I think what you're trying to imply here is approximately as accurate as Techdirt's claim that Newmark "made the CFAA worse".
The CFAA isn't the only set of laws that has both a criminal statute and a civil cause of action. Newmark didn't --- can't, in fact --- threaten anyone criminally. Craigslist's recourse to a statute that included a criminal component added no rigidity to the ball they were playing with, whatsoever. Since they were suing to enforce their own terms of service, the CFAA was the correct statute to cite.
Other people on this thread have also suggested that recourse to the CFAA was somehow a nuclear option for Craigslist. It was not. People think this because Techdirt is misleading them, in order to whip up rageviews. You should be irritated at them for doing that (it's pretty much their whole M.O.).
And it works :-( judging from the slacktivist chatter among my less intelligent (previously determined, not judging based on politics) but still technologically geeky FB friends.
The CFAA isn't the only set of laws that has both a criminal statute and a civil cause of action. Newmark didn't --- can't, in fact --- threaten anyone criminally. Craigslist's recourse to a statute that included a criminal component added no rigidity to the ball they were playing with, whatsoever. Since they were suing to enforce their own terms of service, the CFAA was the correct statute to cite.
Other people on this thread have also suggested that recourse to the CFAA was somehow a nuclear option for Craigslist. It was not. People think this because Techdirt is misleading them, in order to whip up rageviews. You should be irritated at them for doing that (it's pretty much their whole M.O.).