugs and it was out in the open. Imagine CL full of ads for hard drugs being condoned. In a better society when you've made bad choices you should be able to get help for yourself regardless if it's prostitution or hard drugs. And yes I think those two are about the same level in bad choices for all involved, buyers and sellers. It means you've crossed certain lines where instant gratification is overriding long term thinking and it damages you and society. If you want prostitution LEGAL well then campaign for that but don't do an end run around the illegality by saying there should be open ads for illegal activity. That's a double standard.

sliverstorm 16y ago

I still don't understand how this is a free speech issue. The particulars of this case aside, I'm not exactly concerned that the government may be censoring people advertising illegal services. Would it still be censoring if Craigslist had a "hit men" section, and that was taken down? Put aside your views on the legality of prostitution for a moment, and remember that it is currently illegal.

kscaldef 16y ago
not all "adult services" are prostitution.

kevinpet 16y ago

There's one small piece of history that I consider very relevant in any discussion of CL and prostitution. CL did not always have an erotic services or adult services section. They initially had normal personal ads (m4w, m4m, w4m, w4w, casual encounters, friendship and missed connections IIRC), but the professionals were flooding those categories with sex for pay. Craigslist didn't create the sections to attract prostitutes, it created those categories to keep the ads out of the other sections.

zalew 16y ago

'How Censoring Craigslist Helps Pimps, Child Traffickers and Other Abusive Scumbags' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danah-boyd/how-censoring-craigslist-_b_706789.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danah-boyd/how-censoring-craig...