Craigslist Goes On The Offensive: Sues South Carolina's Henry McMaster

from the go-for-it dept

It appears that Craigslist has realized, in responding to all those grandstanding Attorneys General, that it's better to take an offensive position than to continue with its defensive strategy. First, it pointed out how misguided South Carolina's Henry McMaster was in threatening to charge Craigslist's management with criminal prosecution, and then it demanded an apology. With no apology forthcoming, Craigslist has sued Henry McMaster seeking declaratory relief that its actions do not violate the law. McMaster has continued to push forward with his plans to file a lawsuit, claiming that Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster is "the #1 defendant." Craigslist, in response, points out that Craigslist:

• is operating in full compliance with all applicable laws
• has earned a reputation for being unusually responsive to requests from law enforcement
• has eliminated its "erotic services" category for all US cities
• has adopted screening measures far stricter than those Mr McMaster himself personally endorsed with his signature just 6 months ago
• has far fewer and far tamer adult service ads than many mainstream print and online venues operating in South Carolina
• has made its representatives available to hear Mr McMaster's concerns in person
• has politely asked Mr McMaster to retract and apologize for his unreasonable threats

So, in response, Craigslist has filed its lawsuit to have a court declare that the company is not violating any laws, and that McMaster has no case. This is a good move, and you would have hoped it would quiet down McMaster, but he's actually (no, seriously) using this to claim victory. In a statement on his website McMaster claims:

The defensive legal action craigslist has taken against the solicitors and my office is good news. It shows that craigslist is taking the matter seriously for the first time.... Unfortunately, we had to inform them of possible state criminal violations concerning their past practices to produce a serious response. We trust they will now adhere to the higher standards they have promised. This office and the law enforcement agencies of South Carolina will continue to monitor the site to make certain that our laws are respected.

That's just blatant outright lying now. Craigslist made those changes last week, and at the time McMaster's response was: "That response doesn't work" and claimed it was proceeding with plans to punish Craigslist management with jail time. Since then, Craigslist has made no other change, other than to sue McMaster. To suddenly claim that it's made a new change and is taking the matter seriously, when the only change is suing McMaster, is quite the delusional response. I have no idea how likely it is that McMaster will win his current race for the Governor's spot in South Carolina -- but so far the man has been an embarrassment to the state.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Looks Like Henry McMaster Is Upset About His Lost Craigslist Photo Op As Well

from the oh-come-on... dept

Yesterday, Craigslist caved in to the demands of various state Attorneys General, and agreed to pre-moderate all of the "adult" ads that go on their site. This appeared to be exactly what many grandstanding AGs had been asking for... but it appears that more than a few of them were upset that Craigslist did this without granting the AGs a chance to take credit for it. First, we had NY AG Andrew Cuomo's petulent statement about how Craigslist never should have done this without first getting approval from Andrew Cuomo, and now the EFF points out a similar complaint from South Carolina AG Henry McMaster, who says that he's going to continue his plan to throw Craigslist management in jail unless they remove all sexually explicit material from the site.

It's difficult to know where to start on this, but McMaster's understanding of the law doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual law. First off, plenty of sexually explicit material is not illegal. Second, even if the material is somehow illegal, the liability is on those who posted it, not Craigslist.

Oh yeah. It's probably worth noting that a similarity between both Cuomo and McMaster? Both are apparently (definitely in McMaster's case) seeking their respective state's governorship... You would think that abusing a high-level gov't position for grandstanding and censorship would disqualify one from getting to run a state, but apparently not.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

South Carolina Wants To Put Craigslist Management In Jail?

from the craig-doesn't-strike-me-as-the-jailhouse-type... dept

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.

85 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Court Fines Blogger $1.8 Million Over Defamation... Despite Many Questions

from the this-is-not-good dept

We recently posted a link to a libel guide for bloggers, recognizing that many bloggers don't realize their comments are subject to defamation laws. That said, however, it's still quite rare to find a blogger found guilty of libel in court. Mark writes in to alert us to one such case that raises a number of very troubling questions: a court in South Carolina awarded a $1.8 million libel judgment against a blogger, despite questions about whether the guy in question actually wrote the blog post. The court ruled in summary judgment, which really should only occur if the facts are not in question -- but they are very much in question. The guy who was accused claims he didn't write the content (even if he agrees with it). The blog itself appears to be a semi-anonymous group blog, so there's no clear indication that the guy being fined actually wrote the content. You would think that this fact, alone, would preclude a summary judgment and require a trial. There were also issues with actually making sure that the guy was given proper notice about the lawsuit and the court proceedings, so he was not present at some of the hearings. As the link above notes, this ruling is quite chilling if you write a blog.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

South Carolina Considers Law That Would Criminalize Profanity In Public Forums

from the well,-fuck dept

Slashdot points us to an immensely troubling law being proposed by a state Senator in South Carolina that would make it a felony to use profanity in a public forum, whether written or spoken (so assume the internet is included). Punishment could include fines up to $5000 or prison sentences up to 5 years in length. One would hope that others in the South Carolina legislature would never let this get anywhere, but these days you never know. Of course, such a law is ridiculously unconstitutional, and if it somehow did get passed would certainly get tossed out by the courts. But just the fact that an elected representative thinks that such a law is reasonable is pretty scary. Someone want to send him a copy of the Constitution?

71 Comments | Leave a Comment..