It’s a double standard, for sure.  Amid scrutiny cerntered around a string of recent murders linking the site to ads for erotic services, Craigslist has been forced to suspend its practice of running erotic ads; this, apparently, could not be better for the dying newspaper industry.  According an article in Wired newspaper revenue from personals has risen 38 percent since Craigslist shut down its ads.  But is this double standard ethical?

On the one hand, newspapers allege that they have a more stringent standard of censorship when it comes to vulgarity, but really it’s all a matter of semantics.  What we learned clearly from the Craigslist murders was that skeevy people post skeevy ads not to commit skeevy acts but actually do harm.  What makes an even watered down newspaper ad any different?  Even though newspapers are benefiting during a time of great need, I wonder: do the ends justify the means?

Copyright David R. Norton 2009