It’s hardly a newsflash that the Adult Services section of Craigslist has generated more than its share of controversy.  But the online want ad firm’s decision over the weekend to suspend the service, which largely pleased anti-trafficking advocates, also has its share of critics.  These latter believe that censoring Craigslist — no matter how unsavory is its content that appears to actively solicit prostitution — violated First Amendment freedom of speech and expression guarantees.

Now, another critic suggests that Craigslist’s decision to remove the Adult Services section actually helps traffickers.  In an article on Huffington Post, Microsoft researcher Danah Boyd (writing for herself and not her employers) argues that removing Adult Services denies law enforcement a relatively easy way to track down traffickers and pimps who’ve been advertising on the Craigslist website.

Her point of view, boiled down to its essence, is that an online service that purveys sex can be penetrated and monitored by police sting operations.  Which, Boyd argues, is exactly what Craigslist has provided.  Boyd writes:

“Working with ISPs to collect data and doing systematic online stings can make an online space more dangerous for criminals than for victims because this process erodes the trust in the intermediary, the online space. Eventually, law enforcement stings will make a space uninhabitable for criminals by making it too risky for them to try to operate there. Censoring a space may hurt the ISP but it does absolutely nothing to hurt the criminals. Making a space uninhabitable by making it risky for criminals to operate there — and publicizing it — is far more effective.”

Is this a convincing argument?  Anti-trafficking advocates largely have already spoken:  to them, the danger to vulnerable women and children offsets any law enforcement gain.  Thus, they say, the public good is best served by shutting down Craigslist’s controversial service.

What do you think?