7 ms·

This issue is more ethically ambiguous than the EFF acknowledged in their post. The EFF only links to the legal and health forums, while the FBI claims the site

by panarky 12y ago

This issue is more ethically ambiguous than the EFF acknowledged in their post. The EFF only links to the legal and health forums, while the FBI claims the sites "were used to facilitate prostitution" [0]: advertisements for prostitutes... menus of sexual services, hourly and nightly rates, and customer reviews of the prostitutes’ services. You can see an example of an advertisement here (NSFW): https://web.archive.org/web/20130521131010/http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/DCForumID20/188351.html https://web.archive.org/web/20130521131010/http://forum.myre... I'm not arguing for or against sex work, just illustrating that this takedown is not a clear-cut case of censoring a vulnerable community's non-commercial political speech. Is the EFF saying the FBI should have targeted specific illegal posts instead of taking down legal material as well? I support the EFF in their important work, but they're more credible and effective when they tell the whole story, including the complicated part. [0] http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/operators-of-myredbook.com-website-arrested-on-prostitution-and-money-laundering-charges http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/operators-of-myredbook.com...

tomasien 12y ago
Thank you for posting this. EFF makes the site seem like purely a forum and it just wasn't - it doesn't change MY personal opinion of this matter (I am against the takedown STRONGLY) but it worries me when people with whom I agree seem to miss the mark on providing an accurate representation of the facts. I'm not suggesting it's intentionally misleading, but I think it doesn't get it exactly right.
- chillingeffect 12y ago
  I wish the EFF had stated the case as an issue of state's rights. From Wikipedia: The regulation of prostitution in the United States is not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is therefore exclusively the domain of the states to permit, prohibit, or otherwise regulate commercial sex, except insofar as Congress may regulate it as part of interstate commerce with laws like the Mann Act. Furthermore, that site is also legal in parts of Nevada where prostitution is legal. I don't see how the federal government has jurisdiction in this matter. The Mann act is for interstate commerce. Perhaps this applies, but I think a real lawyer could share their related experience. 10th Amendment, btw: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
  - learc83 12y ago
    >Congress may regulate it as part of interstate commerce The website is pretty clearly operating across state lines. If the website is based in California (just made that up), runs on servers in Texas, and it allows users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida, it's pretty clearly engaging in interstate commerce. Even if the website limited users to just one state, the federal government could still potentially regulate it under the interstate commerce clause provided the intrastate commerce substantially affects interstate commerce. -Note: the site by itself doesn't have to have a substantial effect. It just has to be part of a potential substantial cumulative effect--that is to say, hundreds of intrastate sex advertisement websites would, together, have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, so congress would be justified in banning all sex advertising websites, even if individually they don't engage in interstate commerce. Edit: This comment assumes that the website was in fact facilitating prostitution. This may or may not be the case, I have no idea.
    - davorak 12y ago
      > The website is pretty clearly operating across state lines. If the website is based in California (just made that up), runs on servers in Texas, and it allows users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida, it's pretty clearly engaging in interstate commerce. A web site has to police the addresses of user base for user to user interactions? Are their examples where ebay, amazon, or similar service has to proactively police its user or suffer criminal charges for user to user interactions?
      - learc83 12y ago
        I'm not saying that at all, my comment was addressed at the parent commenter who said that the federal government couldn't regulate prostitution unless it was part of interstate commerce. Therefore, the assumption is that the website was engaged in facilitating prostitution. The website may not have been engaged in facilitating prostitution, I have no idea. There are likely plenty of arguments to be made here (the website is just a meeting place for users, it doesn't promote prostitution etc...)--that the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate a website facilitating prostitution is not one of them.
onewaystreet 12y ago
MyRedBook's forums were second to its classified which were used to find and rate high-end escorts. There's no question the site was used facilitate prostitution. With that said, the site had been running since 2002. Why were they busted now? Example classified: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RHLakOoFp24J:classifieds.myredbook.com/classified.php%3Fadid%3D397117+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RHLakOo... Almost all ads explicitly listed the sex acts offered. People on there weren't even being discreet about it.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > MyRedBook's forums were second to its classified which were used to find and rate high-end escorts. From glancing through the listing (on archive.org) I would suggest that "high-end" is inappropriate. It seems to include "high-end" escorts, but by no means be limited to them. Unless, not being involved in any aspect of that trade, I just have a really wrong idea of what "high-end escort" means and the term includes those offering $50 no-condom oral sex.
  - mrbusr123 12y ago
    you're out of touch with reality.
  - frozenport 12y ago
    For comparison, the high-end escort service that Eliot Spitzer was involved with cost US$31,000 per day [] []http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/emperors-club-all-about-e_n_90768.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/emperors-club-all-a...?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - thret 12y ago
      Why would you pay $31k for a girl for one day? That's obscene. Reminds me of this scene from Gilmore Girls: LORELAI: Seventy-five thousand dollars. Seventy-five thousand dollars. Oh my God, that’s like 150 pairs of Jimmy Choos. RICHARD: What are Jimmy Choos? LORELAI: Shoes. RICHARD: 150 pairs, that’s it? LORELAI: Dad, they’re Jimmy Choos. RICHARD: For seventy-five thousand dollars, you should be able to buy at least three or four hundred pairs of shoes. LORELAI: Not Jimmy Choos. RICHARD: But that’s ridiculous. You are not going to spend seventy-five thousand dollars on Jimmy Choos when you could buy four hundred pairs of less prestigious but I’m sure equally stylish shoes. You will shop around first. Is that clear? LORELAI: Yes, sir.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 12y ago
> This issue is more ethically ambiguous than the EFF acknowledged in their post The EFF post is so distorted that I have trouble figuring out if the EFF is just intentionally twisting the facts to piggy-back on a high visibility case (which seems horrendously ill-considered, even from a strategic point) or if they are just so negligent in reviewing the facts that they've gotten used by others. There's real issues that this case could serve as a focal point for discussing -- particularly about the prohibition of prostitution and whether criminalization and the enforcement that goes along with it is a net positive or negative for society. But its clearly not anything like a bust of a noncommercial education, legal resource, and health information site that happens to cater to sex workers being shut down because the government isn't happy with the client base or subject matter.
throwawaykf05 12y ago
I've said it before, but the EFF frequently twists the facts to push their agenda. Of course, it's not a popular opinion to have 'round these parts.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  That's what they do. They are an advocacy organization. And when you say "twist" they say "place into a factual narrative." That's what attorneys do. They build narratives. In this case, they support freedom with their narratives. Apparently it's thankless work.
  - ryanpardieck 12y ago
    Being an advocacy organization does not require such gross distortion of the facts. I like the EFF, but I've stopped putting any kind of credibility into their different blog posts and articles.
    - the_ancient 12y ago
      Why do you hate freedom?
      - ryanpardieck 12y ago
        It doesn't go well on spaghetti.
rando289 12y ago
> illegal posts It is illegal for certain people to post certain things at certain locations on the internet. Posts aren't inherently illegal and I think you are missing the nuance more than the eff is. > Is the EFF saying the FBI should have targeted specific illegal posts instead of taking down legal material as well? What kind of question is that. It's like "Are you really saying that if someone put graffiti on your house, the FBI should paint over each letter instead of simply using a bulldozer?"
Fuxy 12y ago
It's is a bit troubling that the EFF didn't present the entire issue however going against sex worker really? What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to do like solving murders and other cases where people actually got hurt. I personally think prostitution should be legal anyway like the late George Calin put it "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?"
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  I don't get it, either. Since when is it the EFF's role to do anything but advocate for rights when they are abridged? I suspect someone feels butthurt they did not understand the entire story before they formed an opinion, and now blame the EFF for their butthurt.
- dspillett 12y ago
  > It's is a bit troubling that the EFF didn't present the entire issue Never assume any group is not doing this. Everyone makes more effort to present the facts that support their case/cause than they do those against/neutral. The EFF are better about not denying the truths they don't like than many similarly vocal groups, but don't expect them to tell you the facts that don't support their position. > What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to do They can't chose the laws that they concentrate on, really. The "don't you have something more important to do officer" argument (as often sung by petty criminals) is bunkum. They enact the law, all of it, and the reason they are chasing the people committing lesser offences (in the offender's eyes at least) is because people are committing lesser offences. > "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?" This is probably the answer to a certain extent: legalise it, regulate it to try protect both the workers and the punters, and potentially tax it to cover the cost of that regulation. Though the legalisation argument as it is usually presented is rather simplistic, and the effects it would have on major crime (for example people trafficking) seems vastly over-stated IMO.
spacemanmatt 12y ago
I find it a broad overreach to take down entire sites based on allegations that some members may have been using it for illegal purposes.

by panarky 12y ago

tomasien 12y ago

Thank you for posting this. EFF makes the site seem like purely a forum and it just wasn't - it doesn't change MY personal opinion of this matter (I am against the takedown STRONGLY) but it worries me when people with whom I agree seem to miss the mark on providing an accurate representation of the facts. I'm not suggesting it's intentionally misleading, but I think it doesn't get it exactly right.

chillingeffect 12y ago
I wish the EFF had stated the case as an issue of state's rights. From Wikipedia: The regulation of prostitution in the United States is not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is therefore exclusively the domain of the states to permit, prohibit, or otherwise regulate commercial sex, except insofar as Congress may regulate it as part of interstate commerce with laws like the Mann Act. Furthermore, that site is also legal in parts of Nevada where prostitution is legal. I don't see how the federal government has jurisdiction in this matter. The Mann act is for interstate commerce. Perhaps this applies, but I think a real lawyer could share their related experience. 10th Amendment, btw: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
- learc83 12y ago
  >Congress may regulate it as part of interstate commerce The website is pretty clearly operating across state lines. If the website is based in California (just made that up), runs on servers in Texas, and it allows users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida, it's pretty clearly engaging in interstate commerce. Even if the website limited users to just one state, the federal government could still potentially regulate it under the interstate commerce clause provided the intrastate commerce substantially affects interstate commerce. -Note: the site by itself doesn't have to have a substantial effect. It just has to be part of a potential substantial cumulative effect--that is to say, hundreds of intrastate sex advertisement websites would, together, have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, so congress would be justified in banning all sex advertising websites, even if individually they don't engage in interstate commerce. Edit: This comment assumes that the website was in fact facilitating prostitution. This may or may not be the case, I have no idea.
  - davorak 12y ago
    > The website is pretty clearly operating across state lines. If the website is based in California (just made that up), runs on servers in Texas, and it allows users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida, it's pretty clearly engaging in interstate commerce. A web site has to police the addresses of user base for user to user interactions? Are their examples where ebay, amazon, or similar service has to proactively police its user or suffer criminal charges for user to user interactions?
    - learc83 12y ago
      I'm not saying that at all, my comment was addressed at the parent commenter who said that the federal government couldn't regulate prostitution unless it was part of interstate commerce. Therefore, the assumption is that the website was engaged in facilitating prostitution. The website may not have been engaged in facilitating prostitution, I have no idea. There are likely plenty of arguments to be made here (the website is just a meeting place for users, it doesn't promote prostitution etc...)--that the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate a website facilitating prostitution is not one of them.

onewaystreet 12y ago

MyRedBook's forums were second to its classified which were used to find and rate high-end escorts. There's no question the site was used facilitate prostitution. With that said, the site had been running since 2002. Why were they busted now? Example classified: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RHLakOoFp24J:classifieds.myredbook.com/classified.php%3Fadid%3D397117+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RHLakOo... Almost all ads explicitly listed the sex acts offered. People on there weren't even being discreet about it.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> MyRedBook's forums were second to its classified which were used to find and rate high-end escorts. From glancing through the listing (on archive.org) I would suggest that "high-end" is inappropriate. It seems to include "high-end" escorts, but by no means be limited to them. Unless, not being involved in any aspect of that trade, I just have a really wrong idea of what "high-end escort" means and the term includes those offering $50 no-condom oral sex.
- mrbusr123 12y ago
  you're out of touch with reality.
- frozenport 12y ago
  For comparison, the high-end escort service that Eliot Spitzer was involved with cost US$31,000 per day [] []http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/emperors-club-all-about-e_n_90768.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/emperors-club-all-a...?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - thret 12y ago
    Why would you pay $31k for a girl for one day? That's obscene. Reminds me of this scene from Gilmore Girls: LORELAI: Seventy-five thousand dollars. Seventy-five thousand dollars. Oh my God, that’s like 150 pairs of Jimmy Choos. RICHARD: What are Jimmy Choos? LORELAI: Shoes. RICHARD: 150 pairs, that’s it? LORELAI: Dad, they’re Jimmy Choos. RICHARD: For seventy-five thousand dollars, you should be able to buy at least three or four hundred pairs of shoes. LORELAI: Not Jimmy Choos. RICHARD: But that’s ridiculous. You are not going to spend seventy-five thousand dollars on Jimmy Choos when you could buy four hundred pairs of less prestigious but I’m sure equally stylish shoes. You will shop around first. Is that clear? LORELAI: Yes, sir.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 12y ago

> This issue is more ethically ambiguous than the EFF acknowledged in their post The EFF post is so distorted that I have trouble figuring out if the EFF is just intentionally twisting the facts to piggy-back on a high visibility case (which seems horrendously ill-considered, even from a strategic point) or if they are just so negligent in reviewing the facts that they've gotten used by others. There's real issues that this case could serve as a focal point for discussing -- particularly about the prohibition of prostitution and whether criminalization and the enforcement that goes along with it is a net positive or negative for society. But its clearly not anything like a bust of a noncommercial education, legal resource, and health information site that happens to cater to sex workers being shut down because the government isn't happy with the client base or subject matter.

throwawaykf05 12y ago

I've said it before, but the EFF frequently twists the facts to push their agenda. Of course, it's not a popular opinion to have 'round these parts.

spacemanmatt 12y ago
That's what they do. They are an advocacy organization. And when you say "twist" they say "place into a factual narrative." That's what attorneys do. They build narratives. In this case, they support freedom with their narratives. Apparently it's thankless work.
- ryanpardieck 12y ago
  Being an advocacy organization does not require such gross distortion of the facts. I like the EFF, but I've stopped putting any kind of credibility into their different blog posts and articles.
  - the_ancient 12y ago
    Why do you hate freedom?
    - ryanpardieck 12y ago
      It doesn't go well on spaghetti.

rando289 12y ago

> illegal posts It is illegal for certain people to post certain things at certain locations on the internet. Posts aren't inherently illegal and I think you are missing the nuance more than the eff is. > Is the EFF saying the FBI should have targeted specific illegal posts instead of taking down legal material as well? What kind of question is that. It's like "Are you really saying that if someone put graffiti on your house, the FBI should paint over each letter instead of simply using a bulldozer?"

Fuxy 12y ago

It's is a bit troubling that the EFF didn't present the entire issue however going against sex worker really? What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to do like solving murders and other cases where people actually got hurt. I personally think prostitution should be legal anyway like the late George Calin put it "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?"

spacemanmatt 12y ago
I don't get it, either. Since when is it the EFF's role to do anything but advocate for rights when they are abridged? I suspect someone feels butthurt they did not understand the entire story before they formed an opinion, and now blame the EFF for their butthurt.
dspillett 12y ago
> It's is a bit troubling that the EFF didn't present the entire issue Never assume any group is not doing this. Everyone makes more effort to present the facts that support their case/cause than they do those against/neutral. The EFF are better about not denying the truths they don't like than many similarly vocal groups, but don't expect them to tell you the facts that don't support their position. > What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to do They can't chose the laws that they concentrate on, really. The "don't you have something more important to do officer" argument (as often sung by petty criminals) is bunkum. They enact the law, all of it, and the reason they are chasing the people committing lesser offences (in the offender's eyes at least) is because people are committing lesser offences. > "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?" This is probably the answer to a certain extent: legalise it, regulate it to try protect both the workers and the punters, and potentially tax it to cover the cost of that regulation. Though the legalisation argument as it is usually presented is rather simplistic, and the effects it would have on major crime (for example people trafficking) seems vastly over-stated IMO.

spacemanmatt 12y ago

I find it a broad overreach to take down entire sites based on allegations that some members may have been using it for illegal purposes.