Sex Work

Craigslist Reading List

|

On Friday, after years of negative publicity and pressure from state attorneys general, Craigslist replaced the hyperlink to its controversial "adult services" section with a black rectangle labeled "censored." My column tomorrow discusses the role played by Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's insufferably self-righteous attorney general, in this shameful episode. In the meantime, here is some relevant reading:

1. Craigslist is still officially mum about its decision, but CEO Jim Buckmaster's angry posts on the company's blog help illuminate the controversy, especially if you look up the criticism and press coverage that pissed him off.

2. According to A.P. and CBS News, the ads that offended Blumenthal et al. already are migrating to other sections of Craigslist or to its competitors.

3. Gawker highlights some of the more prominent Craigslist alternatives. Also check out the not-safe-for-work ads at Village Voice Media's Backpage.com or at The Back Room ("the Northeast's most discriminating source of adult content" and a popular choice in Blumenthal's neck of the woods). They make Craigslist's hooker posts seem subtle by comparison.

4. At The Huffington Post, Danah Boyd argues that "censoring Craigslist helps pimps, child traffickers and other abusive scumbags."

5. At the Guardian, Jennifer Abel writes: "Too many otherwise sensible people believe sex, alone among all forms of human interaction, spawns some malignant magic whenever money changes hands. It's still perfectly legal to search for sex on Craigslist; you just can't exchange cash for it."

Previous Reason coverage of Craigslist and prostitution here.

NEXT: Mafioso Brags to Wife: "Not One Turbine Blade Will Be Built in Mazara Unless I Agree to It."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OMG BUTT $ECK$!!!

    You should pay for sex the old fashioned way, with lobster dinners and/or herpes outbreaks.

  2. Why don’t they just name the adult section more inconspicuously? I think “daily brickbats” might just do the job.

    1. >I think “daily brickbats” might just do the job.

      How about “Hit It & Run”?

  3. Jennifer Abel is the greatest thing to have ever happened to the Guardian. And I’m not just saying that because I’m in a fake polygamous Internet marriage with her.

    1. Anything that keeps her from commenting here is welcome.

      1. Is that Suki’s real identity?

    2. Thanks, Jake! Of all my fake polygamous internet husbands, you’ll always be the first. And thank you for the link, Jacob.

      SIV, you wound me. My soul doth ache.

      1. But … but … you said * I’M * your favorite fake polygamous internet husband.

        * sobs like a little girl, runs from room *

  4. Someone should do some deep penetrating investigations.. and just keep going at it until they are spent……I am willing to volunteer for REASON

    1. I’m sure some police officers would be willing to spend six months to a year investigating this. It seems like it would take at least as long as the typical investigation into prostitution at the local titty bar.

      1. More fun than shooting dogs,

  5. Greater than Beatrix Campbell?

    When footballers sexually exploit women, go to lap dancing clubs, buy sex or “harvest” local girls to line them up for shagging parties, it still doesn’t count, somehow, as sexism. It attracts only a fatalistic sigh; a notion that there’s nothing you can do about young men with more money than sense ? often shadowed by a kind of class contempt that these working-class heroes can’t cope with the ludicrous wealth that people who are born to rule somehow manage instinctively.

    1. I wonder what she expects sports clubs to do about the fact that top athletes enjoy mixing large amounts of alcohol with hot young women. And that said hot young women are lured by a combination of the athletes’ money and the same physical and personality attributes that make them sports champions.

      And I doubt she could even produce skimpy anecdotal evidence that people believe girl-chasing horndogs are all working-class schlubs. Class contempt, my ass.

      When footballers sexually exploit women, go to lap dancing clubs, buy sex or “harvest” local girls to line them up for shagging parties, it still doesn’t count, somehow, as sexism.

      Probably because calling it “sexism” would be even more sexist than the enjoyment of such confections…because it would suggest that the women who willingly participate in such “exploitation” are somehow too intellectually helpless to know what they’re getting into and to make responsible decisions about what they want (or want someone else) to do with their bodies.

      The worst form of belittlement there can be is the notion that an adult of normal intelligence needs to be protected from their own freely-made choices by some wiser authority.

      1. The worst form of belittlement there can be is the notion that an adult of normal intelligence needs to be protected from their own freely-made choices by some wiser authority.

        shorter version: replace everything after “is” with “politics”.

      2. “When footballers sexually exploit women, go to lap dancing clubs, buy sex or “harvest” local girls to line them up for shagging parties, it still doesn’t count, somehow, as sexism.”

        If chatting with Jennifer over the years has taught me anything…?

        I’m a lot less likely to think of dancers as being sexually exploited by men and a lot more likely to think of men as being financially exploited by strippers.

        Thinking of yourself as being exploited by women is a fast boat to misogynist hell–you want to avoid that. …but you know the old saying about how if you’re in a poker game, and you haven’t figured out who the patsy is after the first few hands–then you’re the patsy?

        In some of the bars you’re talking about, the guys go in with full wallets and leave with them empty. The ladies leave under security loaded with cash…

        …but somehow the guys go home thinking the ladies were the ones who were exploited! I don’t know why it works that way, but that’s the way it seems to work.

        1. I don’t think the guys believe the women were exploited. It’s only ugly women who think these women were exploited.

    2. shagging parties

      There was a reason why it was hilarious when Mike Meyers used that word and it had nothing to do with his talent, timing, nor delivery.

  6. You mean there are other sites with prostitution? That’s fucking crazy. Whodathunkit!!?

    What a sexually repressed fucking country this is. How in the hell can porn be legal, and not prostitution? Oh, both, or all parties are paid. And freedom of art?

  7. Wait a sec here. Isn’t Craigslist in favor of Net Neutrality? If so, doesn’t that mean CL wants more gubmint involvement in its affairs, so to speak?

    So what’s the problem then? CL got its Net Neutrality, as it were. I know the issue is different. But the principle is the same– they wanted the heavy hand of government to do something. And it did.

    1. People who are for freedom are for net neutrality. The only ones who are’t are corporate sockpuppets like too many libertarians.

      1. freedom doesn’t mean free stuff

        1. Well it certainly doesn’t mean finding a way to charge a fee for breathing air, either.

          1. TANSTAAFL, bitch!

            1. Be careful, the air cartel might have words for the oil cartel, where there is still such a thing as a free (or at least deeply discounted) lunch.

      2. Yes, people who are for freedom fucking retarded want the arm of the government that actively engages in censorship to ensure that telecoms do not start to engage in censorship. We should also give the NSA the authority to punish telecoms for running illegal wiretaps.

      3. People who are for freedom are for wage and price controls. The only ones who are’t are corporate sockpuppets like too many libertarians.

  8. Canada is a paradise for the trade. Low prices, young girls. All the escorts register with the Government. One 18 yr old told me she started when she was 16, and no one objected.
    She said on a good night she makes $1,000 cash, most of which she pays no taxes on. Exploited? If she felt so, she could always find a minimum wage job at a fast food.

  9. “censoring Craigslist helps pimps, child traffickers and other abusive scumbags.”

    Craigslist censored itself, of course. But not before the mainstream media gave us one of alliteration’s greatest hits, “The Craigslist Killer.” Kudos on that one, mainstream media. Sensationalize much? But of course you do.

    1. Be the first of your friends to like this.

    2. Hollywood came up with a Craigslist killer all the way back in 1947. (And Lucille Ball is an underrated actress.)

  10. Craigslist should have just said “fuck you, we no longer serve CT”. And then let Blumenthal, that posturing, preening piece of shit, get a ton of complaints, angry emails, and phone calls.

    1. + 10 Episiarch

    2. Or Craigslist could continue to service CT but charge them for it.

      Oh wait, it’s that kind of behavior that got them into this mess in the first place.

  11. Hmmm. If you search for “sex” on Craigslist you get a few prostitution ads in the mix. If you search for “sex” on Google news, the majority of the articles are about rape and pedophilia. So, why is the outrage against Craigslist instead of against the mainstream media?

  12. Dick Blumenthal…living up to his name 8 days a week. I will feel no regrets voting for Rasslin’ Linda McMahon.

  13. “At the Guardian, Jennifer Abel writes: “Too many otherwise sensible people believe sex, alone among all forms of human interaction, spawns some malignant magic whenever money changes hands. It’s still perfectly legal to search for sex on Craigslist; you just can’t exchange cash for it.”

    Bullshit. Conservatives hate sex whether it involves cash or not, and leftists hate all commerce, sexual or otherwise.

    1. Nutmeg State Yankees hate both.

    2. interestingly, as long as it fits within certain legal guidelines (no street solification) , sex for cash was LEGAL in rhode island until last year.

      1. Until someone needed more revenue, most likely.

  14. “At the Guardian, Jennifer Abel writes: “Too many otherwise sensible people believe sex, alone among all forms of human interaction, spawns some malignant magic whenever money changes hands.”

    If only she applied the same standard to Wal*Mart!

    1. Seriously, money changing hands may not make sex any more malignant–but then money changing hands doesn’t make anything else any more malignant either.

    2. I do apply the same standard for Wal-Mart, Ken! For all my complaints about how the company treats its workers, I’ve never once said “You know, it would be okay if the workers manned the cash registers for free; I just don’t think they should get money for their efforts.”

  15. This PiL song seems appropriate here, but maybe it’s just me.

  16. As a protest, have Ron Paul start advertizing in Reason for blow jobs. If that doesn’t put libertarians on the map, nothing will.

    1. Fuck, Max – you couldn’t stand the competition.

  17. herp da derp

  18. I don’t care how many times you try to explain it, there is simply no reason I shouldn’t be able to pay a willing female for sex.

    1. I don’t care how many times you explain it, there is no reason I should have to pay a willing female for sex.

      1. Oh, you always pay. Just not always with money.

      2. If you have to pay her to do it, that indicates she’s not willing.

        1. If you have to pay her to do it, that indicates she’s not willing.

          Can you clarify this? Are you arguing that all prostitution is akin to rape? Because if so, that’s bullshit.

        2. That indicates she’s not willing to do it for free, Tulpa.

  19. International Burn a Koran Day?

    The government turned up the pressure Tuesday on the head of a small Florida church who plans to burn copies of the Quran on Sept. 11, warning him that doing so could endanger U.S. troops and Americans everywhere.

    Jones said he has received more than 100 death threats and has started wearing a .40-caliber pistol strapped to his hip.

    The 58-year-old minister said the death threats started not long after he proclaimed in July that he would stage “International Burn-a-Quran Day.” Supporters have been mailing copies of the Islamic holy text to his church to be incinerated in a bonfire.

    Jones, who has about 50 followers, gained some local notoriety last year when he posted signs in front of his small church declaring “Islam is of the Devil.” But his Quran-burning scheme attracted wider attention. It drew rebukes from Muslim nations and an avalanche of media interview requests just as an emotional debate was taking shape over the proposed Islamic center near the ground zero site of the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York.

    I await the mosque opponents’ condemnations of this fellow for making provocative acts.

    1. It’s not like he could go burn them in another part of Gainesville and nobody would give a fuck.

      1. That’s not the point.

        And in any case, the opposition from the same types of people to building mosques in other places around the country puts the lie to your assertion.

    2. Just for the record?

      The guy that wants to burn the Qur’an?

      Saying he’s worse than the Imam that wants to build the Mosque at Ground Zero is a no-brainer–the Ground Zero Mosque Imam is at least ostensibly building it in the name of interfaith outreach, but the only reason to hold a Qur’an burning is to incite division, hate, etc…

      With that out of the way, it really isn’t that much worse than building a mosque at Ground Zero–not after all the opposition came out.

      Both of these religious leaders are being jackasses–and for the same reasons. Having condemned the jackass at Ground Zero, I can wholeheartedly condemn this jackass in Florida too. Sure, within the fire code, people should be free to be jackasses on their own property–but that’s hardly the point.

      The point is that the Imam at Ground Zero is being an inflammatory jackass–and the the Imam in Florida is too.

      1. Ken Shultz|9.7.10 @ 10:48PM|#
        “The point is that the Imam at Ground Zero is being an inflammatory jackass–and the the Imam in Florida is too.”

        Yep, and everyone in government should exercise the wonderful freedom of keeping their yap shut.
        Silly bleevers can poke at each other all day long, and it doesn’t amount to a hill of pig-poop. But “Congress shall make no law…” I think applies to those in government who are sticking their noses in matters of superstition.

      2. Wait, now they’re building a mosque at ground zero? That should divert some attention from the Park51 mosque project, at least. 😉

        But it’s nice to see you’re still holding the position that people shouldn’t build what they want to on their own property if some amorphous community is opposed to it. 1950s suburban racial segregationists salute you, carrying forward their valiant fight to keep the wrong sorts of people from living/working/worshipping in their communities.

        1. You’re right, the segregationists of the 1950s who supported pointlessly antagonistic shit like Jim Crow–in the name of interracial harmony? They really were jackasses…

          Do you disagree that what the Florida Imam is doing is behaving like a jackass too?

          They’re about to turn September 11 into the American Guy Fawkes Day. …this could last for generations.

          And all of this was about as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow. …and all because of a jackass! He’s doin’ it for interfaith harmony?! That is such a joke. It isn’t very funny, but it is a joke.

          1. I’m not talking about Jim Crow. I’m talking about northern suburbanites trying to “persuade” blacks not to move into their neighborhoods by citing community opposition and the risk of violence by racist elements (certainly not including themselves, of course).

            1. “I’m not talking about Jim Crow. I’m talking about northern suburbanites trying to “persuade” blacks not to move into their neighborhoods…”

              Okay, well they were being insensitive jackasses too…especially if they were being deliberately provocative and discriminatory in the name of interracial harmony.

    3. And I suppose you are going to be making a long post explaining how he can do what he wants with his property, and about how the government shouldn’t get involved–along with a denunciation of all the Muslims who are screaming bloody murder(literally!) over this, yes?

      Should we wait until you’re all done? I can’t wait to see Bloomberg calling everyone who’s against this guy bigots.

      Oh, wait, that’s not gonna happen, is it?

      You all expect us to accept the provocation of the Park51 9/11 Victory Mosque and Glorious 19 Swimming Pool(segregated) and Community Center–AND we’ve got to accept that this Florida idiots actions will drive ‘peaceful’ Muslims into a murderous rage so we should all be against his provocation.

      So we should side with Islam on the mosque/community center and side with Islam on the dangerous provocation of burning qurans, have I got that right?

      Funny, innit? How everything you think is right supports Islam in some way?

      Park51 is a provocation. Like this ass’s bookburning in Florida it will enflame the exact Muslims we’d rather not have getting any inspiration. Both situations are perfectly legal, but wrong.

      If the State stops the Quran burning it should stop the ‘community center’ building–for the same reason–to avoid that provocation.

      But the State wants the mosque to continue and the bookburning to stop.

      I watched FOX revile this guy last night–but at least he’s talking. Where’s Rauf?

      1. I don’t honestly see how Park51 is a provocation. Does the Imam have any connection to the 9/11 terrorists? Has he said anything positive about these terrorists or 9/11? No, so what possible reason could there be for thinking that he is deliberately trying to offend? This excludes the totally reasonable assumption that all Muslims support terrorism of course.

        1. A connection? Well, they and he are both activist Muslims who wish to see sharia implemented all over the world. He also appears to have some connections to several jihadi front groups. And he did say that the US has some culpability in bringing on the attack. But all of this can be easily dismissed–it’s his property, and he can build what he wants on it, right?

          And you can’t see this as provocation? So you haven’t noticed all the people getting pissed over this? You haven’t noticed that Rauf is avoiding the American press? You didn’t notice that the original name referred to Islamic-occupied Spain? And didn’t notice that jihadi groups routinely say they want to reclaim Al-Andalus?

          Quite frankly, I can’t see this as getting more provocative without coming right out and calling it the Victory Mosque of the Glorious 19.

          And the guy in Florida–Terry Jones(what a name!), he’s also being provocative. The difference is that his provocation might actually result in people getting hurt.

          Know why?

          Because the fucking Muslims who aren’t out there blowing thing to hell for Allah are more than willing to riot in the name of the religion of goddamed peace.

          They may not all support terrorism–but a whole lot of them sure as shit do love being in screaming violent mobs

          1. So writing an op-ed in the New York Times counts as “avoiding the American press”, does it?

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09…..ef=opinion

            I think you’re all het up over nothing.

          2. Well, the name New York refers to English occupied America, so the existence of the city is obviously a deliberate provocation of American Indians.

        2. “I don’t honestly see how Park51 is a provocation.”

          Do you see burning Qur’an as a provocation?

          If I’m not a Muslim, then why should burning Qur’an bother me? …therefore burning Qur’an isn’t a provocation? What they’re getting upset about is ultimately a figment of their imagination–so being deliberately provocative isn’t being a jackass?!

          How is that different from building a mosque at Ground Zero?

          Just because you’re not personally offended by a mosque doesn’t mean other people aren’t. Because you’re not offended by something, no one else should be either? That isn’t even sensible.

          The fact is that people are offended. And being deliberately insensitive breeds retaliation and hatred. And deliberately being insensitive in the name of interfaith understanding? That makes him a jackass.

          1. a) Not a mosque.
            b) Not at Ground Zero.

            Why are we still talking about this?

            1. because people are fuckfaces.

              Because you’re not offended by something, no one else should be either?

              bass car says what?

              1. If you see me drivin’ around, rattling windows in the name of interfaith harmony, yeah, I’ll be serious jackass.

                Just because people should be free to be jackholes, doesn’t mean they aren’t being jackholes. I’ll always stand up for people’s rights to play loud music, to refuse vaccinations, or to build a monument to the hijackers on their own property–if that’s what they wanted to do.

                But I don’t think I ever said they weren’t jackholes for doing it, only that jackhole behavior shouldn’t necessarily be illegal just for being jackhole behavior.

                Doesn’t mean it isn’t jackhole behavior. …and I’ve never said the government should get involved in this–I’ve argued against government involvement in this at every step…

                I even denounced Gingrich as enemy of the First Amendment for advocating government involvement…

                God knows I’m not perfect, but I don’t think I’ve ever been inconsistent on this…

                1. What the Imam is doing is legal and should be legal.

                2. He’s a jackhole for doing it.

                3. Anybody who wants to use the government to stop him from being a jackhole on his own property is worse than a jackhole–they’re an enemy of freedom.

                4. Anybody else who acts like a jackhole (like the minister in Florida) is a jackhole too.

                1. if the economy weren’t bad, and this wasn’t an election year, i don’t think any of the park51 stuff would be an issue. as it is, you have hundreds of people who couldn’t find the financial district on a map wringing their hands about “victory lap mosques” and related shenanigans.

                  being sensitive to the sensitivities of idiots is a great way to never get anything done. two years after this thing is built, people will barely remember this meaningless kerfluffle.

                  1. “as it is, you have hundreds of people who couldn’t find the financial district on a map wringing their hands about “victory lap mosques” and related shenanigans.”

                    I know you think the suggestion that Ground Zero is sacred is ridiculous. But to a lot of people it is like that.

                    To the point that thousands of people from Kentucky and Nebraska, who maybe couldn’t find the State of New York on a map, joined the military, killed people, got wounded and died because of what happened at Ground Zero.

                    When I was a kid, growing up around Washington DC, I went to Mount Vernon, Monticello, the House of Burgesses, bunches of Revolutionary War and Civil War battlefields. I’ve been to Fort McHenry…

                    People have certain attachments and feelings for those places. If you don’t like the word “sacred”, well… When you’re at those places, I felt something like what I’d call “reverence” for want of a better word.

                    It has to do with the people who died there, and what they died for. A lot of people joined up or watched their children sign up because of what happened at Ground Zero. …I was mad as hell about it, but I didn’t sign up. …but I got a ton of respect for the people who did. They represent some of the best things about us, some of our best instincts…

                    They’re the kind of thing that can be offended. I wasn’t born before the Battle of New Market, so it was always “sacred” (for want of a better word) to me. I imagine it must be a little strange to live in a city where something that once wasn’t “sacred” suddenly is to a lot of people.

                    …even if they can’t point to it on a map.

                    1. The problem I have with ground zero being called sacred is that there have been real wars in the world where whole cities have been leveled. Are we supposed to consider the whole fucking place sacred ground now? If not, why is this one little area that got leveled so damn special? If anything, it should be a reminder of how lucky we are not to have had any real wars in the US in recent history.

                    2. The problem I have with the suggestion that other people should only care about things I want them to care about is that it’s absurd.

                      People have the right to care about what they want to care about–even if it’s stupid. They have that right enshrined in the First Amendment; you legally get to care about stupid stuff…

                      I’m not even talking about a legal complaint here–no one should care about stuff that you think doesn’t matter?!

                      That’s the definition of bigotry, Buddy Ro.

      2. So long as the Koran burning occurs on his own property and does not endanger other people or their property, I don’t think the govt should get involved.

        I think this guy is scum for other reasons, and that this action in particular is clearly intended to offend people and garner media attention — neither of which is a plausible reason for the Park51 mosque being built. But it is curious that the mosque opponents seem reticent to condemn him as they condemn Park51.

        1. “But it is curious that the mosque opponents seem reticent to condemn him as they condemn Park51.”

          You know what’s even more curious?

          Someone suggesting that Ground Zero Mosque critics are reluctant to condemn the Qur’an burning minister–even after one of those crtitics has written whole paragraphs saying that the Qur’an burner is just as bad or worse than the Imam building the Ground Zero mosque.

      3. How is Park51 a provocation? Maybe, secretly, it is, but there is no reason to think so based on any information available. This guy in Florida is clearly doing this to be provocative and insulting. He can do what he wants, and fuck all of those people who are going to freak out when he does, but this is in no way parallel to the NYC mosque.

        1. “This guy in Florida is clearly doing this to be provocative and insulting. He can do what he wants, and fuck all of those people who are going to freak out when he does, but this is in no way parallel to the NYC mosque.”

          There’s a legitimate argument to make that the Imam building this mosque didn’t know so many people would be so offended when the mosque was first proposed…

          If he didn’t know then, however, he sure as hell should know by now. So, even if he wasn’t being provocative and insensitive initially, now that what he’s doing is provoking a big reaction and he’s choosing to ignore the feelings of millions of people who are offended by what he’s doing–it’s really hard to pretend he isn’t being provocative and insensitive.

          At least it is for me.

          1. I don’t get why you set the bar at “if anyone, anywhere disagrees with what you’re doing, you’re a jerk for continuing to do it.”

            I’m an atheist. Many, many people are deeply offended by my lack of belief in a higher power. Am I, therefore, being “provocative and insensitive” by continuing to disbelieve?

            What if I wanted to build a community center where people could get to know atheists and realize we’re not all smug loudmouths? Millions of people would be unhappy about it. Is it my duty to abandon the idea to avoid being a “jackass”?

            1. “I don’t get why you set the bar at “if anyone, anywhere disagrees with what you’re doing, you’re a jerk for continuing to do it.”

              I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying this one jerk Imam is being provocative and insensitive.

              My criticism was and is that this Imam is being provocative and insensitive, and it seems to me purposefully so. And being provocative and insensitive in the name of building a bridge between the Muslim world and American society–in the name strengthening interfaith harmony?!

              That makes him a jackass. If he’s doing this in the name of interfaith harmony, then I’d hate to see what he’d do in the name of trying to stoke up some hatred and strife…

              Taking advantage of an interfaith program to go on a tour of the Persian Gulf–after making headlines around the world–organized by the US State Department and paid for by the American taxpayer? That really pissed me off. It mattered a lot less to me when he wasn’t promoting himself and his cause with the money comin’ out of my paycheck, but now that he’s done that? It sorta makes everything he does my business now.

              1. You’ve offered precisely no evidence to suggest that this community center project is deliberately provocative or insensitive. At least, no more so than anyone is, every day, when they do things that someone else in the world is against.

                The huge mass of people screaming about the “Ground Zero Mosque” believe a lot of untrue stuff about it. You repeat some of those untrue things as fact above, so I have trouble taking your opinion on “what’s really going on in the Imam’s head” particularly seriously.

                If it’s morally incumbent upon you to stop doing something when other people who haven’t bothered to learn any actual details about what you’re doing say they’re against it, nothing ever gets done. If we discount the ignorant screamers, who, precisely, is being provoked here?

                (And your tax-money thing is a splendid attempt to muddy the waters, but I’ll nevertheless eschew addressing it.)

  20. Love for sale…
    Appetizing, yummy love for sale.

  21. Surprised no one mentioned the hypocrisy of CNN–which heavily pushed the Craigslist prostitution story–hiring admitted john Elliot Spitzer.

    1. Hypocrisy? They should have Spitzer lead the coverage. Not only has he hired dirty, oppressed, underpaid, sex workers, he’s also been a loudmouth, holier-than-thou state AG with an eye on a higher office. He’s an expert!

  22. I like your blog,and also like the article,and thank you for provide me so much information :))

  23. At least in Colorado, CL hasn’t had any worthwhile postings in years (it’s been all cam girls and “rubs”), long before Blumenthal got involved. Or so I’ve heard.

    1. Am I one of the few people who’s never used Craigslist?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.