Re: Craigslist to sheriff: Federal law protects site [CNet News]

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

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  
sheriff's
lawsuit, this is one of the URLs that is chock-full of prostitution  
ads.  I
just reviewed the 10 most recent ads.  Of these, 1 was already flagged  
for
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  
with
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  
> to be
> free to go after the distribution methods in which prostitution is the
> predominant message. I see this as no different than if someone had  
> paid
> 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  
> that
> they're just an advertising flier.
>
> The point that the Sherriff is making is that it's not just one or  
> two ads
> that slipped by, rather the erotic services section is chock-a-block  
> full
> of advertisements for illegal services (the best of which is  
> prostitution,
> the worst of which is child exploitation). If that's true (and  
> that's for
> 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
> postings.
>
> --m
>
> > 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  
> > actual
> > criminals?  That's essentially what I'm reading here.   Yes, I  
> > expect law
> > enforcement officers to set up sting operations on prostitution  
> > rings, if
> > that's what it takes to shut down the prostitution rings.  I don't  
> > expect
> > them to sue newspapers, bulletin boards, or other methods of public
> > advertising, simply because an ad slipped by that happens to  
> > advertise
> > illegal services.



--
Tilghman




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com