Unfortunately the idea that principles die when politics enter the picture is true on both sides of the political aisle. However, every now and then an example of this concept occurs that is so blatant you have to wonder if anyone making the statements to the press is listening to themselves.<\/p>\n
Newsbusters<\/a> posted an article on Tuesday about the shutting down of the website Backpage<\/a>. This is part of the war that President Trump has been waging against human trafficking<\/a> since he took office. The media hasn’t said a lot about this, but good things are happening.<\/p>\n The story at Newsbusters reports:<\/p>\n Saturday was, as Katie Yoder at NewsBusters<\/a> noted Tuesday afternoon<\/a>, a “sad day.” That’s when the Women’s March sprang to the defense<\/em> of Backpage.com, tweeting that its Friday seizure<\/a> by the Justice Department<\/a> “is an absolute crisis for sex workers.”\u00a0In that same tweet, the group declared that “Sex workers rights<\/a> are women\u2019s rights.” Backpage and seven associated individuals were indicted<\/a> Monday on charges relating to facilitating prostitution \u2014 including child<\/em> prostitution conducted by human sex traffickers<\/a>. Thus far, the establishment press has been almost unanimously running cover for the Women’s March by ignoring its disgraceful position.<\/strong><\/p>\n According to the New York Times’s<\/a><\/em>\u00a0coverage of the the first Women’s March in January 2017, participants reportedly<\/a> were there to “Protest Trump.” On the eve of that first march, a Times<\/em> op-ed writer, who hoped that it “Could Resurrect the Democratic Party,” lamented that<\/a> “Sex workers have rightly raised issues with its failure to meaningfully address their concerns.”<\/strong><\/p>\n On April 7, The Los Angeles Times<\/a> reported:<\/p>\n In the climax of a fight that pitted foes of sex trafficking against advocates of free internet speech, the Justice Department on Friday seized the Backpage.com website and raided the home of its cofounder.<\/strong><\/p>\n …Congress moved to strip away that shield late last month with a measure to carve out an exception in the communications law after a high-volume political battle. When signed into law by President Trump, the measure will allow states to proceed against websites that knowingly assist or support sex trafficking.<\/strong><\/p>\n Silicon Valley<\/a> trade groups and free-speech advocates such as the ACLU fought the new measure, warning that it would create havoc by forcing companies to try to get a handle on wild online speech.<\/strong><\/p>\n Sex workers have rights, and it’s wrong to interfere with websites that assist or support sex trafficking. What? I thought feminists were against women being sex objects. I admit I am somewhat unfamiliar with exactly how this whole things works, but it seems to me that a ‘woman of the night’ might actually be considered a sex object. Also, we used to have something called ‘community standards.’ Somehow I don’t think that freedom to promote sex trafficking would be included in those standards.<\/p>\n Thank you, President Trump, for dealing with the issue of sex trafficking. It has been going on in America (and worldwide) for a long time, and it is time someone stepped up to the plate and begin to deal with it.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Unfortunately the idea that principles die when politics enter the picture is true on both sides of the political aisle. However, every now and then an example of this concept occurs that is so blatant you have to wonder if … Continue reading