(Replying to PARENT post)
(Replying to PARENT post)
The EFF post is so distorted that I have trouble figuring out if the EFF is just intentionally twisting the facts to piggy-back on a high visibility case (which seems horrendously ill-considered, even from a strategic point) or if they are just so negligent in reviewing the facts that they've gotten used by others.
There's real issues that this case could serve as a focal point for discussing -- particularly about the prohibition of prostitution and whether criminalization and the enforcement that goes along with it is a net positive or negative for society.
But its clearly not anything like a bust of a noncommercial education, legal resource, and health information site that happens to cater to sex workers being shut down because the government isn't happy with the client base or subject matter.
(Replying to PARENT post)
It is illegal for certain people to post certain things at certain locations on the internet. Posts aren't inherently illegal and I think you are missing the nuance more than the eff is.
> Is the EFF saying the FBI should have targeted specific illegal posts instead of taking down legal material as well?
What kind of question is that. It's like "Are you really saying that if someone put graffiti on your house, the FBI should paint over each letter instead of simply using a bulldozer?"
(Replying to PARENT post)
Example classified: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RHLakOo...
Almost all ads explicitly listed the sex acts offered. People on there weren't even being discreet about it.
(Replying to PARENT post)
What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to do like solving murders and other cases where people actually got hurt.
I personally think prostitution should be legal anyway like the late George Calin put it "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?"
(Replying to PARENT post)
I'm not arguing for or against sex work, just illustrating that this takedown is not a clear-cut case of censoring a vulnerable community's non-commercial political speech.
Is the EFF saying the FBI should have targeted specific illegal posts instead of taking down legal material as well? I support the EFF in their important work, but they're more credible and effective when they tell the whole story, including the complicated part.
[0] http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/operators-of-myredbook.com...