Why Everyone Should be Concerned By the Seizure of MyRedBook.com(eff.org)
eff.org
Why Everyone Should be Concerned By the Seizure of MyRedBook.com
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/whose-redbook-why-everyone-should-be-concerned-seizure-myredbookcom
118 comments
Thank you for posting this. EFF makes the site seem like purely a forum and it just wasn't - it doesn't change MY personal opinion of this matter (I am against the takedown STRONGLY) but it worries me when people with whom I agree seem to miss the mark on providing an accurate representation of the facts. I'm not suggesting it's intentionally misleading, but I think it doesn't get it exactly right.
I wish the EFF had stated the case as an issue of state's rights.
From Wikipedia:
The regulation of prostitution in the United States is not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is therefore exclusively the domain of the states to permit, prohibit, or otherwise regulate commercial sex, except insofar as Congress may regulate it as part of interstate commerce with laws like the Mann Act.
Furthermore, that site is also legal in parts of Nevada where prostitution is legal.
I don't see how the federal government has jurisdiction in this matter. The Mann act is for interstate commerce. Perhaps this applies, but I think a real lawyer could share their related experience.
10th Amendment, btw: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
From Wikipedia:
The regulation of prostitution in the United States is not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is therefore exclusively the domain of the states to permit, prohibit, or otherwise regulate commercial sex, except insofar as Congress may regulate it as part of interstate commerce with laws like the Mann Act.
Furthermore, that site is also legal in parts of Nevada where prostitution is legal.
I don't see how the federal government has jurisdiction in this matter. The Mann act is for interstate commerce. Perhaps this applies, but I think a real lawyer could share their related experience.
10th Amendment, btw: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
>Congress may regulate it as part of interstate commerce
The website is pretty clearly operating across state lines. If the website is based in California (just made that up), runs on servers in Texas, and it allows users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida, it's pretty clearly engaging in interstate commerce.
Even if the website limited users to just one state, the federal government could still potentially regulate it under the interstate commerce clause provided the intrastate commerce substantially affects interstate commerce.
-Note: the site by itself doesn't have to have a substantial effect. It just has to be part of a potential substantial cumulative effect--that is to say, hundreds of intrastate sex advertisement websites would, together, have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, so congress would be justified in banning all sex advertising websites, even if individually they don't engage in interstate commerce.
Edit: This comment assumes that the website was in fact facilitating prostitution. This may or may not be the case, I have no idea.
The website is pretty clearly operating across state lines. If the website is based in California (just made that up), runs on servers in Texas, and it allows users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida, it's pretty clearly engaging in interstate commerce.
Even if the website limited users to just one state, the federal government could still potentially regulate it under the interstate commerce clause provided the intrastate commerce substantially affects interstate commerce.
-Note: the site by itself doesn't have to have a substantial effect. It just has to be part of a potential substantial cumulative effect--that is to say, hundreds of intrastate sex advertisement websites would, together, have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, so congress would be justified in banning all sex advertising websites, even if individually they don't engage in interstate commerce.
Edit: This comment assumes that the website was in fact facilitating prostitution. This may or may not be the case, I have no idea.
> The website is pretty clearly operating across state lines. If the website is based in California (just made that up), runs on servers in Texas, and it allows users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida, it's pretty clearly engaging in interstate commerce.
A web site has to police the addresses of user base for user to user interactions? Are their examples where ebay, amazon, or similar service has to proactively police its user or suffer criminal charges for user to user interactions?
A web site has to police the addresses of user base for user to user interactions? Are their examples where ebay, amazon, or similar service has to proactively police its user or suffer criminal charges for user to user interactions?
All counts of the indictment, including the money laundering, are based upon two conditions. Both must be true for any of the counts in the indictment to be judged a crime. These two conditions are:
a) use of interstate mail and communications for illegal activity
b) the illegal activity is specifically a violation of the California code prohibiting prostitution: facilitation of prostitution.
So the federal indictment is completely dependent upon the criminal violation of a state law. However, myredbook, or its owners, have never been indictment, let alone convicted, by the State of California. This is after more than a decade of operation.
Furthermore there is a federal law stating that web site owners / operators do not take any legal responsibility for the content provided by others. It does not matter if the web site owners charge or not charge these other parties for using the site.
This seems to be a really really bad legal case. At minimum the feds are presuming that the owners of my redbook would be convicted of a state crime, if the state would just prosecute them. As we all know, the American legal system presumes innocence until being convicted in a court of law.
So legally the feds don't seem to really have a case. All they seem to be doing is hassling the owners of myredbook with the intent of shutting the web site down.
So this totally appears to be someone in the justice department driving a moral or religious agenda and not really a legal one.
a) use of interstate mail and communications for illegal activity
b) the illegal activity is specifically a violation of the California code prohibiting prostitution: facilitation of prostitution.
So the federal indictment is completely dependent upon the criminal violation of a state law. However, myredbook, or its owners, have never been indictment, let alone convicted, by the State of California. This is after more than a decade of operation.
Furthermore there is a federal law stating that web site owners / operators do not take any legal responsibility for the content provided by others. It does not matter if the web site owners charge or not charge these other parties for using the site.
This seems to be a really really bad legal case. At minimum the feds are presuming that the owners of my redbook would be convicted of a state crime, if the state would just prosecute them. As we all know, the American legal system presumes innocence until being convicted in a court of law.
So legally the feds don't seem to really have a case. All they seem to be doing is hassling the owners of myredbook with the intent of shutting the web site down.
So this totally appears to be someone in the justice department driving a moral or religious agenda and not really a legal one.
Here is the Federal Code that seems to be applicable: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1952
After reading this code it appears that the owners of myredbook need not be actually the people convicted of the illegal acts which are illegal by California state law. The owners of myredbook only need to facilitate the illegal acts of others. Since some posters / advertisers on myredbook have been convicted of prostitution this is likely the basis of using the California state prostitution laws in the myredbook owners federal indictment.
Furthermore, since the owners of myredbook used an interstate means, the Internet, and transferred funds between banks, maybe, in different states. This would be the other basis necessary to violate the above referenced federal law.
So it looks like the myredbook owners may be in pretty big trouble.
After reading this code it appears that the owners of myredbook need not be actually the people convicted of the illegal acts which are illegal by California state law. The owners of myredbook only need to facilitate the illegal acts of others. Since some posters / advertisers on myredbook have been convicted of prostitution this is likely the basis of using the California state prostitution laws in the myredbook owners federal indictment.
Furthermore, since the owners of myredbook used an interstate means, the Internet, and transferred funds between banks, maybe, in different states. This would be the other basis necessary to violate the above referenced federal law.
So it looks like the myredbook owners may be in pretty big trouble.
> a) use of interstate mail and communications for illegal activity
b) the illegal activity is specifically a violation of the California code prohibiting prostitution: facilitation of prostitution.
So the federal indictment is completely dependent upon the criminal violation of a state law. However, myredbook, or its owners, have never been indictment, let alone convicted, by the State of California. This is after more than a decade of operation.
Good point, it is times like this that I miss GrokLaw for dependable in-depth analysis.
Good point, it is times like this that I miss GrokLaw for dependable in-depth analysis.
I'm not saying that at all, my comment was addressed at the parent commenter who said that the federal government couldn't regulate prostitution unless it was part of interstate commerce.
Therefore, the assumption is that the website was engaged in facilitating prostitution. The website may not have been engaged in facilitating prostitution, I have no idea.
There are likely plenty of arguments to be made here (the website is just a meeting place for users, it doesn't promote prostitution etc...)--that the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate a website facilitating prostitution is not one of them.
Therefore, the assumption is that the website was engaged in facilitating prostitution. The website may not have been engaged in facilitating prostitution, I have no idea.
There are likely plenty of arguments to be made here (the website is just a meeting place for users, it doesn't promote prostitution etc...)--that the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate a website facilitating prostitution is not one of them.
> and it allows users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida, it's pretty clearly engaging in interstate commerce.
The above is really where I got the impression you were talking mainly about user to user interaction. Forum software would allow for "users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida" so the statement seemed too inclusive.
Under the assumption they are facilitating what you said lines up with my understanding.
The above is really where I got the impression you were talking mainly about user to user interaction. Forum software would allow for "users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida" so the statement seemed too inclusive.
Under the assumption they are facilitating what you said lines up with my understanding.
Many European gambling sites filter and self regulate users by origin country - to prohibit US users from gambling. In most countries here online gambling is legal and regulated, but there were a few cases in 2005 where US police arrested UK citizens - company directors - coming through their borders, for being involved in online gambling. As a result, most gambling operators decised it's safest to just block business from the US.
Amazon collects taxes for users living in states where Amazon operates. More to your question, Amazon also has to and does collect sales tax for customers buying from third parties in which they live in the same state. I'm not aware of specifically regulated items that can be sold in one US state but not another. There are restrictions on international exports though.
ebay? Absolutely. Consider the list of things you can't sell on ebay.
Anyone who runs a forum has to consider their liability for their users posting illegal content, from child porn down to less serious things.
Anyone who runs a forum has to consider their liability for their users posting illegal content, from child porn down to less serious things.
> Anyone who runs a forum has to consider their liability for their users posting illegal content, from child porn down to less serious things.
I have not heard of the case where the prosecutor claimed the service provider was reasonably unaware of the illegal content and pressed charges. The cases I have read concern inaction after awareness.
I have not heard of the case where the prosecutor claimed the service provider was reasonably unaware of the illegal content and pressed charges. The cases I have read concern inaction after awareness.
> The website is pretty clearly operating across state lines.
Why is that so clear?
It's fairly easy to create an infrastructure that directs users to servers solely in their state. Prostitution is a fairly local affair.
Why is that so clear?
It's fairly easy to create an infrastructure that directs users to servers solely in their state. Prostitution is a fairly local affair.
Because they don't do that.
And even if they tried, there is no way to prevent users from just across the line in Alabama from searching for prostitutes in a bigger city in Georgia (geolocation based on IP address is not always that accurate).
But let's say the site could someone manage to ensure that no interstate commerce was going on between users--there is still interstate commerce happening because the company is operating across state lines by paying for all those servers/generating add revenue from all the users.
Furthermore, did you read the rest of my comment? None of the above really matters because a bunch of sites engaging in intrastate commerce can still have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce.
And even if they tried, there is no way to prevent users from just across the line in Alabama from searching for prostitutes in a bigger city in Georgia (geolocation based on IP address is not always that accurate).
But let's say the site could someone manage to ensure that no interstate commerce was going on between users--there is still interstate commerce happening because the company is operating across state lines by paying for all those servers/generating add revenue from all the users.
Furthermore, did you read the rest of my comment? None of the above really matters because a bunch of sites engaging in intrastate commerce can still have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce.
> This issue is more ethically ambiguous than the EFF acknowledged in their post
The EFF post is so distorted that I have trouble figuring out if the EFF is just intentionally twisting the facts to piggy-back on a high visibility case (which seems horrendously ill-considered, even from a strategic point) or if they are just so negligent in reviewing the facts that they've gotten used by others.
There's real issues that this case could serve as a focal point for discussing -- particularly about the prohibition of prostitution and whether criminalization and the enforcement that goes along with it is a net positive or negative for society.
But its clearly not anything like a bust of a noncommercial education, legal resource, and health information site that happens to cater to sex workers being shut down because the government isn't happy with the client base or subject matter.
The EFF post is so distorted that I have trouble figuring out if the EFF is just intentionally twisting the facts to piggy-back on a high visibility case (which seems horrendously ill-considered, even from a strategic point) or if they are just so negligent in reviewing the facts that they've gotten used by others.
There's real issues that this case could serve as a focal point for discussing -- particularly about the prohibition of prostitution and whether criminalization and the enforcement that goes along with it is a net positive or negative for society.
But its clearly not anything like a bust of a noncommercial education, legal resource, and health information site that happens to cater to sex workers being shut down because the government isn't happy with the client base or subject matter.
> illegal posts
It is illegal for certain people to post certain things at certain locations on the internet. Posts aren't inherently illegal and I think you are missing the nuance more than the eff is.
> Is the EFF saying the FBI should have targeted specific illegal posts instead of taking down legal material as well?
What kind of question is that. It's like "Are you really saying that if someone put graffiti on your house, the FBI should paint over each letter instead of simply using a bulldozer?"
It is illegal for certain people to post certain things at certain locations on the internet. Posts aren't inherently illegal and I think you are missing the nuance more than the eff is.
> Is the EFF saying the FBI should have targeted specific illegal posts instead of taking down legal material as well?
What kind of question is that. It's like "Are you really saying that if someone put graffiti on your house, the FBI should paint over each letter instead of simply using a bulldozer?"
MyRedBook's forums were second to its classified which were used to find and rate high-end escorts. There's no question the site was used facilitate prostitution. With that said, the site had been running since 2002. Why were they busted now?
Example classified: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RHLakOo...
Almost all ads explicitly listed the sex acts offered. People on there weren't even being discreet about it.
Example classified: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RHLakOo...
Almost all ads explicitly listed the sex acts offered. People on there weren't even being discreet about it.
> MyRedBook's forums were second to its classified which were used to find and rate high-end escorts.
From glancing through the listing (on archive.org) I would suggest that "high-end" is inappropriate. It seems to include "high-end" escorts, but by no means be limited to them.
Unless, not being involved in any aspect of that trade, I just have a really wrong idea of what "high-end escort" means and the term includes those offering $50 no-condom oral sex.
From glancing through the listing (on archive.org) I would suggest that "high-end" is inappropriate. It seems to include "high-end" escorts, but by no means be limited to them.
Unless, not being involved in any aspect of that trade, I just have a really wrong idea of what "high-end escort" means and the term includes those offering $50 no-condom oral sex.
For comparison, the high-end escort service that Eliot Spitzer was involved with cost US$31,000 per day []
[]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/emperors-club-all-a...?
[]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/emperors-club-all-a...?
Why would you pay $31k for a girl for one day? That's obscene. Reminds me of this scene from Gilmore Girls:
LORELAI: Seventy-five thousand dollars. Seventy-five thousand dollars. Oh my God, that’s like 150 pairs of Jimmy Choos.
RICHARD: What are Jimmy Choos?
LORELAI: Shoes.
RICHARD: 150 pairs, that’s it?
LORELAI: Dad, they’re Jimmy Choos.
RICHARD: For seventy-five thousand dollars, you should be able to buy at least three or four hundred pairs of shoes.
LORELAI: Not Jimmy Choos.
RICHARD: But that’s ridiculous. You are not going to spend seventy-five thousand dollars on Jimmy Choos when you could buy four hundred pairs of less prestigious but I’m sure equally stylish shoes. You will shop around first. Is that clear?
LORELAI: Yes, sir.
LORELAI: Seventy-five thousand dollars. Seventy-five thousand dollars. Oh my God, that’s like 150 pairs of Jimmy Choos.
RICHARD: What are Jimmy Choos?
LORELAI: Shoes.
RICHARD: 150 pairs, that’s it?
LORELAI: Dad, they’re Jimmy Choos.
RICHARD: For seventy-five thousand dollars, you should be able to buy at least three or four hundred pairs of shoes.
LORELAI: Not Jimmy Choos.
RICHARD: But that’s ridiculous. You are not going to spend seventy-five thousand dollars on Jimmy Choos when you could buy four hundred pairs of less prestigious but I’m sure equally stylish shoes. You will shop around first. Is that clear?
LORELAI: Yes, sir.
[deleted]
you're out of touch with reality.
It's is a bit troubling that the EFF didn't present the entire issue however going against sex worker really?
What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to do like solving murders and other cases where people actually got hurt.
I personally think prostitution should be legal anyway like the late George Calin put it "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?"
What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to do like solving murders and other cases where people actually got hurt.
I personally think prostitution should be legal anyway like the late George Calin put it "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?"
> It's is a bit troubling that the EFF didn't present the entire issue
Never assume any group is not doing this. Everyone makes more effort to present the facts that support their case/cause than they do those against/neutral. The EFF are better about not denying the truths they don't like than many similarly vocal groups, but don't expect them to tell you the facts that don't support their position.
> What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to do
They can't chose the laws that they concentrate on, really. The "don't you have something more important to do officer" argument (as often sung by petty criminals) is bunkum. They enact the law, all of it, and the reason they are chasing the people committing lesser offences (in the offender's eyes at least) is because people are committing lesser offences.
> "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?"
This is probably the answer to a certain extent: legalise it, regulate it to try protect both the workers and the punters, and potentially tax it to cover the cost of that regulation.
Though the legalisation argument as it is usually presented is rather simplistic, and the effects it would have on major crime (for example people trafficking) seems vastly over-stated IMO.
Never assume any group is not doing this. Everyone makes more effort to present the facts that support their case/cause than they do those against/neutral. The EFF are better about not denying the truths they don't like than many similarly vocal groups, but don't expect them to tell you the facts that don't support their position.
> What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to do
They can't chose the laws that they concentrate on, really. The "don't you have something more important to do officer" argument (as often sung by petty criminals) is bunkum. They enact the law, all of it, and the reason they are chasing the people committing lesser offences (in the offender's eyes at least) is because people are committing lesser offences.
> "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?"
This is probably the answer to a certain extent: legalise it, regulate it to try protect both the workers and the punters, and potentially tax it to cover the cost of that regulation.
Though the legalisation argument as it is usually presented is rather simplistic, and the effects it would have on major crime (for example people trafficking) seems vastly over-stated IMO.
I don't get it, either. Since when is it the EFF's role to do anything but advocate for rights when they are abridged? I suspect someone feels butthurt they did not understand the entire story before they formed an opinion, and now blame the EFF for their butthurt.
[deleted]
I find it a broad overreach to take down entire sites based on allegations that some members may have been using it for illegal purposes.
I've said it before, but the EFF frequently twists the facts to push their agenda. Of course, it's not a popular opinion to have 'round these parts.
That's what they do. They are an advocacy organization. And when you say "twist" they say "place into a factual narrative."
That's what attorneys do. They build narratives. In this case, they support freedom with their narratives. Apparently it's thankless work.
That's what attorneys do. They build narratives. In this case, they support freedom with their narratives. Apparently it's thankless work.
Being an advocacy organization does not require such gross distortion of the facts.
I like the EFF, but I've stopped putting any kind of credibility into their different blog posts and articles.
I like the EFF, but I've stopped putting any kind of credibility into their different blog posts and articles.
This is a move in the opposite direction of where the government should be going. Sites like Myredbook, Backpage, Rubmaps (and at one time even craigslist) are Hydratic. [1] like Hydra, when you take down one, two will appear in its place. Has the FBI not learned by now that it does not have jurisdiction over the entire internet? New sites can pop up in any non-FBI jurisdiction or on Tor, and there isn't shit the FBI can do.
The FBI needs to accept that shutting down these sites is not a sustainable option. Instead, it should cultivate the sites that are in US jurisdiction, and allow them to operate, so that the FBI can use them to monitor illicit activity.
Prositution is a victimless crime. Human trafficking is not. Unfortunately, without legalizing and regulating prostitution worldwide, it's impossible to disambiguate between an autonomous sex worker and a human trafficking victim. But sites like these can really help with that disambiguation.
The FBI should be working toward this disambiguation. It should be filtering out the sex workers from the human trafficking victims, because the latter are the only actual victims in this business.
The FBI needs to realize that sites like these are an asset to the fight against human trafficking, because they facilitate monitoring and analyzing the market. Shutting down these sites will not even make a dent in the demand for prositution. It will simply drive that demand elsewhere, to underground sites or ones outside of FBI jurisdiction.
This is a loss for human trafficking victims. By pushing this business further underground, the FBI loses some monitoring and detection ability, traffickers are likely angry, and victims lose the benefit of client accountability on sites like Myredbook. This shutdown will not affect the supply of, or demand for, human trafficking victims. It will only worsen their situation and further hide it from authorities.
But hey, the FBI gets some nice PR pieces about their latest big bust! Yeah! Go team! Such a formidable cyber security force!
[1] I invented the word "Hydratic," but it should totally become a thing.
The FBI needs to accept that shutting down these sites is not a sustainable option. Instead, it should cultivate the sites that are in US jurisdiction, and allow them to operate, so that the FBI can use them to monitor illicit activity.
Prositution is a victimless crime. Human trafficking is not. Unfortunately, without legalizing and regulating prostitution worldwide, it's impossible to disambiguate between an autonomous sex worker and a human trafficking victim. But sites like these can really help with that disambiguation.
The FBI should be working toward this disambiguation. It should be filtering out the sex workers from the human trafficking victims, because the latter are the only actual victims in this business.
The FBI needs to realize that sites like these are an asset to the fight against human trafficking, because they facilitate monitoring and analyzing the market. Shutting down these sites will not even make a dent in the demand for prositution. It will simply drive that demand elsewhere, to underground sites or ones outside of FBI jurisdiction.
This is a loss for human trafficking victims. By pushing this business further underground, the FBI loses some monitoring and detection ability, traffickers are likely angry, and victims lose the benefit of client accountability on sites like Myredbook. This shutdown will not affect the supply of, or demand for, human trafficking victims. It will only worsen their situation and further hide it from authorities.
But hey, the FBI gets some nice PR pieces about their latest big bust! Yeah! Go team! Such a formidable cyber security force!
[1] I invented the word "Hydratic," but it should totally become a thing.
> traffickers are likely angry,
I really don't think shutting down a single website is going to make human traffickers angry. They can just keep doing business as usual, "the old-fashioned way". This is more of a loss for human trafficking customers than the victims.
I really don't think shutting down a single website is going to make human traffickers angry. They can just keep doing business as usual, "the old-fashioned way". This is more of a loss for human trafficking customers than the victims.
MyRedBook had been operating for more than a decade. It's highly unlikely that the FBI just became aware of them in the last year. Something changed the FBI's position.
Exactly, and if you're FBI, trying to bust prostitution and trafficking, what better tool is out there than a Web site that conveniently spells out contact details for those involved in such a trade. Open to anybody so that screenshots with timestamps can be taken and attached to the case when it's ready to be passed on to the prosecution.
Something must've changed, we're not getting the whole story here.
Something must've changed, we're not getting the whole story here.
Yea MyRedBook probably stop paying off the right agents/government officials.....
Or Pissed off a competitor with connections.
Or Pissed off a competitor with connections.
>Prostitution is a victimless crime. Human trafficking is not. Unfortunately, without legalizing and regulating prostitution worldwide, it's impossible to disambiguate between an autonomous sex worker and a human trafficking victim. But sites like these can really help with that disambiguation.
>The FBI should be working toward this disambiguation. It should be filtering out the sex workers from the human trafficking victims, because the latter are the only actual victims in this business.
Have you ever considered that the opponents of legalized prostitution want it this way? They want prostitution to be conflated with human trafficking, rape, and violence against women because nobody is for those things. They want to be able to use that as their major emotional argument to circumnavigate logic and reason so people react based on emotion, not reason.
>The FBI should be working toward this disambiguation. It should be filtering out the sex workers from the human trafficking victims, because the latter are the only actual victims in this business.
Have you ever considered that the opponents of legalized prostitution want it this way? They want prostitution to be conflated with human trafficking, rape, and violence against women because nobody is for those things. They want to be able to use that as their major emotional argument to circumnavigate logic and reason so people react based on emotion, not reason.
"The FBI" doesn't give a fresh shit about any of those things, because the FBI doesn't give a fresh shit about the lot of prostitutes nor victims of human trafficking. Someone in the FBI just made a headline that will help them get their next promotion, though.
Also, I'm not sure about your new word. At first, I thought you meant the sites are hydrostatic somehow.
Also, I'm not sure about your new word. At first, I thought you meant the sites are hydrostatic somehow.
Throwaway for obvious reasons. I have been using myredbook and reading HN regurarly too.
I think outlawing prostitution is the stupidest thing ever. Coercion, battery, human trafficking -- these are all crimes themselves and these are what most people are concerned about. It's a waste of time and effort. Removing a site like this will achieve nothing except perhaps endanger some of the sex workers -- think about it. Clients (for there will be clients, no doubt -- does anyone think one advertisment site makes a difference?) can behave in worse ways cos the forums are gone.
I think outlawing prostitution is the stupidest thing ever. Coercion, battery, human trafficking -- these are all crimes themselves and these are what most people are concerned about. It's a waste of time and effort. Removing a site like this will achieve nothing except perhaps endanger some of the sex workers -- think about it. Clients (for there will be clients, no doubt -- does anyone think one advertisment site makes a difference?) can behave in worse ways cos the forums are gone.
"Coercion, battery, human trafficking -- .....these are what most people are concerned about."
Maybe this is what people __claim to be most concerned about. But I would venture to guess more often than not, the real concerns are based on moral prudery, religious dogma, and stogid ideas of what a family !must be.
Maybe this is what people __claim to be most concerned about. But I would venture to guess more often than not, the real concerns are based on moral prudery, religious dogma, and stogid ideas of what a family !must be.
Very much so. In particular, anti-trafficking groups are strongly opposed to any solution to trafficking that doesn't involve making life harder and more dangerous for sex workers and label anyone who actually listens to the workers "pimps", as though respecting those women was somehow equivalent to forcing them to have sex.
I used myredbook to connect with, and buy sexual services from, several dozen of sex workers. I'm also a regular HN reader, and this is a throwaway account created just for this thread. AMA (ask me anything).
It asked by an HN moderator, I can provide proof.
It asked by an HN moderator, I can provide proof.
Can you explain how you used the redbook site? Did you find sex workers through paid ads or classifieds? Did you rely on reviews of other customers?
If you had a bad experience or if the services weren't as described, did you use redbook to resolve the dispute?
Have you hired sexual services the old-fashioned way, at a brothel, massage parlor, or by picking up someone on the street? If so, how would you compare to the redbook experience?
Was there any indication that the sex workers you met were trafficked, or that they were 100% independent?
Did you participate in redbook discussions on health, legal or political matters, or were you primarily interested in finding suitable partners?
Thanks for posting here, and for answering questions!
If you had a bad experience or if the services weren't as described, did you use redbook to resolve the dispute?
Have you hired sexual services the old-fashioned way, at a brothel, massage parlor, or by picking up someone on the street? If so, how would you compare to the redbook experience?
Was there any indication that the sex workers you met were trafficked, or that they were 100% independent?
Did you participate in redbook discussions on health, legal or political matters, or were you primarily interested in finding suitable partners?
Thanks for posting here, and for answering questions!
I would typically find escorts at the last minute, so I can't speak for what it's like to plan ahead. I'd first search the classifieds for women offering incall (I go to their place, usually a hotel) in San Francisco. Next, I scroll through the ads, only reading ads that have reviews & pictures, looking for the right escort at the right price. When I find an ad the looms promising, I double check the reviews to make sure they aren't horrible, and I also use Google to search for fake images. If everything looks good, I try to contact the escort to book an appointment.
I never wrote reviews on myredbook.
When I visited Australia a few years ago, I visited a legal brothel. All of my of purchases for sexual services were started online. Purchasing sex in Australia was pretty interesting, but I that was the novelty of the legality of the purchase.
I am pretty sure most sex workers were independent, but I have no way of verifying this.
I did not participate in discussions on myredbook.
You are welcome!
I never wrote reviews on myredbook.
When I visited Australia a few years ago, I visited a legal brothel. All of my of purchases for sexual services were started online. Purchasing sex in Australia was pretty interesting, but I that was the novelty of the legality of the purchase.
I am pretty sure most sex workers were independent, but I have no way of verifying this.
I did not participate in discussions on myredbook.
You are welcome!
My first online paid job was writing fake reviews by the hundreds on that and similar sites like TER (the escort review) years ago. Every review site for sex work is rigged I'm sure I wasn't the only one hired to do it. Feds lately have targeted banks for dealing with sex workers for unknown reasons, like when banks dropped porn valley actress's accounts. Who knows why they decided now to takedown the site and not backpages or TER, and dozens more clones of myredbook.
Most are independent sex workers, you can spot the micros run by gangsters (brosan) that are trafficking women pretty easily.
Most are independent sex workers, you can spot the micros run by gangsters (brosan) that are trafficking women pretty easily.
It doesn't surprise me that many reviews were fake.
Would a site hosted in a country outside the FBI's jurisdiction help?
What if it were a Tor hidden service?
Do you know how to use Tor or Tails? Do you believe your peers do? (Obviously, I'm not in a position to do that myself; I'm asking in the general case.)
I've used Tor before. If buysex.onion was a quality site, I'd consider using it. I'm not aware of an escort site that is only Tor accessible, and I've never looked for one.
Do you feel that MyRedBook was in any way harmful to the well-being of the sex workers? If not, was it contributing to the moral decay of western civilization?
Prostitution, despite being the oldest profession, seems to not have had a negative impact on the development of western civilization. Western civilization seems to be doing just fine.
I think my red book safer. I personally behaved myself more because I didn't want to get robbed, or shamed in public.
Regarding the decline of western civilization, people have always been horny, and some people need to pay for lovin' in order to address their horniness. I'm not convinced that paying for sex is related to moral decay. Morality itself is kind of a tricky subject.
Regarding the decline of western civilization, people have always been horny, and some people need to pay for lovin' in order to address their horniness. I'm not convinced that paying for sex is related to moral decay. Morality itself is kind of a tricky subject.
no. Sex workers are losing business instead. myredbook was the place for them to advertise. they built client network mostly through redbook. If there are negative sides for workers, it'd be them being reviewed as a slacker and losing clients.
i think independent workers are in worse situation to bring clients and have to be dependent on pimps
i think independent workers are in worse situation to bring clients and have to be dependent on pimps
1. no, it helped them.
2. yes, it facilitated prostitution.
2. yes, it facilitated prostitution.
My read is the move was more about the money laundering than either "protecting the children" or "facilitating prostitution".
The site was used by many local agencies to help with busts, etc.
Personally, I am against the takedown. The laws around consenting adults engaging in private transactions should be legalized. My understanding is that the site did have measures in place to help with the underage aspect, but that is from reading more balanced news accounts.
The site was used by many local agencies to help with busts, etc.
Personally, I am against the takedown. The laws around consenting adults engaging in private transactions should be legalized. My understanding is that the site did have measures in place to help with the underage aspect, but that is from reading more balanced news accounts.
The money laundering was the moving of funds to savings accounts, and other accounts in his name or business name. It's money laundering because the proceeds were allegedly derived from an illegal act. But not what people typically think of money laundering.
I see much of the argument here is about "facilitating prostitution," that such facilitation would trump free speech protections, both constitutionally and in other laws. But the opposite is true, as highlighted by the EFF, third parties, who are not involved in the illegal activity have a right to discuss that activity and do not take responsibility for the actions or postings of others. With respect to the Internet, there is a federal law, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which states that Web service providers cannot be "treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".
> third parties, who are not involved in the illegal activity have a right to discuss that activity
What you're missing here is that they don't have a right to make money off of it. RedBook weren't just facilitating the discussion of illegal activity, they were making money out of the advertisements on the site. They were directly involved in the illegal activity.
What you're missing here is that they don't have a right to make money off of it. RedBook weren't just facilitating the discussion of illegal activity, they were making money out of the advertisements on the site. They were directly involved in the illegal activity.
Actually, advertisements were free. They made money on enhanced reviews of providers and clients. In other words, one could, for a fee, dig deeper into reading comments between and about users of myredbook.
The owners of myredbook were still a third party in these comments and did remove postings that could encourage child prostitution, robberies, or other serious violent crimes.
The owners of myredbook were still a third party in these comments and did remove postings that could encourage child prostitution, robberies, or other serious violent crimes.
That might be true in theory but tell it to torrent sites, shut down without ever touching a single bit of pirated data.
Were these sites only (or primarily) discussion boards? Were they also used (with or without their operators' consent) to conduct illegal sex trade? If such activities were indeed happening without a site operators knowledge or consent, did law enforcement reach out to these operators in an attempt to curtail this activity? Too little information from EFF on this.
I'll agree that seizure of a discussion forum is truly a big problem. Simply seizing one because someone disagrees with the topics under discussion is a big problem. Not informing the operator of illegal activity before seizing is potentially dirty (e.g. if the operator is not participating in or encouraging the illegal activity.) Seizure of anything without due process of law is unacceptable and must be rectified.
But doing something illegal (regardless of whether it should be), having been brought before a court, having failed to defend oneself or overturn the law, and having property seized ... well, that's how it should work.
So how did this particular case go exactly?
I'll agree that seizure of a discussion forum is truly a big problem. Simply seizing one because someone disagrees with the topics under discussion is a big problem. Not informing the operator of illegal activity before seizing is potentially dirty (e.g. if the operator is not participating in or encouraging the illegal activity.) Seizure of anything without due process of law is unacceptable and must be rectified.
But doing something illegal (regardless of whether it should be), having been brought before a court, having failed to defend oneself or overturn the law, and having property seized ... well, that's how it should work.
So how did this particular case go exactly?
> Were these sites only (or primarily) discussion boards? Were they also used (with or without their operators' consent) to conduct illegal sex trade?
The sites had classifieds[1] for "adult services" and discussion boards[2]. The facilitation of prostitution has probably to do with the ads[3] and the related paid services[4], the operator knew and made money out of it.
The part of the forum mentioned in the eff post[5] has some usefulness (this one is even funny[6], as the reviews which ensure more safety for both customers and workers, similar to what silk road did for drugs.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20130423181042/http://classified...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130423175831/http://forum.myre...
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20130522010311/http://forum.myre...
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20130425190047/http://forum.myre...
[5] https://web.archive.org/web/20130724003117/http://forum.myre...
[6]: https://web.archive.org/web/20130508075213/http://forum.myre...
The sites had classifieds[1] for "adult services" and discussion boards[2]. The facilitation of prostitution has probably to do with the ads[3] and the related paid services[4], the operator knew and made money out of it.
The part of the forum mentioned in the eff post[5] has some usefulness (this one is even funny[6], as the reviews which ensure more safety for both customers and workers, similar to what silk road did for drugs.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20130423181042/http://classified...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20130423175831/http://forum.myre...
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20130522010311/http://forum.myre...
[4] https://web.archive.org/web/20130425190047/http://forum.myre...
[5] https://web.archive.org/web/20130724003117/http://forum.myre...
[6]: https://web.archive.org/web/20130508075213/http://forum.myre...
> Were these sites only (or primarily) discussion boards?
As many pointed out above, no. The majority of the forums looks to be advertisements for prostitution [0].
> Were they also used (with or without their operators' consent) to conduct illegal sex trade?
According to the FBI, "the website hosted advertisements for prostitutes, complete with explicit photos, lewd physical descriptions, menus of sexual services, hourly and nightly rates, and customer reviews of the prostitutes’ services" and the owner "engaged in more than twenty monetary transactions to launder the profits derived from the facilitation of prostitution" [1]. They are now looking to forfeit $5 million of those profits.
> If such activities were indeed happening without a site operators knowledge or consent, did law enforcement reach out to these operators in an attempt to curtail this activity?
While I couldn't find a source directly saying weather they did or did not, I would imagine it to be very difficult to collect enough evidence to go through with the forfeiture and trial while the future defendant knows they are being investigated.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20130319123304/http://forum.myre...
[1] http://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2014/californ...
As many pointed out above, no. The majority of the forums looks to be advertisements for prostitution [0].
> Were they also used (with or without their operators' consent) to conduct illegal sex trade?
According to the FBI, "the website hosted advertisements for prostitutes, complete with explicit photos, lewd physical descriptions, menus of sexual services, hourly and nightly rates, and customer reviews of the prostitutes’ services" and the owner "engaged in more than twenty monetary transactions to launder the profits derived from the facilitation of prostitution" [1]. They are now looking to forfeit $5 million of those profits.
> If such activities were indeed happening without a site operators knowledge or consent, did law enforcement reach out to these operators in an attempt to curtail this activity?
While I couldn't find a source directly saying weather they did or did not, I would imagine it to be very difficult to collect enough evidence to go through with the forfeiture and trial while the future defendant knows they are being investigated.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20130319123304/http://forum.myre...
[1] http://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2014/californ...
The money laundering charge can be used to coerce the owner in to pleading guilty to whatever else they want to add to the list -- whether or not there is a case for it. Considering the age of the site, one would speculate that the owner may have said no to something the government politely asked for, and then ended up getting their insides turned out as a result.
The EFF certainly could have done a better job on this one. I'm not familiar with the site, but this seems to be a very different situation than Craigslist ran in to.
The EFF certainly could have done a better job on this one. I'm not familiar with the site, but this seems to be a very different situation than Craigslist ran in to.
> Were these sites only (or primarily) discussion boards?
No, a substantial part of the site was the ads [1], dominated (numerically) by the "escorts" section [2], in which the listings [3] appear to sometimes be fairly direct offers of sex for money [4] (note the same is also true, to some extent, of the other sections) even from just the index pages (the actual individual ads often don't appear to be archived, and I don't really feel like spending time digging through the links to examine the examples that are.)
I don't think arguing that the people arguing the site didn't know or intend it was being used to facilitate prostitution is credible given the publicly-available evidence.
[1] archive [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20130423181042/http://classified...
[2] archive, San Francisco (most significant region) example [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20130516182620/http://classified...
[3] archive, [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20121227140137/http://classified...
[4] often using code terms/acronyms, but ones which, to avoid confusing the uninitiated, the forums have a glossary (posted by "redbook", not users); archive [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20130424045028/http://forum.myre...
No, a substantial part of the site was the ads [1], dominated (numerically) by the "escorts" section [2], in which the listings [3] appear to sometimes be fairly direct offers of sex for money [4] (note the same is also true, to some extent, of the other sections) even from just the index pages (the actual individual ads often don't appear to be archived, and I don't really feel like spending time digging through the links to examine the examples that are.)
I don't think arguing that the people arguing the site didn't know or intend it was being used to facilitate prostitution is credible given the publicly-available evidence.
[1] archive [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20130423181042/http://classified...
[2] archive, San Francisco (most significant region) example [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20130516182620/http://classified...
[3] archive, [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20121227140137/http://classified...
[4] often using code terms/acronyms, but ones which, to avoid confusing the uninitiated, the forums have a glossary (posted by "redbook", not users); archive [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20130424045028/http://forum.myre...
As a user of myredbook, I used the service for finding sex workers via the classifieds section, and also reading reviews written about sex workers.
i can confirm that as a long time user as well
It's ok. The next version of the internet won't be using DNS anyway.
"Today we also lost extensive online forums for a community of sex workers to keep each other safe, screen clients, and blacklist predators."
I'm hopelessly cynical at this point in my life, so I'm not surprised at all that our government sees that as facilitating prostitution.
I'm hopelessly cynical at this point in my life, so I'm not surprised at all that our government sees that as facilitating prostitution.
There are many similarities between the old laws prohibiting homosexuality and laws prohibiting prostitution. both concern sexual behavior that are seen, by some, as sexual deviance. Men are more likely than women to be concerned with homosexuality. Whereas women are more likely than men to be concerned with prostitution.
In both cases what drives the classification as illegality is icky-ness. A heterosexual male cannot imagine having sex with another man - it is just icky for him. Similar, a woman wanting a monogamous relationship, with romance, sees prostitution as disgusting and just plain icky.
Most women cannot understand why any woman would become a prostitute. So they imagine that there must be some awful reason: human trafficking, dominance by a male (pimp), etc. For some prostitutes this is the case, but there are a vast number of women who practice prostitution and it is not.
For these women selling sex is not icky - they explain it as being uplifting since it provides a high level of financial security. They actually find it difficult to understand why other women take issue with it. Their sexuality may be different. I understand that bisexual women have a more male like sex drive and I bet there are higher percentage of bisexuals in prostitution than in the general population. Also lesbians may be over represented in prostitution - the dildo just has a guy attached to it that pays the rent.
So I propose here that the laws against prostitution are driven by perceived icky-ness (a form of sexual bigotry) as the laws against homosexuality.
In both cases what drives the classification as illegality is icky-ness. A heterosexual male cannot imagine having sex with another man - it is just icky for him. Similar, a woman wanting a monogamous relationship, with romance, sees prostitution as disgusting and just plain icky.
Most women cannot understand why any woman would become a prostitute. So they imagine that there must be some awful reason: human trafficking, dominance by a male (pimp), etc. For some prostitutes this is the case, but there are a vast number of women who practice prostitution and it is not.
For these women selling sex is not icky - they explain it as being uplifting since it provides a high level of financial security. They actually find it difficult to understand why other women take issue with it. Their sexuality may be different. I understand that bisexual women have a more male like sex drive and I bet there are higher percentage of bisexuals in prostitution than in the general population. Also lesbians may be over represented in prostitution - the dildo just has a guy attached to it that pays the rent.
So I propose here that the laws against prostitution are driven by perceived icky-ness (a form of sexual bigotry) as the laws against homosexuality.
[deleted]
Does anyone find it weird that they left the google analytics scripts on the seized pages? Or is it possibly more sinister in that they're seizing the analytic data as well.
Glad to read it was only the domain, It makes me sad the awful methods of protecting the sensitive data of these kind of sites.
The article states that servers were siezed as well.
I believe their servers were in the Cayman Islands.
Ironically our governing powers outlaw these services, while many of them partake in them.
Misdirected hostility? We voted for them.
I did not vote for them. All politicians are picked from a curated pool of people I would never vote for. They all tend to be wealthy, connected, and/or ivy-leaguers (none of these things are inherently bad, but they also don't play well towards the interest of the "common" man - small wonder that the middle class gets screwed). There are very few "commoners" in the higher ranks. Many are picked by the real ruling class, corporations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19gold.html?pagew...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19gold.html?pagew...
Have you met Texas? The only animal allowed to vote here is the gerrymander. I figure it's similar elsewhere.
[deleted]
there are no sex slaves, underage girls in myredbook. True, there are pimps and prostitutes from overseas, but no foul plays here.
> there are no sex slaves, underage girls in myredbook.
That does not appear to be accurate. Here are some news stories from 2009 to this year about arrests and convictions related to underage prostitution -- often with additional elements of slavery -- all linked to myredbook.com
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/30/california-man-s...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/south-san-francisco...
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/05/26/man-accused-of-pim...
http://southsanfrancisco.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/...
http://www.wired.com/2009/02/pimping
That does not appear to be accurate. Here are some news stories from 2009 to this year about arrests and convictions related to underage prostitution -- often with additional elements of slavery -- all linked to myredbook.com
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/30/california-man-s...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/south-san-francisco...
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/05/26/man-accused-of-pim...
http://southsanfrancisco.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/...
http://www.wired.com/2009/02/pimping
There were many, many ads on myredbook posed by a person with no reviews, and the pictures in the ad were not the sex worker providing the service. It wouldn't be hard to sell someone on hooking up with a fictional 18 year old, then delivering a 17 year old who clearly isn't the person from the ad. Personally I avoided these ads, but only because I learned through trial and error that meeting sex workers with reviews was usually a better value.
These underage sex slaves were pimped on myredbook:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/south-san-francisco...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/south-san-francisco...
users have always been alerted if there is any foul plays regarding how these workers are treayed and reported any foul plays(robbery, violence, theft, etc.)
i havent seen any ads exploiting them at all. most of times, workers are at least 5-6 years older if not 10+ years than advertisement.
i havent seen any ads exploiting them at all. most of times, workers are at least 5-6 years older if not 10+ years than advertisement.
You're dodging the question. You're equating pimping with violence, but that's not always the case. How do you know sex workers who use RedBook were not, for example, having to pay back bogus "debts" to their pimps for having to come into the country? You've already said in a previous post that some sex workers using RedBook were from overseas. I somehow doubt you were you asking them for their I-94s as proof they were in the country legally.
I can fully believe there are a number of sex workers who found RedBook truly useful, and provided an extra layer of safety and security. What I can't believe is that for a line of work that is inherently illegal there were not at least some people who had abusive relationships with people coercing or even forcing them into it. You seem to be suggesting not a single woman (or man!) who used RedBook was being exploited, even a small minority. I think you're being naive.
I can fully believe there are a number of sex workers who found RedBook truly useful, and provided an extra layer of safety and security. What I can't believe is that for a line of work that is inherently illegal there were not at least some people who had abusive relationships with people coercing or even forcing them into it. You seem to be suggesting not a single woman (or man!) who used RedBook was being exploited, even a small minority. I think you're being naive.
>What I can't believe is that for a line of work that is inherently illegal there were not at least some people who had abusive relationships with people coercing or even forcing them into it.
I also can't believe that for most lines of work that are entirely legal. That's a very high bar.
I also can't believe that for most lines of work that are entirely legal. That's a very high bar.
youre equating myredbook to prostitution in general. its hard question, since its the oldest profession. there will always be bad pimps, debts whatever. that is why in my opinion myredbook was so popular, because it acts as a great medigator suchas airbnb, uber etc.
the culture in myredbook is to treat them well and be alerted with foul plays at all times. myredbook is innovative in that sense, because it made a lot of people's lives both clients and provider easier and safer conducting business
users know whats best to protect themselves. youre naive to think if users can go for foul plays and manipulate these presumably exploited sex workers thru websites like redbook. users know there are pigs whos watching all the time ...
the culture in myredbook is to treat them well and be alerted with foul plays at all times. myredbook is innovative in that sense, because it made a lot of people's lives both clients and provider easier and safer conducting business
users know whats best to protect themselves. youre naive to think if users can go for foul plays and manipulate these presumably exploited sex workers thru websites like redbook. users know there are pigs whos watching all the time ...
Can you prove that? Was RedBook, for example, asking for proof of identity and age from those offering their services? How do you know that, say, some of those from overseas were not having to pay back large "fees" to their pimps for being brought into the country?
Say I buy some cocaine from a man on the street. The guy I'm buying it from might be the nicest guy in the world, but that doesn't necessarily negate the fact that the process of getting the cocaine to him may have required some exploitation, slavery, and even murder.
My point is not to argue against sex work: on the contrary, I think it should be legalized. My point is you, as a Redbook user, are convinced "no foul plays" were going on, but how do you know that? Right now you have nothing to back up what you're saying apart from good faith.
Say I buy some cocaine from a man on the street. The guy I'm buying it from might be the nicest guy in the world, but that doesn't necessarily negate the fact that the process of getting the cocaine to him may have required some exploitation, slavery, and even murder.
My point is not to argue against sex work: on the contrary, I think it should be legalized. My point is you, as a Redbook user, are convinced "no foul plays" were going on, but how do you know that? Right now you have nothing to back up what you're saying apart from good faith.
> Can you prove that?
Given that convictions of people for trafficking underage prostitutes through redbook have already occurred, the opposite of what is claimed in the grandparent post has already been proven in a court of law.
Well, unless he means "are not" in the strictly current sense, where the fact that the only thing on myredbook.com is the seizure notice proves, fairly conclusively, the claim made (which is, however, then a rather meaningless claim.)
EDIT (all below):
> My point is not to argue against sex work: on the contrary, I think it should be legalized. My point is you, as a Redbook user, are convinced "no foul plays" were going on, but how do you know that?
Indeed, I'd say that one of the clearest harms of the criminalization of prostitution is that it makes it much harder to protect against the grave abuses (like coercion and underage prostitution) because the kind of steps you'd need to take to weed them out are things that anyone involved in an already-illegal trade would refuse to cooperate with because it would increase their vulnerability even if they weren't involved in the grave abuses. Rather than being a tool to fight trafficking, the general criminalization of prostitution promotes trafficking.
Given that convictions of people for trafficking underage prostitutes through redbook have already occurred, the opposite of what is claimed in the grandparent post has already been proven in a court of law.
Well, unless he means "are not" in the strictly current sense, where the fact that the only thing on myredbook.com is the seizure notice proves, fairly conclusively, the claim made (which is, however, then a rather meaningless claim.)
EDIT (all below):
> My point is not to argue against sex work: on the contrary, I think it should be legalized. My point is you, as a Redbook user, are convinced "no foul plays" were going on, but how do you know that?
Indeed, I'd say that one of the clearest harms of the criminalization of prostitution is that it makes it much harder to protect against the grave abuses (like coercion and underage prostitution) because the kind of steps you'd need to take to weed them out are things that anyone involved in an already-illegal trade would refuse to cooperate with because it would increase their vulnerability even if they weren't involved in the grave abuses. Rather than being a tool to fight trafficking, the general criminalization of prostitution promotes trafficking.
I'm wondering how this same argument would pan out if this was a website for the "community" of drug dealers or child abusers to allow discussions of their "problems" and protect their anonymity.
I just checked. All the major drug dealers' sites are up.
You probably just meant the drugs sold by cartels. I mean, just the non-American cartels. I mean, the ones selling drugs we have made illegal here. No, not those, I mean dangerous drugs. That kill/maim users. No, I'm not talking about alcohol or tobacco or thalidomide. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. Right?
You probably just meant the drugs sold by cartels. I mean, just the non-American cartels. I mean, the ones selling drugs we have made illegal here. No, not those, I mean dangerous drugs. That kill/maim users. No, I'm not talking about alcohol or tobacco or thalidomide. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. Right?
Good question. Catholics, care to weigh in on sites taken down?
[deleted]
> EFF has always supported freedom of association and free speech, no matter who is doing the talking.
This sentence worries me the most. Anyone means, including those we believe are threat to society (mass killing killer for example). Also those who make racist remarks intentionally to embarrass others in public.
This sentence worries me the most. Anyone means, including those we believe are threat to society (mass killing killer for example). Also those who make racist remarks intentionally to embarrass others in public.
The right to free speech is meaningless if it encompasses only the speech with which we already agree. Unless speech represents an imminent danger to society, restricting it is wrong and an abridgment of fundamental western values. This principle applies to hate speech, bomb-making instructions, and reviews of prostitutes. Distastefulness and moral indignation are not legitimate grounds for restricting speech.
I am going to have to disagree with everything but your first sentence. Free speech is more about what kind of society we want to create. I don't want to live in the kind of society where hate speech is unrestricted or where instructions on how to make bombs to destroy people's lives and/or property are unrestricted.
You mentioned moral indignation, which is a pretty strong, and rare, kind of reaction. I assume you are not talking about the reaction of religious people when a rule is broken, but that spontaneous combination of disgust, revulsion, and outrage that comes when something egregiously violates basic decency. I don't want to live in a society that is so weak-willed that it can't even stand up for its own values and say "this is wrong!"
I think your right to free speech ends somewhere around the place where my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness begins.
I don't really want to live in a society where intimacy is so distorted that society accepts buying and selling the most intimate act as totally acceptable. You can't buy and sell intimacy (sexual or otherwise). True intimacy is rare and a little fragile, and is something I hope that society feels is worth taking a stand to protect.
You mentioned moral indignation, which is a pretty strong, and rare, kind of reaction. I assume you are not talking about the reaction of religious people when a rule is broken, but that spontaneous combination of disgust, revulsion, and outrage that comes when something egregiously violates basic decency. I don't want to live in a society that is so weak-willed that it can't even stand up for its own values and say "this is wrong!"
I think your right to free speech ends somewhere around the place where my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness begins.
I don't really want to live in a society where intimacy is so distorted that society accepts buying and selling the most intimate act as totally acceptable. You can't buy and sell intimacy (sexual or otherwise). True intimacy is rare and a little fragile, and is something I hope that society feels is worth taking a stand to protect.
If you can't buy or sell intimacy, then how can society accept it? Your position is nonsensical. Prostitution doesn't sell, buy or endanger intimacy; it only trades sex. Conflating the two is a result of people's own insecurity.
I think your right to free speech ends somewhere around the place where my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness begins.
As long as my pursuit of happiness doesn't involve acts that you dislike, right? "You're free - to act as we tell you"
I think your right to free speech ends somewhere around the place where my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness begins.
As long as my pursuit of happiness doesn't involve acts that you dislike, right? "You're free - to act as we tell you"
I limited myself to moral indignation, and tried to be very clear that moral indignation is not simply what a person happens to dislike. But, since apparently I was not clear, I specifically support your right to say a broad range of things that I dislike. If someone merely dislikes it, I feel like it is probably protected.
Regarding your comment on intimacy (by which I mean relational intimacy, not a euphemism for sex), all I can say is, there are some things that money can't buy, nor can be valued in money. Trust is one of them. True friendship is another. If you think that intimacy must be priceable or marketable to have a value, I submit that perhaps you have not experienced what I am talking about.
And unfortunately, without a long comment, I don't know how to explain my opinion that prostitution devalues intimacy. I will say that there are many people who feel that sex is more about relational intimacy than just a physical act or pleasure, although they may be a minority here (and quite possibly in the U.S. culture at large).
Regarding your comment on intimacy (by which I mean relational intimacy, not a euphemism for sex), all I can say is, there are some things that money can't buy, nor can be valued in money. Trust is one of them. True friendship is another. If you think that intimacy must be priceable or marketable to have a value, I submit that perhaps you have not experienced what I am talking about.
And unfortunately, without a long comment, I don't know how to explain my opinion that prostitution devalues intimacy. I will say that there are many people who feel that sex is more about relational intimacy than just a physical act or pleasure, although they may be a minority here (and quite possibly in the U.S. culture at large).
I limited myself to moral indignation, and tried to be very clear that moral indignation is not simply what a person happens to dislike. But, since apparently I was not clear, I specifically support your right to say a broad range of things that I dislike. If someone merely dislikes it, I feel like it is probably protected.
People can find moral indignation at anything. People from certain countries find women with uncovered heads truly indignant. It might have a difference from merely disliking, but in the end, it's just as subjective and meaningless.
Quoting Eminem, which is something I don't think I've ever done before, You find me offensive; I find you offensive for findin' me offensive.
And I'm not making a rhetorical point when I say attitudes like yours, who consider themselves superior to others and therefore worthy of deciding how others should live their lives, absolutely disgusting. Does that mean your opinions should be banned, as causes of moral indignation?
If you think that intimacy must be priceable or marketable to have a value
I don't see how you can possibly read that from my comment.
And unfortunately, without a long comment, I don't know how to explain my opinion that prostitution devalues intimacy.
How can see how prostitution devalues intimacy for the participants. But you're going to have to explain to me how does prostitution happening to other people devalues your intimacy.
And guess what: prostitution is still happening, even while illegal.
I will say that there are many people who feel that sex is more about relational intimacy than just a physical act or pleasure
Sex is just a physical act. Lobsters have sex. What your sexual activities are about is for you to decide. Just stop trying to impose your views on others. Because you won't accomplish it, you'll just hurt a lot of people and make sexual traffickers very happy.
People can find moral indignation at anything. People from certain countries find women with uncovered heads truly indignant. It might have a difference from merely disliking, but in the end, it's just as subjective and meaningless.
Quoting Eminem, which is something I don't think I've ever done before, You find me offensive; I find you offensive for findin' me offensive.
And I'm not making a rhetorical point when I say attitudes like yours, who consider themselves superior to others and therefore worthy of deciding how others should live their lives, absolutely disgusting. Does that mean your opinions should be banned, as causes of moral indignation?
If you think that intimacy must be priceable or marketable to have a value
I don't see how you can possibly read that from my comment.
And unfortunately, without a long comment, I don't know how to explain my opinion that prostitution devalues intimacy.
How can see how prostitution devalues intimacy for the participants. But you're going to have to explain to me how does prostitution happening to other people devalues your intimacy.
And guess what: prostitution is still happening, even while illegal.
I will say that there are many people who feel that sex is more about relational intimacy than just a physical act or pleasure
Sex is just a physical act. Lobsters have sex. What your sexual activities are about is for you to decide. Just stop trying to impose your views on others. Because you won't accomplish it, you'll just hurt a lot of people and make sexual traffickers very happy.
I generally agree with your ideas of what makes a good life and a good society, but you need to recognize that societies and not governments are responsible for these things. Governments are great tools for exercising collective purchasing, collective bargaining, and collective defense. Just about everything else they do is a harm on society justified by the benefits of other government activities.
Free speech is great because social consequences not government laws keep it check. Free speech is not about what kind of society we want to create. It is about not going to jail for your opinions, regardless of what kind of society someone else wants to create.
Free speech is great because social consequences not government laws keep it check. Free speech is not about what kind of society we want to create. It is about not going to jail for your opinions, regardless of what kind of society someone else wants to create.
Free speech is for speech you don't like, or it's for no speech at all.
EDIT: No, that doesn't allow incitement to violence, though in the US it does allow hate speech that isn't incitement.
EDIT: No, that doesn't allow incitement to violence, though in the US it does allow hate speech that isn't incitement.
The US version of 'free speech' doesn't allow incitement to immanent violence, but it certainly allows for advocating violence.
That's typically what "incitement" is taken to mean, particularly in a legal context: the "request, encouragement or direction of one person by another" to undertake some specific course of action, usually criminal in nature.
It's the "immanent" that's important. Advocating violence is protected speech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
Free speech isn't necessarily unlimited. It is often defined to exclude hate speech, for example.
If you define it that way, then there is an unlimited potential to extend illegal speech to everything.
Shut down the poker sites because they facilitate illegal online gambling. Shut down the bitcoin sites because they facilitate money laundering. Etc.
Shut down the poker sites because they facilitate illegal online gambling. Shut down the bitcoin sites because they facilitate money laundering. Etc.
> This sentence worries me the most. [deletia]
Amazing, after the most naive and historically inaccurate characterization of the EFF's defense of freedom(s), you're worried? NOT SURPRISING.
PS: Felons are already prohibited from associating, and racist remarks intended to embarrass is a perfect example of protected speech. Just don't confuse legal defense with social acceptability. The public isn't as exacting as the law.
Amazing, after the most naive and historically inaccurate characterization of the EFF's defense of freedom(s), you're worried? NOT SURPRISING.
PS: Felons are already prohibited from associating, and racist remarks intended to embarrass is a perfect example of protected speech. Just don't confuse legal defense with social acceptability. The public isn't as exacting as the law.
You can see an example of an advertisement here (NSFW): https://web.archive.org/web/20130521131010/http://forum.myre...
I'm not arguing for or against sex work, just illustrating that this takedown is not a clear-cut case of censoring a vulnerable community's non-commercial political speech.
Is the EFF saying the FBI should have targeted specific illegal posts instead of taking down legal material as well? I support the EFF in their important work, but they're more credible and effective when they tell the whole story, including the complicated part.
[0] http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/operators-of-myredbook.com...