Craigslist Isn't Liable for Erotic Services Ads

By Eric Goldman

Dart v. Craigslist, Inc., 09 C 1385 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2009)

Yesterday, Judge John F. Grady of the Northern District of Illinois federal court dismissed Cook County Sheriff Dart's lawsuit against Craigslist for user-posted advertisements in Craigslist's erotic services/adult services category on 47 USC 230 grounds. This is hardly surprising, as I wrote in March that "this lawsuit is almost certainly preempted by 47 USC 230." However, it was nice to see such a clean and decisive opinion--and a little ironic, as our law enforcement officials, who are supposed to enforce the laws rather than bypass them, got schooled in the limits of their legal authority.

With respect to the 230 analysis, the court characterizes Sheriff Dart's claims as alleging that Craigslist negligently published the user-supplied ads. The court says that the Seventh Circuit implicitly said that 230 preempted such claims in the 2008 CLC v. Craigslist case. To get around this, Sheriff Dart tried a Roommates.com styled attack, arguing that Craigslist induced the users' advertisements by creating an erotic/adult services category and letting users do keyword searches. These arguments go nowhere (making this yet another case where Roommates.com is cited for the defense). An adult services category can legitimately contain postings for legal services, and the keyword search functionality was agnostic about the illegality of the search and therefore a "neutral tool" (whatever that meant from Roommates.com).

Two other interesting doctrinal notes from the opinion: * In FN 6, the court reiterates that 230 preempts a civil action to enforce a federal criminal statute. See Doe v. Bates.

* the court rejects arguments that Craigslist "arranges" meetings for prostitution, "directs" people to prostitution or "provides" contact info for prostitutes because, in all three cases, the user-supplied ad (if anything) satisfies those verbs. Similarly, Craigslist's role in "facilitating," "assisting" or "aiding and abetting" these user activities is governed by 230. I believe this is consistent with my view that 230 should preempt any claim that one party "endorses" third party online content.

Given some ambiguous language floating in Seventh Circuit 230 jurisprudence from the CLC v. Craigslist case and the old Doe v. GTE case, it wouldn't surprise me if Sheriff Dart tried an appeal. However, this opinion was solidly reasoned and completely consistent with that jurisprudence, so I wouldn't expect a different result on appeal.

original article here

Blackmail judge is 'internet predator' who seduced women online

Check out how the judge/ predator tries to SMEAR his victims!! Sound familiar?

Blackmail judge is 'internet predator' who seduced women online
The judge at the centre of a love triangle blackmail case is an 'internet predator' who seduced a divorcee on a dating site then callously dumped her, it's been claimed.

Renate Butler, 60, told how she met judge Mohammed Khan on the Udate website and the pair shared romantic dates in London and Surrey and had sex at his £500,000 North London flat.

But in July he vanished after a weekend together and never got in contact again.

Last night the sales rep from Horley, Surrey, said:

"He is a user and predator of women. Things were going well at first and I thought he was charming and a gentleman.

"But then I suddenly stopped hearing from him. I thought he was extremely ignorant to have done it the way he did it. It wasn't the way to do it, it should have been face to face.

"On the dating website he described himself as kind and caring but by the end of our relationship I found him to be anything but."

Meanwhile Judge Khan said last night that he had made a 'fundamental error of judgement' by employing Roselane Driza.

He told The Daily Telegraph:

"I deeply, deeply regret the very fundamental error of judgment that I made with Driza, believing her when she said she was legal and not realising she was such a devious woman.

"My biggest regret is that I befriended Driza. I never realised she was illegal. I kept saying 'Show me your papers'. I would like to think I am a man of conscience. I have made my share of mistakes but I do not go around being horrible to people."

It was revealed yesterday that Khan - who is facing the sack over the 'sex, lies and videotape' blackmail case - is receiving full close to £200,000 to date. The female immigration judge, who was his lover, has been on sick leave for 18 months and is also understood to have been paid as much as £180,000 during that time. She earns £117,680 a year.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), which employs them, confirmed both would continue receiving their substantial salaries during a disciplinary investigation into the embarrassing fact that they were employing an illegal immigrant as their cleaner.

MPs described the situation as "sheer hypocrisy". Judge Khan was named and shamed by an Old Bailey judge, in an unprecedented legal move, when the blackmail case ended on Wednesday.

The female judge - seen apparently snorting cocaine while romping with Judge Khan in a homemade sex video - retained her anonymity because she was the victim of blackmail.

Roselane Driza, 37, had threatened to expose the video, and another of him in bed with a mystery blonde, unless she was given £20,000.

Yesterday, after the cleaner was found guilty of blackmail, father-of-two Judge Khan's estranged wife said she knew he had been sleeping with her. Amtul Khan, a social worker who lives in Birmingham, said: "The court revelations are no surprise to me."

ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE