State Attorney’s General have been hard at work over the last couple of years trying to get Craigslist to shut down their adult services section. Their work payed off yesterday when Craigslist elected to censor itself. Censor is the key word because Craigslist clearly believes this is censorship.

The section was originally setup for consenting adults, but became heavily used by those in the sex industry. Now if you’ve ever read the classified sections of publications like the Village Voice, you know this was already going on. Craigslist just made it easier for sex workers; and law enforcement. Craigslist routinely cooperated with law enforcement, and became a tool to ferret out those who were involved in human trafficking.

Now those types of crimes will move underground to places law enforcement can’t access as easily. So when special interest groups and state AG’s are patting themselves on the back, they should remember that helping victims of human trafficking just got a lot harder. Grandstanding may be good for politics, but it just hurts people in the real world.

There are many folks on the anti-Apple bandwagon. It happens any time a company becomes a dominant player in their field. And that’s okay. No matter how smug you think Apple and their legions of fans may be, Apple products work. They work very well. The iPhone is the most intuitive mobile phone to ever hit the market. The iPod changed the way we listen to music. The iPad is on it’s way to changing the way we read books.

Apple will continue to create this buzz for the foreseeable future. They only thing that could trip them would be if they started to rest on their laurels. However, with Google really pressing hard with their Android mobile ecosystem, I don’t Apple being able to rest. This means more great products.

In the past couple of years we’ve seen companies go the route of nuclear patent war. Apple, Nokia, Google, Oracle and many others have resorted to huge lawsuits. You could say this was probably started by patent troll companies. These are companies who make nothing and sell nothing. They simply purchase patents, and sue anyone they think has violated that patent. Once these large companies started getting hit with this type of lawsuit, they eschewed the mutually assured destruction doctrine for a nuclear holocaust doctrine.

The real problem here is the US Patent Office. They grant some patents willy-nilly, and allow others to languish as an application for years. There needs to be real reform in our patent and intellectual property system. It’s a problem when true innovators are allowed to be sued by those who create nothing.

To me, they’re acting like old-timers who yearn for days of yore, and who wish these internet kids would get off their porch. Seeing as how Prince lives in “Prince-world”, I can almost forgive him. He seems to live in an alternate reality. I give no such grace to Nicks and Mellencamp. The music business as they know it is fading and won’t be coming back.

The internet presents musicians with some great opportunities that didn’t exist 10 years ago. They no longer need a record conglomerate to get heard on the radio. They no longer have their creativity stifled by a record executive who likes to follow “trends”. This is the best time in decades to be an artist. You just need to recognize it.

Part of the broadcasters plan is to get Congress to force all cell phone makers to include an FM transmitter in each phone. Naturally, the cell phone makers oppose this. Gary Shapiro, of the Consumer Electronics Association, said, “We are completely, inalterably opposed to this.” He went on to say, “Rather than adapt to the digital marketplace, NAB and RIAA act like buggy-whip industries that refuse to innovate and seek to impose penalties on those that do.”

I have to agree with Mr. Shapiro. It seems absurd to require new and innovative devices to carry an outdated and antiquated technology. In this age of constant innovation, legacy businesses are lashing out at those who threaten their way of life. Hopefully Congress won’t pacify these backward thinking people. The only way we can be a world leader is to be forward thinking.

The easy illustration of this is Fox News. They are unashamedly biased toward the right, and their “Fair and Balanced” tagline is, to put it mildly, misleading. The recent revelation that News Corp., parent company of Fox News, donated $1 Million to the Republican Governors Association further raised eyebrows about Fox’s ability to fairly report the news. Other media outlets also struggle to uphold their journalistic integrity. The New York Times, once the bastion of this country’s newspapers, has committed a series of gaffes in recent years. One startling example was how their editorial department handled the 2006 Duke Lacrosse case. The young men were assumed guilty, and their side of the story was ignored.

In many ways, it feels like the media has returned to the days of yellow journalism in the early 20th century. They allow themselves to be manipulated by politicians, celebrities and dozens of PR firms. I just wonder whether there are any journalists that have the guts to go for the truth. We sure do need it.

While I typically hate it when our legislature sticks their nose in things (see: Orrin Hatch vs. the BCS), this is a public policy issue that must be dealt with. Ever since the internet became a behemoth that large corporations could no longer ignore, they’ve sought to assert control over what we’re able to do. The music and movie industries want to control what we hear and see. News organizations want to control what we read. And now, those that own the pipes (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc.) want to control the whole thing. Unless the government adds regulation, these companies will choke the innovation that has made the internet what it is today.

What’s really puzzling is Google might never have come to be if the terms of their agreement with Verizon had been around in their beginning. We need to be protected from these companies. While some may cry government meddling, I say this would be our leaders actually doing their job.

Just to be very clear, this scenario is hypothetical. However, it is a scenario that may play out. There are many who would argue that premium placement should go to people or companies that are willing to pay for it. After all, doesn’t cable television have tiered pricing that provides premium content to subscribers of more expensive tiers? I don’t think the issue is that simplistic.

The internet is very different than any other communications medium the world has known. It has leveled the playing field between the have’s and have-not’s. Information, which is power, can be accessed by far more people far more easily. The world’s greatest innovations of the past couple of decades have come online. If you start to make access to information or the ability to innovate too expensive, then power becomes concentrated in too few places. While big corporations might like that idea, it would be terrible for the rest of us. The internet must remain open and free.

Initially, both companies denied that they had held conversations at all. Now, they have both announced that they have agreed on a proposal that “would move the net neutrality issue forward”. Google CEO Eric Schmidt has emphatically denied there is any business arrangement. Both companies released a statement that said their goal is to “find ways to protect the future openness of the Internet and encourage the rapid deployment of broadband.”

While their joint statement is encouraging at first glance, the details have yet to be seen. Also, this is merely a suggestion to Congress, so it doesn’t have any real sway yet. It can be scary to see two very powerful tech companies talk about a “deal”. Perhaps they’re being honest. Perhaps they really want to protect the public’s access to information. I would be wary, though. They will only pursue these goals insofar as it helps their bottom line.

The problem we are increasingly facing is the invasion of privacy that many governments commit. From the U.S. to Saudi Arabia, several countries are guilty. Our communications providers are no longer fighting the government when it comes to protecting our privacy. They are simply giving them free reign.

People are now left wondering whether their communications have any way of being private. In all honesty, probably not anymore. Here in the U.S., legislation like the Patriot Act have given the government sweeping powers to spy on the populace. It’s highly unlikely their going to give up that power any time soon.

If I were in leadership at RIM, I would have stood up to the Middle Eastern governments. If more communications companies would do that, it might actually make a difference. Then again, their commitment to profit trumps everything.