PPS: Is “Trevor Plantagenet” a reference to The Sting movie?

Your statement about monitoring goes back before the CDA. Before the CDA it was most prudent to NEVER ever monitor, look at or remove bad messages since then you would start having “editorial” control and thus be liable. That is precisely WHY that part of the CDA was created — so websites could be free of liability for policing their own sites. If you want a good explanation, you might look at the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh District’s decision involving CRAIGSLIST just about a WEEK ago.

Trevor, I’m afraid that the people you talked with didn’t have actual experience in the matter.

No one is saying that this isn’t an awful thing, and that someone (many people actually) shouldn’t be liable. But the message could have been posted here, and even if it was up only long enough for a single person to read it and bolt out the door to rob a house, then I guess TechCrunch would be liable if things were different.

This is not a case (or a site) that needs attention. I’m more worried about people creating sites for the *purpose* of hosting messages that are the type meant to be self policed.

That said, I am in court again this week (via council provided by Public Citizen and the ACLU) to protect the anonymity of two union employees who dared to post parodies of management. And, of course, they are trying to get me to pay them cash as well.

Good times …

a simple fee like #21 stated

and beefing up the community’s ability to self report posts. (like #46’s idea of a thumbs up+down) could be really beneficial.

we instituted a $9.95 fee on our marketplace and it has worked really quite well to keep out the lowlifes

It would create this awesome divide; social networking sites would have to be created and run in the style of The Pirate Bay.

You better get a big beach towel, to wipe off all of the slimy, self-interest you’re covered in.

I bet you’d have a different perspective if it was your — or your parents’ — house

Now get this…couldn’t a thief (who intends to rob a house) post a similar ad on craigslist and then go to the house and take what they want and if they get caught just say something like…

“hey I saw an ad on craigslist that said everything was for free!”

I think this opens up a HUGE can of worms!

Harry “not that there is anything wrong with it” Wang

https://www.mod...g/registration/

Craigslist is a business. Trust is the foundation for good business. Craigslist has every incentive to NOT inform users some posting may be fake because that’ll make people NOT trust craigslist and go somewhere else that’s more trusted like fiji or sfgate.com.

Freedom of speech permit the person who posted the right to post said information. He could’ve posted the information on any forum or any website.

The next thing you know they are jumping off the golden gate bridge because there is treasure at the bottom of the ocean — according to someone in craigslist.

One word: Morons.

Publish these attorney’s names.

And who are these thieves that took the stuff? They could have reasonably known that the post was false. If the poster used Tor or similar, then he, sadly, may never get caught. Let’s hope he is as much an imbecile we think him to be and that they see a long time in jail.

Echoing Trevor Plantagenet, it’s sad that we continue to absolve Craigslist ethically in these kind of situations while they hide behind the law. As Arrington surely knows, law != ethics.

According to Techcrunch article this morning, somebody posted to sell everything in an Oregon house on Craigslist. It turns that it was an evil act. The house belonged to Robert and the ad was posted while Robert was away. People took his belongings i…