Secondary Effects?

The following article, The Myth of Secondary Effects, casts doubt upon the studies which most municipalities rely for purposes of establishing an evidential record that undesirable secondary effects normally flow from the mere presence of an adult establishment. We at TalkBackNorthampton do not intend for this article to sum up our thoughts regarding the veracity of the secondary effects theory one way or another. Rather, we wish to examine the validity of such claims more closely.



We merely note for the time being that based upon our personal experience undesirable secondary effects do not result from the mere presence of adult establishments. Indeed, in the West Village of New York City, sexuality in all its variety is openly celebrated, but the West Village also happens to be one of the most desirable neighborhoods in New York City to live and raise a family - and businesses, including flower shops, thrive there, too.

The Myth Of Secondary Effects
by Mark Kernes, Senior Editor, AVN

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986), municipalities across America have been given the power to limit the number of adult businesses in a community, as well as to severely regulate their location, hours of operation, floor space devoted to adult materials and several other ordinary business decisions, based on the "secondary effects" which adult businesses are alleged to have on the community around them.

Among the "secondary effects" which adult businesses - bookstores, video stores, cabarets and even Internet servers - are reputed to have are a decrease in property values, an increase in crime and, in some cases, an adverse effect on community health in and around the businesses' locations.

Moreover, the Renton decision allows a municipality to use not only whatever experience it may have with its own adult businesses, but also - or exclusively - studies done of the experiences other communities claim to have had with their adult businesses.

(Full Text of Article at the Free Speech Coalition's website)

Talk Back Northampton's First Donation!

Talk Back Northampton graciously accepts our first donation from Mr. David A. Banas of Leeds, MA. Mr. Banas generously donated $10 to our efforts, unsolicited and has offered to aid us in other capacities. Represented below is a scan of Mr. Banas' letter and check. Thank you, Mr. Banas, from TBN and the entire Northampton community!

Is Censorship a Civil Right?

NPN has attempted to frame the debate by talking about "balancing" free speech against other concerns. We link to the following article, which asks the question Is censorship a civil right?

Part 2
Part 3

Erotic Specialty Store Raided! Former Mayor Higgins Mystified.

Editor's note: The City proposes to zone adult establishments to places on the outskirts of town (yet to be more than vaguely identified by the City) when the "total display area of a [adult estblishment's] adult material exceeds 1,000 square feet. Display area shall be calculated as all display areas in establishments and all buildings within a property, and in establishments and all building on adjacent properties under the same ownership or control, on which any adult materials, as herein defined, are displayed and any aisles adjacent to such display areas." As confirmed in a planning board meeting by the City, the word "any" means merely one adult magazine or video will cause an entire display area and adjacent aisle to be included in the calculation of 1,000 square feet. "Adult" material under the Massachusetts General Law includes works that merely describe sexual conduct or excitment. The following satire assumes the zoning law has been passed as set forth above.

From the Mrs. Pottersville Gazette, December 16, 2008, by A.C.

In a raid by the Potterville Vice Squad, A&P Poetry and Porn was seized and shut down last night. Today, all passers-by will see are darkened windows and chained up doors. Many of the patrons, as well as proprietors Adam Cohen and Peter Brooks, were locked up pending release on bail. They face up to one year in prison and substantial fines. Reached for comment, the proprietors stated their surprise, “No one complained about any secondary effects, and we strove to offer erotica in limited quantities appropriate for local residents,” said Mr. Brooks. “We made a special effort to make this shop a place where a mature woman could shop and be not only comfortable, but have fun, too” said Mr. Cohen, “Many women noted how tasteful and attractive the shop was.”

The specialty erotica shop in the back of the building at 135 King Street was just one small part of the premises controlled by the proprietors. The balance of the building the proprietors had subleased to a local drugstore vendor, Dolly’s, after Serios’ on State Street closed its doors in the early 2007. But among the goods sold by Dolly’s were romantic novels and magazines, such as Cosmopolitan, often purchased by underage teenage girls. Such fare has recently come under attack from social conservatives and feminist as “depicting, describing or relating to sexual conduct.” “To think my daughter may be reading such smut during this holiday season, well, that’s just outrageous!” said one woman. Her husband piped in, “We men don’t know what those girlie magazines and romance novels really contain!”

In response to specific complaints the vice squad conducted undercover operations and surveillance. “We were shocked by the explicit nature of this material,” said Pottersville’s new police chief, Mr. Puregood, “We had to do something to protect the children.” In this case, the 9 square feet of Dolly’s displaying such adult material combined with the square footage of A&P of approximately 992 square feet surpassed the 1,000 foot rule embodied in the 2006 ordinance. “Many citizens have been complaining that the ordinance passed in 2006 does not go far enough,” said police chief Puregood, “but unfortunately, we can only act when an establishment such as this exceeds the 1,000 square foot rule.”

Mrs. Potter, the mayor, announced she will introduce a measure at the next city council meeting to ban all adult orientated material from any establishment within her jurisdiction outside of the combat zone established by the 2006 ordinance. This may prove to be another proposal introduced by Mrs. Potter likely to pass after she and her colleagues swept into office in the last election. Mrs. Potter’s popularity has only increased since she took a tough stance against the local cable franchise’s transmission of sexually orientated materials.

Mrs. Potter is also known as a champion for more restrictions upon the transmission of adult material via the Internet. She advocates measures successfully implemented by free wheeling China to protect its citizens from pornography and other material the government has found to corrupt the good and moral character of its citizens.

Readers may recall that Mrs. Potter cobbled together a remarkable coalition of pro business, religious and feminists groups to defeat Mayor Higgins in the 2007 election. She attacked Mayor Higgins for, among other things, not doing enough to protect women and children from pornography. The ordinance passed in 2006 still allowed many establishments downtown to carry adult material because they did not breach the 1,000 square foot rule.

There were other reasons cited, too. As one concerned mother said, “Although I believe in women having real equality in all areas of government, I just didn’t think Mayor Higgins was the appropriate role model for my daughter in contrast to Mrs. Potter, who is married to a Mr. Potter, a well known banker and real estate developer.” The rise to power of Mrs. Potter reminded many political observers of the toppling of Ann Richards as governor in the state of Texas many years ago by George Bush and his canny political adviser, Karl Rove.

“Few would have predicted this when the ordinance was passed,” said Mr. Cohen, “I trusted that the judgment of a relatively educated population would prevent us from this extreme.” But others point out that Mr. Cohen apparently failed to take into account the evolving demographics in Pioneer Valley resulting from an influx of, among other groups, conservative retirees and immigrants from less liberal cultures, and his indifference to more conservative citizens whose families have resided in Pioneer Valley for many generations. Former Mayor Higgins said, “This is not how we intended the ordinance to be used. This raid would not have occurred under my watch.”

In 2006 Mr. Cohen founded Nopornnorthampton which spearheaded the movement to drive porn stores of greater than 1,000 square feet out of town. It was then that he predicted that if the laws were found in practice to unreasonably impinge upon first amendment rights, the city would surely take corrective action. But as Mrs. Potter has increased political support and has proposed to ban all adult materials from downtown, few expect the 2006 ordinance to be rolled back.

No one on the city council dares vote against any measure proposed to protect women and children against pornography. As one city council member confided off the record, “if it happened that a child or woman is sexually abused in my district and the abuser is found to posses adult material from a store downtown, my vote against this measure would surely be cited against me. And, Mayor Potter is certain win these battles as the political opportunities present themselves, so why risk my neck ...”

“Because I financed my part of the purchase price of 135 King Street by taking out another mortgage on my house, I’m now losing my home,” said Mr. Cohen. Mrs. Potter was unmoved. “Think of the harm these pornographers have caused to women and children; losing a home is nothing compared to any such incident of abuse!”

“I must apologize to Mr. Cohen,” said Mr. Brooks, “After the 2006 measure passed, I dared Adam prove his point about the difference between erotic and pornography by joining me in this small venture. Being a good sport, he accepted, and our friendship first established as adversaries blossomed into a working relationship to improve the King Street corridor between Main Street and the Stop & Shop. Now, look what’s happened to him.”

Someone else suggested that perhaps Mr. Cohen should apologize to Mr. Brooks, as well as others in the community.

In other news, President-elect Cheney cited the longevity of Clayborn Pell and Ronald Reagan ….

What is NPN's Real Agenda?

The following has been written by Nicholas Pell, a Northampton resident and graduate of Umass- Amherst who is currently assisting Talk Back Northampton in their fight against censorship. It has not been written by the author of "An Open Letter to NoPornNorthampton" or the satirical news article about the potential dangers of adult business in town.

I appreciate the spirit with which NoPornNorthampton (NPN) has welcomed Talk Back Northampton (TBN) into the debate. A free and open marketplace of ideas seems essential to finding a reasonable, moderate solution to the present situation which includes all voices in the community. The crux of the issue seems to be over the definition and primacy of free speech in our community, as well as the unintended consequences of content-specific zoning laws which would rob us of our right to consume the kinds of entertainment we see fit. Regardless of the intentions of NPN, the proposed zoning law is content-specific and could be used later on to ban the tasteful erotica which NPN claims to support as free speech, as well as sexually frank works of art.

All concerned citizens of Northampton care about the effects of a large national retailer on the community as a whole. To be sure, Capital Video may be wise to open a dialogue with the community. But the specific concerns raised by NPN about the secondary effects of Capital Video are worth considering for any person interested in what kind of community we all wish to live in. But what will the proposed zoning law do? Some have suggested that such an establishment would be acceptable were it confined to an area further down King Street. This argument smacks of elitism. NPN apparently believes that a business which they seek to eliminate from their neighborhood is acceptable if located closer to the less-privileged sections of town- people in those neighborhoods are a lost cause anyhow, right? They also claim that the store will lead to harassment of passers-by, an idea that's slightly absurd to anyone who has studied how most publicity-shy patrons exit an adult book store.

I grew up outside of Cranston, Rhode Island in a city which boasted a combat zone comprised of a pornographic video store, several lottery sellers, cheap motels and a massive scrap metal heap. I know first hand that the secondary effects observed are not necessarily connected to the existence of adult businesses. Rather, pushing all unacceptable business into one section of a city, the poorest section, seems to be more a formula for the amorphous "blight" Mr. Cohen continually speaks of. A good theoretical topic to consider is the difference between an upscale bar and a dive. An argument about the relative merits of a bar in a neighborhood would be disingenuous if it painted all bars with the same broad brush. This debate may be more about packaging than content.

The issue, as I see it, is not conjuring up moralistic spectres with the goal of content-specific legislation. Consider for a moment another theoretical example. If, in the early 1950s, a communist group sought to open a book store across the street from Bridge Street School, there like would have been much community outcry, with similar rhetoric about protecting children from misguided attitudes and subversive characters. Would zoning an unpopular political group out of town be seen as anything other than censorship, even if the opposition groups assured the community that the material was "still widely available, particularly for anyone who has cable TV, a satellite dish, or access to the internet?" What of people who prefer to purchase hard copies of adult material? Many people have difficulty reading material on computer screens. Who wants to curl up in bed at night with a laptop rather than a book orreference magazine, be it the latest issue of Penthouse or the New York Times.

Further, the history of restrictive, content-specific legislation shows a slippery slope toward increasing restriction of our freedoms. The idea that such laws can be "loosened" down the road ignores the role of precendence in jurisprudence- laws are far easier to make than to unmake. How will we know when the law has gone too far? Shouldn't the zoning board be more concerned with content-neutral legislation which improves the quality of life in our city generally rather than specifically targeting one unpopular business?

I do not accept NPN's assertion that because of a high percentage of advanced degrees in the community we should have "little concern" about our freedoms being eroded. The claim is spurious. Germany was considered one of the most "educated" countries in Europe. It did not prevent the rise of Nazism. How will we know (and agree upon) when the law needs to be "loosened?" After all, there are reasonable and intelligent individuals on both sides of the present debate. NoPornNorthampton fails toprovide any practical guidance in this respect.

The argument regarding education further betrays the elitism of NPN. An anti-pornography voice (Shoshana Marchand, quoted in the September 22, 2006 edition of the Hampshire Daily Gazette) betrays the elitist underpinnings of the anti-free speech movement saying "[i]f the store existed out at Big Y plaza or anywhere else, I wouldn't have a problem with it." In other words, crime, blight and harassment of passers-by becomes more acceptable the closer it gets to the more underprivileged parts of King Street.

NPN's eloquent language about striking a balance between free speech and other interests soft pedals their preferences for even more restrictive measures against sexually explicit materials be they books or videos. Much of the website is dedicated not to a discussion of bettering the community using zoning laws, or even the secondary effects of such businesses on the surrounding neighborhood. Rather, NPN contains several prolonged attacks against the adult entertainment industry because they do not approve of the content. They have identified pornography as "hate speech" in their protests, a statement which should provoke a scandal among ethnic, racial and sexual minorities in the community.

NPN believes that adult women make the choice to appear in pornography because of their "judgment clouded by drugs, sexual abuse and our pornified culture." When reading such rhetoric it seems appropriate to ask who considers women adults who are capable of making their own choices, with judgment as clear as men's, in a manner that will not always be popular and who considers women easily duped children in need of extraordinary state protection. Don't take my word for it, go to their website.

NPN's rhetoric downplays their lack of opposition to such proven threats to the community as Wal-Mart and McDonalds by resorting to discredited, right-wing rhetoric about the adult entertainment industry. Anyone convinced that NPN paints an accurate picture of the adult entertainment industry unmotivated by ideology is directed to the writings of feminist porn stars Nina Hartley and Annie Sprinkle, the relevant section of Susan Faludi's seminal study of the post-war American male, Stiffed or any number of feminist writers who do not model women as helpless victims.

The "borderline legal status of the industry" which "makes performers reluctant to seek redress in court" is perpetuated by NPN and similar forces which push adult entertainment into such quasi-legaal status by creating sex panics. I little wonder why adult entertainment businesses become associated with questionable characters, similar to gambling or alcohol in the earlier part of the century.

NPN not so deftly dodges the issue of the exploitation and oppression of women and children at the hands of ideology and religion, citing a supposed lack of evidence that religions and ideologies are as or more harmful than adult entertainment. While not wishing to start a debate over the relative merits of religious and secular ideologies, it seems worth pointing to the conflict in Ulster, the recent scandals in the Catholic Church, the chattel status of women in many parts of the Islamic world, the 30 Years War, the Crusades or the forced conversion of Northern Europe to Christianity. Such examples are but the tip of the iceberg.

I welcome an open and transparent discussion of the issues. The secondary effects of all large businesses moving into town should be taken into effect both in the general and the specific. However, it seems that (intentionally or not) NPN is more likely to start a sexual witch hunt than protect women and children. If NPN seeks to marginalize and stigmatize specific lifestyle choices or forms of expression I merely ask that they stand up before the people of the community and state the (pun intended) naked truth. Their posturing that this is anything but censorship quickly falls flat when closely examined.

Shouldn't the city be nore concerned with content-neutral legislation which improves the quality of life in our city generally rather than specifically targeting one unpopular business?

Anti-Porn Activists Want to Decide for Everyone Else

The following letter was published today in the Hampshire Daily Gazette. The author argues against Feminist Action Mobilization and NoPornNorthampton, in favor of personal choice. The letter is reprinted in its entirely by permission from the author.

To the Editor:

The town's Puritans are at it again, protesting the proposed Capital Video location in Northampton, using tired old arguments created out of whole cloth by the Christian Right, and without irony. The outlandish claim that adult films contribute to sexual violence has been refuted time and again by mainstream clinical psychiatry. Further, they demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of women in the adult film industry. In fact, women are often paid more than and have a far longer "shelf life" than their male counterparts.

In a world where most sexual predators are not at Amazing Video but in the nuclear family, it is misleading to assingn blame for sexual violence on the adult entertainment industry.

But ultimately this is all beside the point. Any thinking person has trouble figuring out what is best for themselves in an increasingly complex and nuanced world. Every non-thinking person has no problem deciding what's best for everyone else. It seems clear what type of people these anti-sex activists are.

Nicholas Pell
Northampton

Australian Study on "Objectification" of Women

Many residents of the city are rightfully concerned about the relationship between pornography and women. These concerns sometimes have nothing to do with the individual women in the films, concentrating instead on the broader social effects of pornography, women and violence. The following article, from the highly respected Journal of Sex Research argues against the conventional wisdom that the women in these films are treated as sexual objects, taking into account the harder, more graphic nature of contemporary pornography.

AN Australian study has cast doubt on the commonly held view that pornography shows women as nothing more than sex objects.

The study, to be published in the noted international Journal of Sex Research, analysed 50 of the bestselling pornographic videos in Australia to find out whether people were represented as sex objects.

Queensland University Professor Alan McKee, who led the study, said researchers compared the way women and men were represented in each video.

They noted such things as who initiated the sex, whose pleasure was paid attention to, whether people in the videos got to speak about what they wanted during sex and whose perspective the videos were presented from.

“We were surprised at just how active and in control the women were in these videos,” Prof McKee said today.

“This study suggests that mainstream pornography in Australia doesn’t represent women as sex objects, it shows them as active sexual agents.”

The findings are part of a three-year government-funded study - the most comprehensive of its kind - on pornography in Australia.

Interim results released in 2003 on the content of pornographic movies found super-size breasts scare some men, conservative voters love dirty magazines and adult videos have realistic plots.

Dr Alan McKee said those initial results had shattered the “dirty old man in a trenchcoat” stereotype of pornographic consumers.

Of the 320 respondents who said they used mainstream porn, 20 per cent were younger women, 33 per cent were married, 93 per cent believed in gender equality and 63 per cent considered themselves to be religious.

The researchers pored over the same 50 top-selling porn videos to analyse their plots and found most were believable and empowering for the fairer sex.

Most videos were imported from the US and bought through mail order companies in the ACT.

Dr McKee said most respondents were Liberal/National voters, which was interesting given those political parties were anti-porn.

The final results about the content of the movies will be released next year, and written into a popular culture book, with an executive summary to be given to the Federal Government.

(Reposted from Doug Henwood Talks)

It seems important to consider the facts when discussing the proposed zoning legislation rather than caving to irrational fears and propaganda. The study, is extensive and points in a direction which may seem counterintuitive, but is supported by clinical research:

(Full Text of Report at Find Articles)

The Sex Panic

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

An Open Letter to Nopornnorthampton

An Open Letter To Nopornnorthampton

Dear Nopornnorthampton:

Your point of view makes many valid points. Harm results from porn just as much as harm results from the production and consumption of goods in many other industries, such as the alcoholic beverage industry.

But pornographic material does make a social statement that sex, even uncommitted and so-called deviant sex, can be and is good for us and should be enjoyed without guilt and shame by those who wish to engage in it. Disagree with this point of view as you wish, but you should not have the right to deny First Amendment protection to adult material equal to your own.

You state that you would not banish “erotica” that you define as sexually explicit material depicting romantic love between committed couples. But one person's version of acceptable erotica is another person's porn. One should be able to browse the erotic material of their choice in any form as readily as any other type of material offered in hard copy downtown, particularly because for many of us living downtown the usual mode of transportation is by foot.

While I am not interested in most of what Capital Video offers, the proposed changes to the zoning law which you support may effectively zone out of our downtown area the stores most likely to carry the material many of us consider desirable erotica. Be careful, Nopornnorthampton, lest you throw the baby (our freedom) out with the dirty bath water. Your “erotica” is next.

Make no mistake - obstructing access to pornographic material by zoning it to the outskirts of town is, as a practical matter, actual and real censorship. If the subject matter of the material of the establish was solely religious or ideological in nature no one would seriously contend that zoning it to the outskirts of town represented anything but wrongful censorship. So, stop continuing to insult us by claiming that it not censorship. It is.

Indeed, more harm has been committed against women and children, past and present, by and in the name of religion and ideology than all the porn put together ever did.

Furthermore, the revolting or degrading nature of the material does not justify its banishment. Gay erotica is degrading and revolting to many heterosexual men, but no one would dare draft an ordinance banning homosexual erotica in this town. The truth is that when people justify banishment of pornography to protect women and children, they usually are merely seeking to protect themselves from the embarrassment or shame they feel about sex.

I also wish to see the King Street area improved upon. But instead of targeting the expressive content of the wares the King Street vendors offer inside their establishments, let’s work together on zoning requirements and restrictions which may improve the area, such as signage and storefront specifications, rather than dally with governmental restrictions that raise the specter of censorship.

Yours sincerely,

A. C.

Pro-Sex Feminism: Redefining Pornography

In beginning to think sensible about the proposed adult entertainment store on King Street it seems worth reading this gem. The article questions the antiquaited notions of gender inherent in the anti-sex argument. It also provides a sharp and insightful look at exactly who is saying that women are "exploited" by the adult entertainment industry. This is a must read for anyone seeking to oppose the forces of sexual repression running loose in our town. Reprinted below are the introductory paragraphs to Michele Gregory's so-called "pro-pornography position paper."

“Feminism must not focus solely on what men have done to women. [It] must continuously seek ways in which women can unleash their own imaginary from the constraints that have been imposed upon them through rigid definitions of femininity.” — Drucilla Cornell

Censoring pornography will not only fail in preventing sexual violence but will also restrict the sexual expression of women and halt the progress of feminism. Censorship is a step back when all feminists should be making progress within this patriarchy. This does not mean that all pornography is inoffensive, but that bringing the law into what should only be a question of morality and opinion is dangerous. If it becomes necessary to strictly regulate pornographic materials by law, this will lead to restrictions in other areas of expression. Pornography is not a mind control device making sex offenders attack women. It is a realm, when used correctly, for the expression of a person’s fantasies without them actively participating in things that would be questionable in reality. There would be no need for a paper on this subject if every feminist agreed with the above statements (or found their differences to be slight) and others supporting and branching off from them. The evening news is hardly ever riddled with headlines like, “Top, Bottom, or Both: How Do You Butter Your Toast?” The problem is that not all feminist see eye to eye on the issue of pornography. Even this is a gross understatement when examining the heated arguments over this question.

The debate over whether pornography should be censored has been a significant dividing point among all feminists. There are three main factions within this debate. Anti-porn/pro-censorship, liberal, and pro-sex/pro-pornography feminists differ on what should be done about pornography and whether it is a main cause of sexual violence against women. An attempt to define and promote pro-sex feminism follows. A pro-sex feminist view of the pornography issue must begin with a definition of the word pornography. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, pornography is: “1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. 2. The presentation or production of this material. 3. Lurid or sensational material” (Bartleby.com, [1]). This can be contrasted with the American Heritage definition for obscene, “1. Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty. 2. Inciting lustful feelings; lewd. 3. Repulsive; disgusting...4. So large in amount as to be objectionable or outrageous” (Bartleby.com, [2]). While some feminists may consider pornography to be “repulsive” and “disgusting,” there is a marked difference between the two words. Even further, it can be argued that the distinction between something being pornographic or obscene is simply a difference of opinion.

Full text at Wit's End Zine

Thus I Refute Chyng Sun

A big brain in the adult entertainment industry almost since it's inception, Nina Hartley has an unassailable record as a free-speech and feminist activist. Read her recent article refuting the same tired, anti-sex arguments we're hearing a lot of in Northampton and ask yourself who (if anyone) is being "exploited."

It was with a growing sense of outrage that I read Prof.Chyng Sun's report of her visit this past January to the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas. I couldn't help wondering it the author had done any prior research whatsoever into the active, twenty-year debate among women over the impact of pornography on their individual lives and their status as a gender. There's nothing new in her indignation, nothing fresh in her insights and nothing unfamiliar in her arguments. As a sex-worker and sex-worker advocate for over two decades, I've heard and read it all before.

The professor appears wholly unfamiliar with the work of accomplished, feminist women who reject her fundamental contentions about porn and sex-work. If she bothered to consider the writings of Nadine Strossen, Carol Queen, Pat Califia, Susie Bright, Wendy McElroy, Sallie Tisdale, Linda Williams, Annie Sprinkle, myself and others, her homework wasn't reflected in what she showed me. Clearly, testimony that failed to corroborate her pre-conceived notions of what porn is "really" about, or what it "really" means didn't register on her radar screen.

I am an R.N., a third-generation feminist and a First-Amendment activist as well as a porn performer with the longest continuous career in the history of the industry. I'm easy to find. In fact, I was in one place for four hours each day on the floor at AEE. She certainly found my husband, writer-director I.S. Levine, (whose videos and magazines appear under the name Ernest Greene). At her request, he granted her a two-hour, on-camera interview in good faith, hoping but not expecting to receive an open-minded hearing. Why did Professor Sun not speak to me? Could it be because she knew that my very existence argues against her core assertions? Where was the honest, fearless intellectual curiousity that is hallmark of the pioneering academic researcher?

Full Text at Counterpunch