• so the government demands that craigslist make money off a service that it wants to offer for free, and then determines that craigslist has some duty to police the service. sounds about right.

  • What do they expect Craigslist to do? Stop taking all adds for personal services? Isn’t there a First Amendment issue here? Provide armed escorts for all such subscribers? If the murder had chosen adds in the NY Times Classifieds instead, would there be the same call for regulation?

  • I’d like to politely remind the two prior contributors that the article cited isn’t about regulation for public safety or benefit. It’s about perception. The complacent constituents will celebrate their outrage with the comforting idea that the polticians are (or seem to be) actually doing something about it. Of course, lots of things change when the cameras are off and the pundits are looking the other way.

  • Todd: You are correct. The oddity here is that it’s being done so far in advance of an election. We usually see “Aren’t I swell” laws being proposed within six months of an election.

  • […] company management with ‘criminal investigation and prosecution’”. Earlier here, here, […]