Pages: 1 2 |
|
 Print This Post
|
It’s hard to argue that a newspaper is liable for carrying an ad for a legitimate service that turns out to be something untoward. If the medium of the advertisement is suddenly responsible for the legitimacy of the product or service being sold, then the infomercial business would disappear overnight.
While the underlying principle there is sound, it is likewise hard to argue Craigslist staffers – or any reasonable person – could regard the services advertised in the adult services section as “legitimate.” CNN’s Amber Lyon makes the case in this video report.
Nichols does not address the specific examples of egregious ads in Lyon’s report, or the fact that Craigslist has clearly not been following its stated monitoring policy. To the extent any reasonable person ought to know whether they are abetting a crime, Craigslist may have some culpability here.
That said, since no true legal action was taken by these attorneys general, I’m not sure what the Tea Party ought to criticize? Nichols point seems to be more about ideology than points of law.
With the exception of Rand Paul, who seems to stick to his Libertarian ideals even when it runs him toward uncomfortable conclusions, most of the Tea Party faithful are fervently in favor of the big broad brush ideals of freedom, liberty, and small non-intrusive government, but get oppositional when those ideals lead them astray of their moral convictions. Tea Party ideals should result in strong support for Craiglist, but the larger moral disgust for “adult services” will override that. Of course, Tea Party ideals should also result in a Pro-Choice position, a movement to get out of unaffordable foreign wars, and support for legalization for marijuana.
With this conclusion, Nichols outs the intent underlying his challenge. To his way of thinking, there is a single set of appropriate positions for those advocating “Tea Party ideals,” a “Libertarianism” every bit as puritanical as the moral prudishness Nichols scoffs at. Indeed, I’m not sure how dictating positions on abortion, foreign policy, and drug prohibition is consistent with a libertarian political philosophy.
A true live-and-let-live libertarianism acknowledges the rights of states and municipalities to codify community standards. The applicable Tea Party ideal is not “small non-intrusive government,” but constitutional limitation. Surely, a thief would prefer a government which does not intrude upon his craft, just as a prostitute or a pimp would prefer to be left to their devices. The point of limited government is not to license all behavior, but to govern according to the consent of the governed.
By that standard, I find nothing for the Tea Party to concern itself with in this Craigslist story. Surely, the movement should keep its eye on overzealous attorneys general whose motive for legal action is the pursuit of notoriety instead of the pursuit of justice. Certainly, it is odd to shut down the adult services section, rather than leverage it to pursue criminals. That said, there doesn’t seem to be any actual abuse here on the part of these attorneys general.
—
Walter Hudson is a political commentator and co-founder of Minnesota’s North Star Tea Party Patriots, a statewide educational organization. He runs a blog entitled Fightin Words. He also contributes to True North, a hub of Minnesotan conservative commentary. Follow his work via Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.
