Connecticut Police Use Craigslist To Fight Prostitution; As Their Attorney General Grandstands To Take Away That Tool

from the what-a-tool dept

Tue, May 4th 2010 9:12am — Mike Masnick

We've been covering Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's totally misguided crusade against Craigslist on the topic of prostitution. For years, he's complained and threatened Craigslist because prostitutes use the service. Of course, he's never taken legal action because he must realize that there is no legal action he can take. The law is pretty clear: the liability is on the users of the service, not the makers of the service. Even so, Craigslist has repeatedly changed the way its service works to appease Blumenthal, and while he initially seems happy with those changes, months later, he's always back to complaining (just in time for elections too...).

Of course, the point we've made all along in response to Blumenthal is that for smart law enforcement officials, Craigslist is an excellent tool for monitoring and cracking down on prostitution. In fact, it appears that some police in Connecticut are doing exactly that. Eric sends in the story of police in Naugatuck, Connecticut using Craigslist to crack down on prostitution in their city.

The police responded to a few ads that they believe were from prostitutes seeking money for sex, and arrested two women. Separately -- and a bit more questionably -- the police also put up an ad themselves, waiting for men to reply, and eventually arrested eighteen men who replied (including a city official). It's difficult to see how that latter part of the sting isn't entrapment, but they insist it's not. Either way, it does seem like a bit of a contradiction when the state's Attorney General is seeking to block Craigslist from dealing in such ads entirely while police in the state are using it as a tool against prostitution at the same time. Maybe they should talk to each other. But, of course, when Blumenthal's real purpose is not about stopping prostitution, but instead making sure he's re-elected, suddenly the seemingly contradictory actions make a lot more sense. Oh, and if Blumenthal is really looking to grandstand about Craigslist, why not complain about the fact that the guy who bought the Nissan Pathfinder used in the failed Times Square car bomb attack this weekend supposedly bought it via Craigslist. Surely, if Craigslist can be blamed for prostitution, now it can also be blamed for terrorism...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: connecticut, liability, prostitution, richard blumenthal, section 230
Companies: craigslist

31 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2010 @ 9:21am

typical masnick overreach. damn, you are dense sometimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2010 @ 9:27am
  
  Re:
  Blah, blah, the masnick blah. Yada yada yada , and ickety ackety oop .
  
  There! No you can cut and paste all future posts!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2010 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Whoops, forgot it will hide certain characters.
    
    Blah, blah, the masnick blah. Yada yada yada [completely baseless assertion], and ickety ackety oop [severe misunderstanding of economics].
    
    Now you have your template.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2010 @ 9:48pm
  
  Re:
  Remember that one time when TAM actually backed up one of his claims?
  
  Oh, nevermind, I think that was a hallucination.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 4 May 2010 @ 9:33am

Terorrist?
Terrorism is, in the most general sense, the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism. (wonder why) Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.

"are perpetrated for an ideological goal"
Dont think we have seen any indication about the ideological goal of this, or any of the past attacks.

Yeah...lets leave the car running, flashers on, a toy "timer", and a bunch of other crap loaded in the car. This is the worst attempt at blowing something up. They must not have had Google. The mighty Al-CIA-da, which popped a bomb in the basement of the towers, supposedly with very little training, flew 2 planes into the towers, can now not even set off a simple bomb in a plane, or on a city street? Doesn't add up.
Here are your "inexperienced pilots":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiAAd-10sSM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Christopher Weigel (profile), 4 May 2010 @ 11:31am
  
  Re: Terorrist?
  Simply because there's not a stated ideological goal doesn't mean there isn't one. In all probability there is one, we're simply unaware of it for the moment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Christopher Weigel (profile), 4 May 2010 @ 11:32am
    
    Re: Re: Terorrist?
    Further, what would you call a lone attack that fulfills the first and last conditions there?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DS, 4 May 2010 @ 1:06pm
  
  Re: Terorrist?
  No we don't need help, but very specifically YOU need help.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
greg.fenton (profile), 4 May 2010 @ 9:40am

That drum will beat you back
This guy has been on this Craigslist rampage for quite some time. Isn't it about time that one of his rivals points out how ineffective he's been in getting Craigslist shut down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bwp (profile), 4 May 2010 @ 9:46am
  
  Re: That drum will beat you back
  I think that since the SCOTUS said it's legal for corporations to give as much money as they want to political candidates Craigslist should put their own candidate up and back him or her with funds from escort advertising.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh, 4 May 2010 @ 9:46am

It makes no sense...
How can it be illegal to sell something that it's perfectly legel to give away?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freedom, 4 May 2010 @ 9:48am

Kim Kommando (sp?)
I almost crashed my car driving into work yesterday when I heard our local radio star/Digital Goddess go off on Craigslist on her 30 second morning spot.

She basically said that Craigslist was a evil capitalistic company that was making money off exploitation and if only they'd stop these erotic ads the birds would chirp again and the sun would shine. Obviously, not those exact words, but that is the feeling you walked away with.

The absolute lack of real research is just amazing. Every day I see more and more examples of how useless the press is for anything and how they twist facts to promote their viewpoints/end goals.

Of course no one touches the real issue with all this - If you can just take away your cult-like moral elitism that selling sex is bad, then you can read real research that shows the problem with prostitution is that it is illegal. If you truly want to protect the workers in this trade, the best way is to legalize it and then the whole CL issue goes away.

It is funny how when you are intellectually dishonest that the real world gives you problems that can't really be solved. Last I checked we've been fighting prostitution since forever and so far no one has solved the problem yet. Maybe someone would say, hey, the problem is trying to fight it in the first place?

As an aside, it really sucks being a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Where is my party? Frankly both parties are in it for nothing but control and power - just in different ways. Where is the party that believes in just government core services and no entitlements (cough) welfare? Love him or not, but Glenn Beck got it right in that right now we have no real choices - we got on the wrong tracks and are choices are false. America was formed on a libertarianism track and someone we forked and ended up in the mess we're in now.

Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2010 @ 11:24am
  
  Re: Kim Kommando (sp?)
  well of course Glen Beck is half right at points. He's fiscally conservative but a social nazi nut job. You have the right wing in the same breath wanting to expand the power of government to challenge any person walking on the street if they belong in this country or not and also say the left wing is just trying to expand the power of government and that is just plain wrong.
  
  Both sides are completely wacko and fiscal conservatives that don't want to expand government and want to dial it back have no where to go.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2010 @ 9:54am

"It's difficult to see how that latter part of the sting isn't entrapment"

It is no more entrapment than an undercover officer pretending to be a prostitute while standing on a corner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 4 May 2010 @ 10:10am
  
  Re:
  It is no more entrapment than an undercover officer pretending to be a prostitute while standing on a corner
  
  which is also entrapment
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Pitabred (profile), 4 May 2010 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, it's not. Entrapment is when you encourage someone to commit a crime they would otherwise not commit. I can walk past a prostitute whether she's a cop or not. If the cop dressed as a prostitute makes the initial overtures and statements, then that's entrapment. But if they stand there passively in an area known for prostitution and get approached themselves, then it's not.
    
    Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 4 May 2010 @ 11:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, it IS still entrapment - what you are saying is that the degree entrapment is not sufficient to negate the prosecution case. If you had read the page you quoted thoroughly enough then you would have realised this.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DCX2, 4 May 2010 @ 11:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This was my understanding as well. If the undercover goes up to you, that's entrapment. If you go up to the undercover, it's not.
      
      So, when the police put the ads up on craigslist, isn't that the equivalent of "initial overtures and statements"?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PCDEC, 4 May 2010 @ 2:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Entrapment really isn't what everyone thinks it is. The prostitute(undercover cop) CAN approach the john first.
        
        The easiest way to describe it is this: An undercover cop is selling drugs on the street. If he comes up to you and asks you if you want to buy some weed and you buy some you are busted and it is not entrapment. The reason is that you would have bought the weed even if he wasn't a cop.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Title Checker, 4 May 2010 @ 10:07am

What is "Prostition"
Another Techdirt invented term? ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulser (profile), 4 May 2010 @ 10:16am

Surely, if Craigslist can be blamed for prostitution, now it can also be blamed for terrorism...

Don't give them any ideas. Remember, "Today's satire is tomorrow's reality."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 May 2010 @ 10:27am
  
  Re:
  more like todays satire is tomorrows 'we have already shown that...' line that makes masnick so entertaining to read.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Hulser (profile), 4 May 2010 @ 11:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    more like todays satire is tomorrows 'we have already shown that...' line that makes masnick so entertaining to read.
    
    I'm sure it's perfectly clear in your mind what you mean by a "we have already shown that" line, but for the rest of us, would you care to explain? And by "explain", I think you know I don't mean rote regurgitations like "typical masnick overreach", but an actual rational statement backed up by some supporting ideas.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John R, 4 May 2010 @ 10:17am

Entrapment... not.
"Separately -- and a bit more questionably -- the police also put up an ad themselves, waiting for men to reply, and eventually arrested eighteen men who replied (including a city official). It's difficult to see how that latter part of the sting isn't entrapment, but they insist it's not."

Entrapment is when a law enforcement agent induces a person to commit an offense which the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit.

The men arrested responded to the ad of their own violation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ryan, 4 May 2010 @ 11:02am
  
  Re: Entrapment... not.
  And in classical entrapment, the citizen commits an offense of their own volition - it was just induced by the police first.
  
  In this case, the men responded to the ad of their own volition, yes...after the police induced responses with an ad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dev, 4 May 2010 @ 10:22am

Craigslist should take the money is is now charging for the ads, and donate it to his competitors campaign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James, 4 May 2010 @ 10:24am

Great writer
Prostition?

Hooked on phonics...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
andyg8180, 4 May 2010 @ 11:14am

State Senate
I'm pretty sure he's running for State Senate and not re-election... If he stayed at Atty Gen, thats fine and dandy, but he definitely does not have my vote for senator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnny Canada, 4 May 2010 @ 12:11pm

Just a Thought
Maybe the Naugatuck PD can charge Blumenthal with interference in a Police Investigations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon, 9 Jun 2010 @ 12:02pm

prostitution is wrong!
Prostitution is wrong because guys who cannot realize the basic natural human drive to have sexual intimacy with others, due to being ugly, socially inept, or disabled, deserve to be lonely and miserable and suffer suffer suffer to my delight for being such worthless losers, while we superior people get to have sex. We need to suppress the sexuality of inferior people to protect women or something! Grrr!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pat, 29 Aug 2013 @ 9:10pm
  
  Re: prostitution is wrong!
  Jon, you are a piece of shit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]