Cnet.com is reporting that the state of South Carolina is preparing a criminal investigation against Craigslist.org based on erotic personal ads that have appeared on the web site. South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster offered Craigslist an ultimatum of removing what he termed “erotically charged” ads from the South Carolina listings on the site.
Basically, the South Carolina Attorney General has issued a cease and desist order against Craigslist, but not surprisingly, the site chose to ignore the (potentially politically motivated) order, and continued to display ads which could be perceived by some to be pornographic in nature. Attorney General McMaster responded by saying that because the content was not removed, the state of South Carolina “…has no alternative but to move forward with criminal investigation and potential prosecution.”
In their defense, Craigslist responded by pointing out that the so-called adult services ads posted on their site were no different than ads found in various South Carolina newspapers and web sites. Even the Yellow Pages telephone listings for many South Carolina cities post similar advertisements.
Obviously, Craigslist feel that it is being unfairly targeted, and many media pundits and politicos are already voicing suspicions that the attack is purely politically motivated. Still, the state of South Carolina is keeping the pressure on, and on Wednesday Craigslist compromised by removing the erotic services ad category from its web site, replacing it with the (slightly) more conservative “adult services” heading.
Of course, the whole controversy began when the mainstream media began referring to a suspected murderer in Boston as “the Craigslist Killer.” The name was given because the killer had met his victim via the Craigslist erotic services section, though the web site had no other connection with the crimes committed whatsoever.
Should Craigslist have caved in to the South Carolina Attorney General? Legally, it was probably the safest thing to do; but in the long run, changing their web site based on the political aspirations of a South Carolina attorney was probably not the smartest move. Obviously, the controversy reached a level where Craigslist felt it was better to “go along to get along.” But this type of thinking more often than not tends to only encourage political bullies and hypocrites.
In the meantime, by refusing to fight back Craigslist has probably opened up a whole new can of worms and a new controversy about freedom of speech online. While the situation might be resolved for the time being, you can bet we haven’t heard the last of this type of online censorship. It’s Craigslist today–but who knows? Tomorrow it could potentially be the New York Times.
