So many State AG's have been in a tizzy for a couple of years over these ads, in large part because there is no denighing that underaged prostitutes have been using these ads to find clients. Many lawsuits have been threatened, and I think a few filed. But this is no slam dunk good idea
A WP polls find the pubic mixed about even:
And a NYT's piece has the following
Since blocking access to the ads as the Labor Day weekend began — and suspending a revenue stream that could bring in an estimated $44 million this year — Craigslist has refused to discuss its motivations. But using the word “censored” suggests that the increasingly combative company is trying to draw attention to its fight with state attorneys general over sex ads and to issues of free speech on the Internet.
The law has been on Craigslist’s side. The federal Communications Decency Act protects Web sites against liability for what their users post on the sites. And last year, the efforts of attorneys general were stymied when a federal judge blocked South Carolina’s attorney general from prosecuting Craigslist executives for listings that resulted in prostitution arrests.
“It certainly appears to be a statement about how they feel about being judged in the court of public opinion,” said Thomas R. Burke, a First Amendment lawyer at Davis Wright Tremaine who specializes in Internet law and does not work for Craigslist. “It’s certainly the law that they’re not liable for it, but it’s another matter if the attorneys general are saying change your ways.”
What do you think? Should this ad section stay gone?
My vote is no, I am generally for freedom, net freedom, and I think Craigslist has done more than anything else in my lifetime to promote the best interests of sex workers. It is also a one stop shop for police to use to catch up to under-aged sex workers, should they choose to do so.