mattilda (a.k.a. matt bernstein sycamore) writes on the National Organization for Women’s attempts to pressure NYC publications to pull all advertisements for sexually oriented businesses:
I also don’t know what pulling advertising will do about sex trafficking, other than make it go further underground. Furthermore, as part of anti-trafficking legislation, NOW supports felony enhancement for those convicted of trafficking, and stiffer penalties on those who “patronize illegal commercial sex” (that means people who hire hookers).
More background via mattilda: Free Speech Radio News on NOW’s campaign, and NOW’s human trafficking position.
Filed under: Economics, Labor, Law Enforcement, Legal, Media, The Biz
When I lived in Tucson, the weekly alt paper ran into the same campaign of people trying to shut down the erotic ads. I will never forget the triumphant feeling of reading the editor’s letter on the first page stating that alternative press RELIES on the money from advertisers (erotic ads are not cheap) and that without those independent providers shelling out money for expensive adult print ads, there would be no consistent income for this paper, and thus–no alternative voice or media in Tucson.
Seriously, if paper publications wash their hands of erotic ads, the economy will just go elsewhere. The internet is making paper mediums obsolete, the eradication of erotic ads even more so.
Are you seriously trying to say that indpendent media will cease to exist without the financial support of pimps and prostitutes?
Yeah, the owners of the weeklies get to buy an additional vacation house on the extra profits, but that’s just about it. (P.S. the owners of the weeklies are usually not the editors, the editors do what they are told and are threatened with being fired or shut down every time the revenues drop beneath a certain percentage.)
Please.