From Change.Org; April 10, 2009
Although we at Change.org are practitioners of new media, we still have an affinity for a few old media properties like The Washington Post. But we also call a spade a spade, and this week the co-founder of a leading anti-trafficking organization, Polaris Project, called out The Washington Post in an article on Change.org for its ethically dubious practice of indirectly profiting from brothels.
The Washington Post currently accepts advertisements for massage parlors, which the Post's own reporters have shown are often thinly disguised brothels with women trafficked into the country and forced into prostitution. Because of this frequent connection to human trafficking, The New York Times, Boston Globe, and Los Angeles Times refuse advertisements for massage parlors. But The Washington Post has turned a blind eye and continues to profit from these ads, making the paper complicit in the sexual violence of women across our nation's capital.
So before you enjoy the rest of your Friday, or your Sunday paper, we strongly recommend you send a letter to the Post and urge them to stop this practice immediately.
Or, if you want to use newfangled social networking technology to inspire some innovative employee activism, search your network on Facebook, find alumni at your college who work at the Post, and kindly ask them to tell their employer to do the right thing and stop accepting these ads immediately. You can search for The Washington Post employees you're connected to on Facebook here:
http://tinyurl.com/facebookwashpost.
Seems to me there is a question of 2nd ammendment entitlement here. Not to compare animals with exploited women and children, but ar folks fought to keep animal "snuff" flicks, dog-fighting videos and beastiality off of the internet, and lost! The court held that these types of things are constitutionally protected!Cut and paste this link into your web browser to learn more about that case;
Click on title to read more about that case and the idiot judge appointed for life who read the majority opinion;
http://legal-eaze.blogspot.com/2009/04/judges.html
Friday, April 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment