Why Have We Let State AGs Become De Facto Internet Regulators?
from the grandstanding-is-no-way-to-make-laws dept
For quite some time we've called attention to the fact that various state Attorneys General have taken it upon themselves to pressure internet companies to change their policies, often with little or no actual legal authority to do so. It usually takes the form of very public shaming and grandstanding suggesting something illegal has been done, even if that's not the case. Last year, we highlighted a must read piece by Topix CEO Chris Tolles, who had just been on the receiving end of such grandstanding by a bunch of state AGs. The story is disturbing, but enlightening. In the end, he realized it was impossible to fight this, and like most others, he caved. It was the only reasonable response. As Tolles pointed out, at no point in this process was Topix ever explicitly accused of breaking any laws:Pissed off people, not illegality, is the issue to watch -- At no time during this process were we accused of breaking any laws. The Attorneys General have interpreted their mandate of consumer protections very broadly, and if a lot of people *think* you are doing something wrong, you are likely to be headed for a problem.This is worrying for any number of reasons. Adam Thierer is pointing out how it appears that state AGs have effectively become the internet's new regulators, with little actual legal authority. He focuses on how many of these actions seem to also involve National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) -- a group that actually does plenty of really good work. I'd argue that it goes way beyond NCMEC, as we've seen this happen beyond just that group's complaints. Thierer's reasonably concerned about the questions this raises, even in cases where law enforcement should be stepping in and helping. The problem is that this isn't the role that AGs are really meant to play. It opens all sorts of questions about the actual enforceability and legality of the "settlement" agreements that come out of these attacks, and whether they represent any real precedent. More importantly, it would seem that many of these agreements could very well violate the Commerce Clause, as states are not supposed to be able to regulate interstate commerce. This is a worrying trend that I'm sure we'll be hearing plenty more about in the near future.
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: attorneys general, internet, regulations
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
also
"we have to save the children" has -always- been IMO the opening nudge down an oil covered slip and slide on a mountain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Commerce Clause
Google: Wheat Farmer Commerce Clause
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Easy answer....
For example, take the attack on Craigslist adult personals. The claim was that it had to be shut down to stop human trafficking and prostitution. At no point did anyone publicly ask "specifically how will shutting down Craigslist adult personals accomplish this instead of just driving the perpetrators to other unknown channels?"
As Chris Tolles pointed out, it's the public reaction the AG's are using as their stick, not the law and not common sense. If only we could find a way to get the press back to a point where they ask relevant and occasionally difficult to answer questions. Of course, since news is now entertainment instead of true information reporting, we know that will never happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Easy answer....
The law is on the AG's side on this one, prostitution and soliciting for prostitution is illegal in almost every part of America. Living off the avails of prostitution (being a pimp, a paid driver, or paid security for the sex workers) is also illegal. CL was clearly aware of what those ads were selling (and had put in place certain rules and review criteria to weed out ads that were too blatant and to censor images). A case could be made that CL as a company was purposely ignoring things and living off the avails of prostitution.
At the end of the day, the underlying acts were illegal. Taking the advertising out of the most public of places and making them hide in dark corners makes it harder for the general public to get involved. CL gave escorts a sheen of respectablity, of mainstream acceptance that is just not a good thing.
You cannot look at black and white, it isn't a question of absolutely stopping hookers, but rather about changing the profile and shifting people away from these services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy answer....
Instead of shutting it down try USING it as a tool to do the job. There were local law enforcement folks doing just that and making pretty good headway for a while.
Just Saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Easy answer....
First they wanted filters. Then they wanted age verification. Finally, the AG's came in and said "remove it or get sued". Each time, it was prefaced with a public news conference and public lambasting of CL. Never once did the press stop to ask "how will blocking this one channel solve the underlying problem" or, as Gordon above pointed out, "why can't you use this tool to locate and capture the predators instead of getting them to hide deeper".
And if you think hiding it makes it that much harder for the public to get involved, you are sadly mistaken. Yes, they may have to spend an extra 5 minutes searching, but for the people participating, that 5 minutes is trivial. Even if it's an extra hour or two, will that really stop them?
You say it's not about stopping them all, but what about the biggest offenders? Use the tools available to build a case and get them locked up. Instead of actually protecting their electorate, all they did was drive the trade out of the public eye making it that much harder for the police to stop them in an effort to win the next election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Easy answer....
CL built their business on adult ads. When they shut it down, even at this late point, they lost more than 10% of their traffic. When they started, it was a much bigger part of their business.
How about the fact that the AG's and more importantly local and state law enforcement could have used CL and it's adult section too arrest and prosecute prostitutes
Have you ever seen what goes into arresting a single prostitute? You have to engage them in conversation, you have to get them to specifically solicit you (money for a named sexual act), and then you can arrest them. Because the courts don't treat prostitution very seriously, they typically bond out within hours, and usually face a small fine or maybe a few days of jail time. That jail time is often suspended.
It probably just cost $5000 to get a single hooker of the streets for 3 hours. Talk about wasting the taxpayers money.
The more effective methods are to seperate the girls from their clients. Making it harder to find a hooker is a very useful way of dealing with the problem. Putting more police in the places where the girls work (so they won't street solicit) is one way, and making it hard for the girls and their pimps to advertise is another way to get it done.
Using the CL ads to track down individual hookers is expensive, time consuming, and unlikely to change things. It is about the same as using a spoon to empty the ocean.
In the end, it is the same logic as shutting down domains to limit piracy. What they are doing is making it harder for the average, casual user to find what they are looking for. It is about changing the habits of a group of people, rather than trying to arrest and change individual bad actors.
One way is effecient, the other way just cycles people through the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why was Spitzer going after Wall Street? That should have been the SEC's job, but they obviously don't do it.
Is it abused? Of course, is it the worst thing? no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because it got him votes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If the AGs were always using the latter, I might see your point. The problem is that some AGs are inciting the public with half-truths and innuendo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly Ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vigilante
Def. Vigilante
A vigilante is someone who illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker.
-- OED, second edition, revised, 2005
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bologna
In the example of Topix that you gave, that is a crock. Other than dropping what was essentially a twenty dollar exortion fee, the company became worse. The only time they remove much of anything is when the news media gets involved (which is increasingly happen) That site goes way, way too far and some of the things allowed on there is indefensable. To leave comments on this site users have to sign up, why can't Topix and a few other companies do the same. With some real moderation and registration, Topix would have far less problems and criticism. Even internet companies have a responsible and some things you simply can't defend.
Speaking of Topix, I read an article where they want to do more with politics and political commentary. I also read Facebook is getting more into the comments game which may affect Disqus, Topix, and other companies. If Topix is going to get more political, they would very very smart to come up with stronger filters, registration, and something done about a lot of their forums because when death threats and that sort of thing start appearing on their political forums that is when you not only get more politicians going after Topix and other companies (and justifiably so in many cases) but you will get Attorney Generals even more involved.
You have to find a balance and so many people have abused that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bologna
Thanks for letting us all know your side of the story. I appreciate that you have some strong feelings in this matter. I won't ask you to show me on the doll where the bad people touched you, but i will ask.. Why is the proper response to "speech i don't like" to turn to your state attorney general?
Rather then any number of steps, starting with "ignore them" and traveling on through "starting legal action against the person making the actual speech" you skip straight to "create grandstanding platform for someone who will freely ignore the truth and the law if it makes good soundbites".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bologna
What I saying and I will stand by this to the end of time. First of all anyone who goes on the internet behind a user name and launches a personal attack on someone is a coward, plain and simple. Second, the question comes down to responsibility. Some sites simply don't take any. They don't mind making a profit but then they get mad when people criticize their site or take some kind of action for allowing attacks on people. I agree there are some things that should simply be ignored but there are some things that cannot. For instance, let's say you own a business and someone posts you sell drugs out of that establishment. Even though it is not true, by spreading it out through the internet, word can travel and it potentially can destroy your business based on lies. No one has a right to do that. When things get extreme such as death threats, the posting of people's personal information, libel, etc. then it becomes criminal. When things can ruin a person then sometimes legal action such as contacting an Attorney General is absolutely necessary and when there are sites that actually invite and harbor that, they do have a responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Above the Law
If I had about 20 or 30 thousand laying around I could afford a lawyer to sue for libel. Even then, no guarantee of winning, because the instigators may not have money.
Anybody is vulnerable here. What's to stop somebody from plastering celebraties names and pictures all over Topix called them pedophiles too? Or ditto with some of the AG's.
I'm tired of the idiots who say we whine because we're getting our feelings hurt. Time for those cowards to give us their full names and pictures and see what they say then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]