Webwork - 8:06 pm on Sep 4, 2010 (gmt 0)
I always assumed that adult service advertisements made it easier for law enforcement to identify/locate/track/sting illicit s/e/x operations, making adult ads an investigatory and/or prosecutorial tool or "asset", like snitches or undercover informants.
If drug dealers posted ads to set up drug buys would the attorneys general join to suppress the ads or would the AGs use/view the ads as a tool or weapon, one that brings otherwise underground activities and actors out into the open - thereby providing an opportunity to make arrests?
The AGs' action has an air of political expediency. Rather than demanding or devoting the funds and police assets needed to reduce "the trade" what the AGs have accomplished is to make it less obvious how underfunded and uncommitted law enforcement is when it comes to dealing with the Xtrade. In other words, "the ads were the proof" of how big the issue/problem IS and, at the same time, the ads served as proof of either how feckless, underfunded or uninterested law enforcement IS in addressing the problem.
CL's ads should have been used to identify, track down, arrest, and aid victims or incarcerate traffickers, every single one that the ads brought to light. How much easier will it be now - with all that identifying information removed from plain sight - to identify and locate victims of the Xtrade now?
I would like to believe that pulling down the CL ads will result in fewer victims, but before I fall victim to a ill-founded belief - perhaps one that will simply fuel further victimization - I'd really like to know: IS THERE compelling proof that suppressing the CL ads . . will reduce, not increase, victimization? Without the investigatory leads provided by the ads what next? More police assigned to uncover/discover Xtrade victims? More police needed to be assigned? Is that going to happen?
If not, then what, now that you've killed the informant, the snitch, the tipster?