|
CONSUMER NEWS RECALLS COMPLAINT FORM SCAM ALERTS |
| Small Claims Guide | Class Actions | Lemon Law | FAQ | Resources | Newsletters | Spanish | |
|
|
![]() |
Connecticut Wants Craiglist to Pull Prostitution AdsPopular site violates its own rules against promotion illegal activity, state alleges |
|||||
|
March 31, 2008
The demand follows the arrest of a Connecticut woman on prostitution charges. She had allegedly used Craigslist to troll for clients. In a letter to Craigslist's attorney, Blumenthal demanded that the site better enforce its rules prohibiting illegal activity such as prostitution, and inappropriate ads and images. In spite of rules banning such content, Craiglist's "erotic services" section is rife with ads containing explicit language and images bordering on pornographic, as well as hourly rates and descriptions of services clearly sexual in nature, Blumenthal's office found. Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster took issue with Blumenthal's statements. Craigslist responds"In the New Haven Register, Attorney General Blumenthal is quoted as saying that our company profits from prostitution. That is both utterly false and significantly defamatory, as 100% of our revenue comes from paid job listings and broker apartment rental listings," Buckmaster said. "We certainly hope that the Attorney General was misquoted or misinformed, and we look forward to an immediate retraction of this false and damaging allegation." Blumenthal sent the letter after several months of discussions with Craigslist in which the site refused to take aggressive steps to curb apparent prostitution ads. The site acknowledged to Blumenthal's office that no staff members regularly check for such postings. "Craigslist is violating its own rules -- which bar illegal activity and inappropriate content -- by failing to remove ads promoting prostitution," Blumenthal said. "In Connecticut alone, certain site sections feature dozens of explicit, nearly pornographic photos, hourly rates and invitations to customers. Despite my office's repeated requests, Craigslist refuses to purge such postings -- stonewalling and denying the obvious. "I am especially troubled that Craigslist has disregarded and dismissed this serious and growing problem -- in effect turning a blind eye, refusing to hire or dedicate anyone to review postings that contain graphic nudity and solicitations with hourly rates, even in the 'erotic services' portion of the website," he said. "The company effectively denies the undeniable, incomprehensibly and unacceptably," Blumenthal said. "Although Craigslist touts measures to ban illegal activities and limit or remove inappropriate postings in its erotic services section, a cursory review of this section shows that its supposed solutions are woefully and obviously inadequate." Blumenthal's letter requests Craiglist's lawyer respond within 10 days with information on how the site plans to better enforce its rules prohibiting inappropriate content and use of the site to promote illegal activity such as prostitution. Discrimination decisionEarlier this month, a federal appeals court has held that Craiglist could not be held liable for discriminatory real-estate postings. Civil rights attorneys in Chicago had argued that the site should be held responsible for apartment rental and home sale listings that specify racial or ethnic preferences. But the court said the Communications Decency Act protects Web sites from liability for third-party postings. It's the latest in a series of similar rulings. A staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Kurt Opsahl, said the ruling was "good news." The protection provided by the law is essential to the Internet's free operation, he said. Craigslist allows users to flag inappropriate language or material and removes postings that are identified as violating its terms of service. The appeals court noted that while Craiglist does not actively ban discriminatory postings, it does not encourage them either. "Nothing in the service Craigslist offers induces anyone to post any particular listing or express a preference for discrimination," the court held. Report Your Experience
|
|
||||
Advertisement
|
Home |
Complaint Form |
News |
Recalls |
FAQ |
|
Terms of Use Your use of this site constitutes acceptance of the Terms of Use
Copyright © 2003-2008 ConsumerAffairs.com Inc. All Rights Reserved. The contents of this site may not be republished, reprinted, rewritten or recirculated without written permission. |
|