"I would not describe any section of our site as 'sex related.'"Craigslist Boston "Erotic Services" section (this morning):
Let Me Help You RelaXXX! - w4m - 27 - (Incall Only Nashua, NH) pic
!!!!HOT YOUNG COED ACTION 24/7 BACK IN TOWN!!! - w4m - 21 - (INS/OUTS) pic
Smoking Hot girls found here****POST YOUR (confidential) ADS WITH US - (all over) pic img
GAME TIME!!!!~~SPECIALS!!!! - w4m - 23 - (BOSTON/IN & OUTCALLS) pic
¦~?~PUT A *SMILE* ON YOUR FACE WITH ME!~?~¦ - AVAILABLE NOW - w4m - (BOSTON DOWNTOWN) img
Sharon must go to Vegas - w4m - (Near Waltham) pic
sheer perfection young college student BArbie - t4m - 19 - (downtown boston) img
!!..BOOTILICIOUS KRISTEN..!! - w4m - 21 - (OUT CALLS ONLY!!) pic
XXX Film Star Roxxanne Bliss with Southern Lover - mw4m - 28 - (Outcall/incall) pic
Etc., etc., etc.....
Craiglist is almost certainly immune from civil or criminal liability for the acts of Boston's alleged "Craigslist Killer," thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. However, the near-comical, head-in-the-sand, Baghdad Bobbish denialism from Buckmaster is going to lead to enormous political pressure to amend, and perhaps gut, Section 230 -- which would be a bad thing. As I've argued before:
[H]ow long will it be before Congress starts getting pressured to amend Section 230 to carve out from immunity cases involving prostitution services, or racist roommate-seekers, or rape wishes? And then does so, after hearing emotional testimony from battered prostitutes, anti-discrimination advocates, and women subject to vicious verbal abuse on law school message boards? And then the next group of victims demands its own exceptions, and then the next, until Section 230 is left in shreds.Craiglist may think it's standing up for Internet freedom by fighting for its "right" to maintain a section that clearly advertises illegal activity. But by doing so, it risks jeopardizing that freedom for all the responsible actors out there.