Posted on 03/24/2008 9:55:48 AM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Oregon man's property ransacked after Craigslist hoax
Monday, March 24, 2008
Associated Press
JACKSONVILLE, Ore. -- A pair of hoax ads on Craigslist cost an Oregon man much of what he owned.
The ads popped up Saturday afternoon, saying the owner of a Jacksonville home was forced to leave the area suddenly and his belongings, including a horse, were free for the taking, said Jackson County sheriff's Detective Sgt. Colin Fagan.
But Robert Salisbury had no plans to leave. The independent contractor was at Emigrant Lake when he got a call from a woman who had stopped by his house to claim his horse.
(Excerpt) Read more at kgw.com ...
Nor did Craigslist.
>>Sorry. I do not agree. I say sue CL for millions. Let the chips fall where they may.<<
Wow. We part company on this one. That’s ok. Brian Suits disagrees with me too.
But I think I know where the chips will fall: http://www.craigslist.org/about/fair.housing.html
It is not a “bad luck” thing. And where exactly is CL making it’s money? It is not off these ads. I’ve done a lot of business there and not only have I never paid a dime, but I have never been solicited for money nor would I even know how to get money to them.
Just because they are making money, it doesn’t mean they are bad.
>>CL was on notice that it’s vapid staff was out to lunch.<<
I was under the impression that it was not even their job to monitor this stuff. Criminy, there are warnings all over the site about flakes, crooks, and everything in between.
I like the freedom the site offers. It is the classified ad equivalent of the autobahn - with no tolls.
Your rights only extend so far as they do not impinge on another's rights.
Case in point, is it a first amendment right to yell "Fire!" in public building if there is no fire?
Why not?
No let's imagine this scenario. Let's say CL winds up only being used for this kind of criminal act. Do you still believe it should be allowed to continue operating in the same fashion?
Or let's imagine another scenario. What if I sell tainted drugs on CL. Is that also acceptable?
At that point, I would not have any issue with them being prosecuted. But I still believe that they need to track down who posted the ad and prosecute him/her. I'm also in favor of prosecuting Craig's list (or eBay or any site that doesn't do a thing to vet ads when they are making money from the site).
Of course not, but you're talking about the equivalent of arresting someone for using the word "fire" in a sentence.
I’d look at my enemies for the person who placed the ad.
>>Craig’s list is not the free press that the founders envisioned and certainly they never intended the free press to be used as means to destroy individuals and their property.<<
True, but they knew it would happen. Thousands of individuals in this nations history have been destroyed by the printed or spoken word. And I am talking protected free speech, not libel or slander.
They may not have intended it, but they expected it. They also expected people to defend themselves.
One thing is for sure. I learned one thing from this article: If I owned property that was easily taken by people I would put “no trespassing” signs on my property. But you cannot stop all crimes. You can mitigate, but sometimes you are gonna get mugged, raped, murdered, robbed, and any number of other nasty things no matter what precautions you take. But you don’t blame the gun manufacturer, the subway, the car manufacturer or the web publisher. And don’t kid yourself: Those people that actually took stuff without confirming with the owner were simply thieves. And the ones that drove away after he confronted them crossed a line. They should spend time in jail. Maybe a month or two.
Was the listing at the police station or on Craig’s List?
Craig’s List was used to commit a crime. The police were not. The argument that the roads were used as well doesn’t hold water as the police do all they can to prevent people from using the roads to do so. Furthermore in order to use the roads you must have license that identifies you. Craig’s List should have the same.
The property owner should have met the Craigslist looters with a Mossberg.
OK maybe another analogy would help.
Let’s say some stupid schmuck falls for a 419 scam and sends his life savings to a crook in Nigeria. Is the schmuck’s email service provider liable?
>>Case in point, is it a first amendment right to yell “Fire!” in public building if there is no fire?
Why not?<<
If you use a megaphone, can the megaphone manufacturer be sued? I mean, they helped you get the word out to more people than if you just yelled. Right?
Of course not, but you’re talking about the equivalent of arresting someone for using the word “fire” in a sentence.
Really, how so? There is malicious intent in both cases with real damage done.
Should you be able to sue the owner of the building in which someone else yelled "fire" and that caused someone damage???
LOL, LOL . . . !
No. A politician not keeping his promise is a scam, but it is not prosecutable, i.e. not a crime.
What I'm saying is, the individuals making money off a website are more responsible for the criminal activity conducted on that website than any people who may have fallen for the scam. There are those on here that want to prosecute the people who believed the ad. Fine. . .AFTER you prosecute the website owners (and of course, the guy who posted the ad).
Then we disagree.
So if 3 people go and rob a bank, and they only catch one of the robbers, they shouldn't prosecute the one that they caught because the other's aren't being prosecuted at the moment, they should just let him go????
So if I fell for a Nigerian money scam, I should be able to sue Yahoo because it was solicited through one of their mail accounts?
>>Case in point, is it a first amendment right to yell “Fire!” in public building if there is no fire?
Why not?<<
If you use a megaphone, can the megaphone manufacturer be sued? I mean, they helped you get the word out to more people than if you just yelled. Right?
>>No let’s imagine this scenario. Let’s say CL winds up only being used for this kind of criminal act. Do you still believe it should be allowed to continue operating in the same fashion?<<
I certainly do, whether they win or lose the suit. After all, McDonalds lost that suit in Florida but they still serve coffee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.