This morning we posted the news about Craigslist giving in to angry Attorneys General who were misguided in their anger. In it, we discussed how this was a larger version of NY AG Andrew Cuomo's tactics to force internet companies to censor, despite no legal basis. However, it looks like Andrew Cuomo is pissed that others have taken his tactics and didn't give him a chance to be involved. Thomas O'Toole alerts us to this stunning statement from Cuomo who appears to be quite angry that this decision was made without him present:

"Several weeks ago, we informed Craigslist of an impending criminal case that implicated its website. Rather than work with this office to prevent further abuses, in the middle of the night, Craigslist took unilateral action which we suspect will prove to be half-baked."

O'Toole's summary is dead on: "Curses, you stole my photo op!" So when we wrote the original post wondering how soon it would be before AGs were upset with the new plan, we knew something like this would happen eventually. We just didn't think it would be a matter of hours.

In the latest in an increasingly long line of misplaced attacks on Craigslist, South Carolina's Attorney General Henry McMaster is now threatening the company's principals with criminal charges because of how some folks have used the site. Someone should send McMaster a copy of section 230 of the CDA. You would think that a state Attorney General might... you know... know the law, before threatening to put people in jail. McMaster, of course, is running for governor of the state, so he likely sees this as a grandstanding opportunity -- just like he recently massively overhyped the risks of online predators. Someone else submitted the fact that McMaster also was so upset that a study that he (and most other state AGs) requested on the risks of online predators showed that the risks were greatly overstated that, rather than admit he was wrong, he withdrew from the workgroup studying the issue. This does not appear to be a fact-based individual. When presented with evidence, he simply says it can't be true.

In this case, he's accusing Craigslist of being involved with prostitution, even though plenty of other (smarter) law enforcement officials have recognized that Craigslist is actually a useful tool in fighting prostitution, rather than a problem. He also claims that Craigslist management may be criminally liable due to "sexually explicit" photos hosted on the site. Except... as the link above points out, as long as the content isn't "obscene" (and McMaster presents no evidence that it is), then it's perfectly legal, and protected by the First Amendment. The whole thing stinks of a politician grandstanding by displaying his own ignorance of both technology and the law... all while running for governor.

While officials in neighboring Illinois are suing Craigslist for prostitution, it appears that law enforcement officials in Iowa know better. Brent writes in to note that police in Iowa have been using Craigslist as a tool to help crack down on prostitution. Of course, that doesn't make for headlines nearly as big as just blaming Craigslist...

If you're the sheriff, aren't you supposed to understand at least the basics of the law? Apparently not in Cook County, Illinois. Sheriff Thomas Dart is now suing Craigslist because it's "the single largest source of prostitution in the nation." Of course, we've been through some of this before. Atlanta's mayor mistakenly blamed Craigslist for prostitution a while back, but didn't do anything about it. Some Attorneys General were threatening to do stuff, so Craigslist finally changed its policies last year. Of course, as expected, all that did was make prostitutes disperse to other sites. In other words: same amount of prostitution, just a lot more difficult to catch.

There have been some officials who recognize this. Some police officers have realized that Craigslist certainly isn't to blame, and is, in fact, a great tool for tracking and catching prostitutes. Hell, even Dart's own staff has regularly used Craigslist as a tool to crack down on prostitution. His own office says it's used Craigslist to bust at least 75 prostitutes in the last 18 months. Rather than suing Craigslist, he should be thanking Craigslist for making it so easy to catch these prostitutes. It seems unlikely that this lawsuit will go very far. Craigslist is almost certainly protected by Section 230 safe harbors as the service provider. You would think that a sheriff that used the tool successfully for so long could recognize this... but apparently Dart would rather it be more difficult to find and arrest prostitutes.

Apparently an Iranian matchmaking site, that pretty clearly seemed set up for the purpose of linking up potential husbands and wives, rather than traditional "dating," has been banned in the country for promoting prostitution. The details aren't clear, but it certainly sounds like they viewed any kind of internet matchmaking, even for the purposes of marriage, as somehow "promoting prostitution."

We pointed out how little sense it made for various state attorneys general to force Craigslist to charge for the "erotic services" group. It would appear that at least 40 states' attorneys general are not chess players, because they only were thinking one move out. That is, they thought: "Well, there's prostitution happening via Craigslist. Let's stop Craigslist from allowing that." But, of course, they didn't bother to think of what would happen next: which is that the prostitutes would scatter to numerous other sites, meaning that the amount of prostitution would continue pretty much unabated, but it would be more scattered and much more difficult for police to track down and stop. You would think that the folks in charge of such things would recognize that the way you stop crime is by going after the actual criminals, rather than the tools they use.

So, what happened after Craigslist implemented the change? Exactly what you'd expect. Ed Kohler checked it out and noticed (as you'd expect) that the number of ads on Craigslist's erotic services dropped significantly, but the number of ads elsewhere jumped up somewhat (including some on Craigslist's "Therapeutic Services" -- suggesting that some are trying to skirt the new charging system). Kohler only looked at one other site, so it may look like the increase in ads isn't that big -- but if you add up a variety of similar sites, you can bet that it's quite likely that in total it added up to quite a lot. It's just that, now, it's a lot more work for police to actually monitor.

While the good folks over at Valleywag might have you believe otherwise, most tech execs lead rather boring lives. There aren't that many "scandals" that happen around these parts -- and the ones that do happen, tend to be rather mundane. Some stock option backdating and maybe a bit of lying on the old resume, seem to be about as scandalous as it normally gets. But Henry Nicholas of Broadcom apparently decided to go with the more made-for-Hollywood sort of scandal. There is the option backdating issue here, but that's nothing compared to the fact that he's now been indicted for also keeping a warehouse full of drugs which he used for things like putting ecstasy in other tech execs' and customers' drinks, as well as supplying speed, cocaine and pot to tech execs. And then there were the prostitutes. Oh yeah, and the sex lair that leaked to the press last year. There's definitely a movie coming out of all of this one day. In the meantime, though, I think I prefer the Silicon Valley with more mundane executive scandals.

Weren't we just pointing out that everyone seems to want to blame Craigslist for things that it has no responsibility for? The latest is Connecticut's Attorney General, who has attacked Craigslist for allowing ads for prostitution. This is hardly a new charge. Last summer, the mayor of Atlanta lobbed similar charges at Craigslist. But, of course, just like that time, the blame is misplaced. Craigslist is the tool provider, not the content provider. To blame Craigslist isn't just wrong, when it comes to illegal acts like prostitution, it's downright backwards. Why? Because as some police have realized, Craigslist is actually a really useful tool for police to track down and arrest people breaking the law.

So not only is it placing the blame on the wrong party, it's doing so in a way that would only drive the prostitution further underground, making it harder for the police (and the Attorney General's office) to do their job. How smart is that? But it sure does generate headlines... The Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, had this to say in a letter to Craigslist:

"I am astonished and appalled by Craigslist's refusal to recognize the reality of prostitution on its Web site -- despite advertisements containing graphic photographs and hourly rates, and widespread public reports of prostitutes using the site."

To which I can only reply: I am astonished and appalled by Richard Blumenthal's refusal to recognize the reality of liability and section 230 safe harbors -- despite it being the law of the land and widely known and discussed in legal circles.