"Evil" Craigslist (a post that will anger many)

A man stands accused of murdering a sex worker he met through Craigslist. He also is said to have tied up and robbed another woman, also contacted via Craigslist. The accused denies the charges. He is, of course, innocent until proven guilty. Still, I feel certain that the perpetrator of these vile crimes will soon see the inside of a courtroom and a prison cell.

I bring this matter up in order to draw attention to an exercise in anti-logic.

The above-noted crimes have led many to demand that Craigslist owner Craig Newmark shut down the site's "erotic services" section. Newmark refuses to do it.

Newmark's comments defied a request by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who asked Craigslist to immediately eliminate photographs in the "erotic services" section, hire staff to screen images and ads that violate the site's terms of service and fine users who violate those terms.

Just how would the posting or non-posting of pictures have prevented the above-referenced crimes? (In case you're confused, we're talking about pics of the ladies offering their services as masseuses or escorts.)

Some of you may cite moral reasons when you demand an end to Craigslist's sleazy "erotic services" section. Fair enough. I don't have a problem with people who frame their concerns in those terms. At least they are being honest.

But don't pretend that you're talking about safety when you actually want to impose your moral standards on people who may have differing values.

For some reason, many still believe that personal encounters have a higher danger factor when couples first meet via computer. The opposite is true.

Computer usage can be traced. A john who meets a hooker via computer creates a very traceable electronic trail -- a factor which will probably help to convict the person who committed the crimes noted above. Anonymity on the net does not really exist -- except for the very savvy few who understand proxy servers.

Potential criminals know this. Think about it: If you were a modern day Jack the Ripper, would you seek victims via Craigslist, or would you look for streetwalkers late at night, as Jack did?

Before Craigslist, sex workers advertised in free periodicals. Were they safer then? If both Craigslist and those hard copy venues disappeared, the girls would walk the streets. Would that be safer?

I understand that, in recent years, many cities have seen a drastically reduced level of streetwalking. We probably owe that reduction to the availability of a free advertising medium.

I would offer similar observations about "normal" (i.e., legal) romantic encounters.

Many computer-phobes can't shake the idea that it is incredibly dangerous to meet someone in real life after first getting to know that person via an AOL chat room or one of those dating sites. But the use of computers automatically creates a trail, and that trail offers much more safety than women knew in the pre-internet age.

Usually, couples who meet on the web proceed to a voice chat on the phone and then to a face-to-face meeting. By the time a man meets the woman of his cyber-dreams for coffee, he has already disclosed his real name, home address, phone number and (usually) his photo. He has also opened himself to a thorough Google check. Just about the only secret he has left is his blood type.

In the 1980s, people met in bars and clubs. Was that safer? (They also met at work. Nowadays, you can be fired for dating a co-worker.)

I'm not looking to meet anyone, but if I were, I'd feel safer encountering someone on the internet than at a church social. And women should feel the same way.