Skip to comments.Craigslist Prostitution Case Dismissed
Posted on 10/24/2009 10:48:13 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
The court case filed by an Illinois County Sheriff alleging the Craigslist website abets prostitution was thrown out by a federal judge this week.
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart contended that the erotic services portion of the website constituted a "horrific" breach of U.S. law, alleging that the site had facilitated the largest source of prostitution in the country. He also said Craigslist aids underage pimping and human trafficking, ABC News reports.
Federal Judge John Grady, however, ruled that the intermediary website cannot be held liable for assisting customers who misuse their service to break the law. "If users routinely flout Craigslist guidelines it is not because Craigslist has caused them to do so," Grady wrote in his decision.
After Dart filed the lawsuit in July, Craigslist changed the section name from "erotic services" to "adult services" and added new precautions to pre-screen advertisements posted in the category. The website has always had regulations barring prostitutes from soliciting business on the site.
"We're very interested in pursuing this to the next level as far as an appeal," Dart told the news source.
The Craigslist website collects more than 20 billion page views each month.
Does that mean the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is unconstitutional? Can I set up a Bittorrent site without fear now?
I guess I figure that if prostitution is illegal everywhere in America, except parts of Nevada, aren’t ads for illegal activity also illegal?
Could you have Craiglist ads to hire a hitman to kill somebody, for example?
Could you have Craiglist ads with the drug gangs openly selling their drugs?
I guess I wonder exactly where lines are drawn with advertising for illegal things.
Place your ad and take your chances.
They advertised in newspaper classifieds for years.
This is no different.
But that’s not exactly the question. You can’t advertise illegal things. But if you do then why is anyone but you guilty? The Illinois sheriff wants to make the website guilty as well.
I'm sorry but these laws never made much sense to me. If a guy wants to go over to a woman's home, engage in consensual sex and then he leaves a couple hundred bucks on the nightstand, who really cares? Not me. Really, how different is this from the countless beautiful young women looking specifically for a rich older man? How different is it really from getting paid to have sex in a porno film? No difference as far as I can see. Just a silly misuse of valuable police resources.
The website operator has no control of where the web site is accessed from and he probably could not be held liable for not preventing access from outside of Nevada.
I personally do not approve of prostitution or promiscuous sex and/or adultery and I also do not encourage any of those activities. I am simply commenting based upon previous law suits that I have seen.
True. Also in the Phone Book in the Yellow Pages.