Talk:Village Voice Media

message: Perhaps New Times Media and Village Voice Media should be merged since New Times Media acquired Village Voice Media then took on the name of the later.--P Todd 05:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with Village Voice Media 

message: The New York Times ran on article on Saturday about Goldman Sachs' stake in VM Media. I added info about this to the lead along with a reference. Abe Froman (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added GS stake in VV Media 

message: The company is being broken up and sold. 
EdwinHJ | Talk 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  sold 

message: Short list, does not require a separate article can easily fit within the Village Voice Media article without causing issue or loss of information. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 21:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[List of assets owned by Village Voice Media]] 

message: Soldier of Fortune Magazine (SoFM) is a magazine in which, once upon a time, a hit-man could pay to run a classified advert hawking his skills. For a long time SoFM claimed that the First Amendment allowed it to run these adverts for free or run them while taking a fee, as it saw fit. Eventually enough victims of hit-men hired by readers of SoFM clocked enough serious high-dollar judgments that basic economics deterred SoFM from ever taking hit-man classifieds ever again. One SoFM strategy was to claim that the coded language in adverts for illegal services made it impossible for THEM to know that they were running adverts for hitmen. This got laughed out of court. If the readers could pierce the coded language and know that murder-for-hire was advertised (which it was unarguable that they DID do, since some murders-for-hire did occur and others were attempted as a result of these adverts) then, the Courts reasoned, the Classified Department at SoFM could likewise pierce the coded language and also ascertain that advertising murder-for-hire was the payer's intent.
What I would have loved to see in THIS article is why the same argument that DID rap the knuckles of SoFM so often (and did prove to be, in cash terms, an effective deterrent) is NOT serving to rap Backpage on the knuckles when they advertise the sale of some sex-slave who is maybe 10, maybe 16 years of age. Or maybe even an adult (because enslaving of adults is still illegal too, you know). Why hasn't that worked? You advertise the sale of an underage sex-slave, then how do you argue that that (a) is not civilly actionable just as it was against SoFM and (b) does not make you part-and-parcel of the criminal enterprise whose adverts you are running? Why did this legal strategy work against SoFM and fail against Backpage? What is the loophole? I'm no lawyer so would appreciate someone who IS an attorney writing up a compare-and-contrast of Soldier of Fortune's adverts for contract killings (in coded language) vs. Backpage's adverts for underage sex-slaves (in coded language).
Also, this sentence "Backpage also continued to increase its efforts to root out any illegal activity, particularly focusing on the identification of ads that might feature underage victims of human trafficking" is not encyclopedic. You could say biased, tomAYto, tomAHto, I say its LYING. "Identification" is true, but "root out" is lying. They DO want to identify ads that are TOO transparently selling sex-slaves. But they DO NOT remove the adverts. They just rewrite them to make them more opaque about the sex-slavery, so that Backpage has more deniability when they get sued.2604:2000:C682:2D00:5AC:6FE2:996A:CDE (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should provide an interesting study vs. Soldier of Fortune Magazine 

message: 24 cites go back to this.  I cannot find this.  Is it a dead link, or can someone help me.Mwinog2777 (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refernce 8