There has been no official word from Craigslist, but it appears the company has yanked prostitution ads from its Canadian websites.
The move comes after months of lobbying from Canadian nutter politicians. When you log on to the site, the erotic services
section did not appear on most of its Canadian home-pages, including the Vancouver site.
Crisis worker Alice Lee with the Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter calls it a positive first step: It's true there are other websites, however
Craigslist is the biggest and the most popular.
The federal government is happy with the move. But after a detailed search, some recently posted erotic ads still pop up, only they're listed under a different category.
Update: First the US, then the World
21st December 2010.
It now appears that the recent removal of Craigslist erotic services section in Canada was reported too narrowly.
Reports are now coming to light that the erotic services section has been removed worldwide.
Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal said legal representatives for Craigslist had confirmed to his office that erotic and adult services sections had been removed from the company's websites around the world.
Family Guy: Not All Dogs Go to Heaven BBC 3, 17th December 2011
The complainant wrote to the BBC saying that he had watched the programme from about half way through until its conclusion
and found it offensive. He said it was an unmitigated attack on Christ and Christians. In particular, he highlighted scenes showing a dog chewing a cross, Christ being portrayed as a rapist and Christians burning books.
response, BBC Audience Services explained that Family Guy was an irreverent comedy which joked about many topics, including religion, gender, sexual orientation, politics, history and disability. They said that they did not believe any of the programme's
jokes carried the message that one group of society should be openly despised and that Family Guy's humour fell into the category of exaggerated, silly satire. It was not to be taken too literally and the majority of the show's viewers appreciated that
it was not trying to attack a section of society.
Audience Services apologised that the complainant found the programme offensive but concluded that it did not go beyond the bounds of what was acceptable comedy for the BBC Three
The Editorial Complaints Unit then considered the complaint. It said that the context of Family Guy was such that the relationship between aspects of the real world and their portrayal
in the series was so distant that it was more a case of fantastical allusion than portrayal.
In relation to a dog being made to chew a cross, the ECU said that this was an example of an absurd premise that a dog could be converted
to Christianity by using a cross as a stick to be retrieved and that in itself rested on the more fundamentally absurd premise that a dog might be capable of conversion to Christianity when it professed itself an atheist.
relation to the scene in which the complainant said that Christ was about to commit rape, the ECU said that the scene was capable of more than one interpretation. It could not be said with certainly that Christ was about to commit rape, although it was
clear his intentions were not honourable.
Finally, in relation to the scene where Christians were portrayed as burning books on logic, the ECU said that this was hyperbolically exaggerated.
therefore did not uphold any aspect of the complaint.
Appeal to the BBC Trust
The complainant escalated his complaint to the BBC Trust, saying that he understood Family Guy was an animated cartoon but
nonetheless the three elements referred to in his complaint were offensive because of the fact that they were scripted and depicted.
The Editorial Standards Committee noted that the relevant guidelines on Harm and Offence and
Religion both allow for editorial justification and audience expectations to be taken into consideration. The Committee noted the background to the series and this episode in particular which had been provided by the ECU and the Head of Editorial
Standards. The Committee agreed that, given the context of the programme and the likely expectations of regular viewers of Family Guy and BBC Three viewers in general, there was sufficient evidence to show that any risk of offence was editorially
While the Committee was sorry that the complainant had been offended by the programme, it agreed that there was not a reasonable prospect of success for this complaint on appeal.
therefore decided this appeal did not qualify to proceed for consideration.