Editors note: Ueshiba declared, "To control aggression without inflicting injury is the Art of Peace." Aikido is the marital art where one meets aggression with an effective but merciful response, and a means of finding harmony in conflict. In the following I justify why, as a practical matter, the City should try aikido in this instance where our rights of free speech and expression are at stake rather using crude zoning laws.
Dear Readers (and Critics):
I have thought a lot about the local planning control and economic development concerns many people have had with respect to adult establishments. I think the City should take a case by case approach, rather than acting upon the presumption that all adult establishments over 1,000 square feet are bad. After all, if public presumption were to rule the day, the world would still be flat.
The 135 King Street area is not exactly an upscale or residential strip, littered with empty lots, auto, hardware, muffler, fast food, etc. shops as it is. But for those of us who would like to see it improved upon, such as myself, many of us seem to believe a Cap Video store would be step in the wrong direction. I think it depends upon what Cap Video would actually do there.
Most of us assume adult establishments will be seedy, shoddy, etc. places, if not downright threatening. But this is not always the case. As you drive or walk by many of them you probably do not even notice the more upscale or quainter adult establishments which do not fit into your preconceptions. Adult establishments can be non-threatening and inoffensive on the outside and tasteful (no pun intended) and fun on the inside; some prefer to call these adult establishments “spas,” “clubs” or “sensuality shops,” for example.
As I understand it, the City’s long term plans for that section of King Street are for it to become more residential orientated and pedestrian, like the core of downtown is. I dare say a full sized sensuality shop at 135 King Street may advance the City’s hope and dreams for that section of King Street more than hurt them. It will draw many more pedestrian travelers and drive-by shoppers from downtown to stop and shop in that area than there are now. And with that pedestrian and other traffic will come the trendier retail establishments and other development that better fits into the City’s vision for that section of King Street.
As the United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals remarked in a recent case, Peek-A-Boo Lounge v. Manatee County: “The evidence in the record relating to conditions in Fulton County shows unequivocally that property values in neighborhoods adjoining the Clubs have increased during the time the Clubs have been in existence, and that surrounding buildings show no signs of blight, or lack of physical maintenance.”
While I still am upset that Mr. G has not come to town and stood up to face the fire of public opinion, like many of us have, I shared our local planning control and economic development concerns with the attorney for Cap Video. I received the following from the General Counsel of Cap Video:
Dear Peter:
We sincerely appreciate your efforts, and your presentation of the issues. As Capital Video has developed stores, it has definitely been moving in the direction of a "Sensuality Shop". We have a few of these currently, including on Rte 9 in Northboro, MA; on Rte 1 in Peabody, MA; and a store off of Rte 95 in Providence, RI. These stores are presented in a much more mainstream manner, much like one would see in a Victoria Secret in a mall, with pleasant colors, music, carpeting. These stores carry a wide variety of adult novelty items, along with lingerie, gag gifts like one finds at Spencer Gifts, greeting cards, lotions, games, along with the so-called "porn". We even sell higher priced original erotic and sensual art and memorabilia in some stores.
We most certainly intend on opening an 'upscale' store in Northhampton, and would be very receptive to discussions with the community on the look, feel and the approach that the store presents to the community.
Unfortunately we have been short circuited in the process by the presentation of the ordinances that do not allow for any discussion.
Your efforts to establish a dialogue with the council and mayor are appreciated. I am available at most any time to sit and discuss different approaches to the issues, and to design a store that would not be offensive to the neighborhood and the community.
Please contact me at any time to discuss this further.
Lesley S. Rich, Esq., CPA
General Counsel
Metcap Management, LLC
1060 Park Avenue
Cranston, RI 02910
In light of this offer by Mr. Rich, for the City Council to take action here likely to result in needless litigation in this instance is just plain political convenience or grandstanding rather than responsible public service.
I think its time, even for the City Council Members who would ban adult materials entirely if they could, to put on hold their plans to pass the proposed adult entertainment zoning until the City and Cap Video have tried to work out a plan which will advance their respective interests and goals for 135 King Street and the surrounding area.
Yours/AC
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Adult Businesses and Crime
Editors note: Here's something that Andrew Shelffo posted at MassLive today.
There's been a lot of discussion about the so-called "secondary effects" of adult businesses in Northampton. The argument goes like this: if the City Council doesn't pass the zoning ordinances before it on Thursday and Capital Video opens on King St., then Northampton will be subjected to an increase in crime. It's worth noting, however, that Northampton already has adult businesses operating in town and has not seen evidence of secondary effects.
The NoPorn people will tell you, however, that's because the adult businesses in town are not run by Capital Video. I am not defending Capital Video and its business practices, but I did notice this week that Warwick, Rhode Island, which has a Capital Video store, was just ranked at the 42nd safest city in the country. In addition, Springfield announced last week that crime has been down this year. Yes, there is a Capital Video store in Springfield.
Today's Republican reports that Springfield's Police Chief is upset with Springfield's place on the safest cities' list. He does not, however, blame adult businesses for the city's low rankings. "We've got the same hot spots that everybody's got," Chief Flynn says.
It's quite possible that for all of the "evidence" NoPorn has presented about secondary effects, that it's far from a foregone conclusion that the sky will indeed fall if an adult business opens on King St.
There's been a lot of discussion about the so-called "secondary effects" of adult businesses in Northampton. The argument goes like this: if the City Council doesn't pass the zoning ordinances before it on Thursday and Capital Video opens on King St., then Northampton will be subjected to an increase in crime. It's worth noting, however, that Northampton already has adult businesses operating in town and has not seen evidence of secondary effects.
The NoPorn people will tell you, however, that's because the adult businesses in town are not run by Capital Video. I am not defending Capital Video and its business practices, but I did notice this week that Warwick, Rhode Island, which has a Capital Video store, was just ranked at the 42nd safest city in the country. In addition, Springfield announced last week that crime has been down this year. Yes, there is a Capital Video store in Springfield.
Today's Republican reports that Springfield's Police Chief is upset with Springfield's place on the safest cities' list. He does not, however, blame adult businesses for the city's low rankings. "We've got the same hot spots that everybody's got," Chief Flynn says.
It's quite possible that for all of the "evidence" NoPorn has presented about secondary effects, that it's far from a foregone conclusion that the sky will indeed fall if an adult business opens on King St.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Final Vote on Moslem Zoning Thursday!
Editors note: The Adventures of the partners, Adam Cohen and Peter Brooks, continue. If you are not familiar with this saga, read the posting titled “Erotica Specialty Store Raided; former Mayor Higgins Mystified” at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/09/erotic-specialty-store-raided-former.html
From the Mrs. Potterville Gazette, October 30, 2011, by A.C.
The City Council will take a second vote this coming Thursday on the proposal to zone Islamic establishments 500 feet from any non-Islamic church/house of worship, day care center, park, playground, school, residence, or other Islamic establishment. Islamic establishments with display and Islamic activity areas under 1,000 square feet would be exempt from the proposal. The first vote was 6 to 3 in favor of the proposal.
The proposal followed swiftly upon the heels of the announcement by Adam “Allah” Cohen and Peter “The Prophet” Brooks to open an Islamic mosque and book, video and novelty store at 135 King Street, the A & P Islamic Prayer & Poetry Center. Adam “Allah” Cohen is the former partner of Jendi Reiter, who mobilized the neighborhood against the plans for the Center with her website, NoMoslemNorthampton.org.
Readers may recall that before becoming Allah and The Prophet, Adam and Peter formerly operated a small porn and poetry shop at the same location and sublet the balance of the premises to a drug store, Dolly’s, but nonetheless ran afoul of Mrs. Potterville’s adult establishment zoning regulations.
Upon their arrest, Adam and Peter voluntarily undertook the Treatment. The Treatment is the reeducation camp program where, we previously reported, former Council Member Bardsley inadvertently found himself after being mistakenly caught in one of Mrs. Pottersville’s Vice Squad sting operations.
Impressed with their progress, neighborhood judge Marianne “The Merciful" Richards let Adam and Peter keep the 135 King Street property and their homes, but she could not ignore her constituents’ demands that they be punished and sentenced them to no less than 2 years.
According to Adam and Peter, while serving their time and obsessed with thoughts about how to protect women and children from pornography, they talked with the Islamic members of their new community. They were very moved by Islam’s concern for protecting women from men’s prurient interests by requiring women to wear the burka and the hijab, and be veiled, among other things. So, they converted.
Now they are determined to make 135 King Street an Islamic center for prayer, sermons, books, videos, and novelties, like knifes, swords and whips used for meting out justice in accordance with Islamic law and custom. They purchased the Northampton franchise rights from an Islamic center franchisor, Fatwa Video.
Many believe the head of Fatwa Video, Mr. “Big Bucks” Ghaalib, is associated with al-Qaeda because he formerly had business relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is known that he even dined with Osama bin Laden. They are positive that the Fatwa Video store will be just a money laundering operation or large billboard for the website on a heavily traveled artery of the City. As Mr. Bill said, “why would they want to establish a large scale Islamic center here?”
The original plans for the Center included a social lounge exclusively for men of all faiths to visit. For free they could chat as they shared a cup of coffee and smoked from the hooka, or “relax as the belly dancers entertained them when nothing important is on the television, like a Patriots or Red Sox game.” Peter continued, “We do have our neighborhood entertainment priorities straight!”
But, community outrage against the social lounge for a number of reasons prompted the pair to delete the social lounge from the plans. Nonetheelss, said one employee of the nearby body shop, “We’re really bummed about that ...” Fatwa Video’s representative protested, “The men no touch the dancers. If they do, we cut off their fingers!”
The neighbors became alarmed when they visited the Fatwa Video website and saw that its stock included magazines and videos that graphically depicted and celebrated female circumcision and the defacement -- even the tortured murder -- of errant women, and other corporal measures, such as the beheadings of infidel Christians and Jews found in Islamic lands.
But most of all, they objected to the dark robed men armed with knives “already streaming” into the neighborhood, visions of pro-jihad murals and graffiti splashed across the storefront and to “those damn shrieking” calls to prayer. Adam protested, “Neither murals nor loudspeakers are included in the plan, and no one complains about the clanging of those ‘damn’ infidel church bells! So, …”
Many citizens, particularly if accompanied by children, say they will avoid walking or even driving past the Center. The City’s Memorandum justifying the proposed zoning by its Planning Director states in pertinent part:
“Because the large scale Islamic Establishments greater than 1,000 square feet have the tendency to create blank, inactive voids in the street fabric due to their size and façade treatments it is important to ensure that such establishments are not located within 500 feet of such walkable neighborhoods that include churches, residences or schools. These voids discourage walking or decrease the number of trips that are done without a car or are done by younger children on their own, …”
“Additionally, the secondary effects of larger scale Islamic establishments with Islamic material often include impacts to adjoining businesses that may result in economic decline and declining property values which further spread the inactive void along the street façade. This economic decline may be less serious in areas where everyone drives and is cloistered from the effects of nearby business, but in Mrs. Pottersville where many people walk, and we are investing large sums to increase the number of trips done on foot (and by bicycle) the impacts would be devastating. …”
In an earlier radio debate Jendi Reiter claimed that Adam and Peter have “no right to subject her neighborhood to excessive physical risks, risks documented at NoMoslemNorthampton.org.” and that “the relocation of the Fatwa Video store to the outskirts of town will be but a slight inconvenience.”
Adam retorted, “You act like you own the neighborhood. Jendi, you don’t.” Peter and Adam also live near 135 King Street. In fact, closer than 134 North Street where Jendi and Adam lived together.
Peter protested that the public which they wish to reach are the pedestrians and bicyclers who roam the downtown area, as well as drive-by shoppers who may pass the Center as they come and go from the downtown area. “After all,” said Peter, “if you are not already a follower of Muhammad the Prophet, would you make a special trip to an Islamic Center somewhere behind the Wal-Mart?”
Adam further claimed that “the Center should draw many more pedestrian travelers, albeit many at first who are Islamic, out further down King Street from the downtown area in accordance with the City’s goals for the City.”
In public hearings on the matter, the City’s Planning Director has identified, albeit vaguely, two places where he believes the Center could be located under the proposed zoning ordinance, but has not released any definitive study about either the presumed secondary effects or the availability of places where the Center could be located. Indeed, as Peter pointed out in the radio debate, “who knows even if the owners of those alternative locations would sell or lease to us? If not, what then? What purpose does the First Amendment serve if a City can, as a practical matter, zone you out of town?”
In the radio debate, Adam, tried to finish it off with a philosophical flourish, “If a tree falls in the forest, it doesn’t make a sound if there is no one there to hear it!”
“Adam,” Peter said, “I think its ‘If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?'”
“But, Peter ….”
“Whatever!”
In other news, President Cheney invited Mayor Mrs. Potter, one of the leading socially conservative “red” democrats, to visit the White House and boost her campaign for Governor …
From the Mrs. Potterville Gazette, October 30, 2011, by A.C.
The City Council will take a second vote this coming Thursday on the proposal to zone Islamic establishments 500 feet from any non-Islamic church/house of worship, day care center, park, playground, school, residence, or other Islamic establishment. Islamic establishments with display and Islamic activity areas under 1,000 square feet would be exempt from the proposal. The first vote was 6 to 3 in favor of the proposal.
The proposal followed swiftly upon the heels of the announcement by Adam “Allah” Cohen and Peter “The Prophet” Brooks to open an Islamic mosque and book, video and novelty store at 135 King Street, the A & P Islamic Prayer & Poetry Center. Adam “Allah” Cohen is the former partner of Jendi Reiter, who mobilized the neighborhood against the plans for the Center with her website, NoMoslemNorthampton.org.
Readers may recall that before becoming Allah and The Prophet, Adam and Peter formerly operated a small porn and poetry shop at the same location and sublet the balance of the premises to a drug store, Dolly’s, but nonetheless ran afoul of Mrs. Potterville’s adult establishment zoning regulations.
Upon their arrest, Adam and Peter voluntarily undertook the Treatment. The Treatment is the reeducation camp program where, we previously reported, former Council Member Bardsley inadvertently found himself after being mistakenly caught in one of Mrs. Pottersville’s Vice Squad sting operations.
Impressed with their progress, neighborhood judge Marianne “The Merciful" Richards let Adam and Peter keep the 135 King Street property and their homes, but she could not ignore her constituents’ demands that they be punished and sentenced them to no less than 2 years.
According to Adam and Peter, while serving their time and obsessed with thoughts about how to protect women and children from pornography, they talked with the Islamic members of their new community. They were very moved by Islam’s concern for protecting women from men’s prurient interests by requiring women to wear the burka and the hijab, and be veiled, among other things. So, they converted.
Now they are determined to make 135 King Street an Islamic center for prayer, sermons, books, videos, and novelties, like knifes, swords and whips used for meting out justice in accordance with Islamic law and custom. They purchased the Northampton franchise rights from an Islamic center franchisor, Fatwa Video.
Many believe the head of Fatwa Video, Mr. “Big Bucks” Ghaalib, is associated with al-Qaeda because he formerly had business relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is known that he even dined with Osama bin Laden. They are positive that the Fatwa Video store will be just a money laundering operation or large billboard for the website on a heavily traveled artery of the City. As Mr. Bill said, “why would they want to establish a large scale Islamic center here?”
The original plans for the Center included a social lounge exclusively for men of all faiths to visit. For free they could chat as they shared a cup of coffee and smoked from the hooka, or “relax as the belly dancers entertained them when nothing important is on the television, like a Patriots or Red Sox game.” Peter continued, “We do have our neighborhood entertainment priorities straight!”
But, community outrage against the social lounge for a number of reasons prompted the pair to delete the social lounge from the plans. Nonetheelss, said one employee of the nearby body shop, “We’re really bummed about that ...” Fatwa Video’s representative protested, “The men no touch the dancers. If they do, we cut off their fingers!”
The neighbors became alarmed when they visited the Fatwa Video website and saw that its stock included magazines and videos that graphically depicted and celebrated female circumcision and the defacement -- even the tortured murder -- of errant women, and other corporal measures, such as the beheadings of infidel Christians and Jews found in Islamic lands.
But most of all, they objected to the dark robed men armed with knives “already streaming” into the neighborhood, visions of pro-jihad murals and graffiti splashed across the storefront and to “those damn shrieking” calls to prayer. Adam protested, “Neither murals nor loudspeakers are included in the plan, and no one complains about the clanging of those ‘damn’ infidel church bells! So, …”
Many citizens, particularly if accompanied by children, say they will avoid walking or even driving past the Center. The City’s Memorandum justifying the proposed zoning by its Planning Director states in pertinent part:
“Because the large scale Islamic Establishments greater than 1,000 square feet have the tendency to create blank, inactive voids in the street fabric due to their size and façade treatments it is important to ensure that such establishments are not located within 500 feet of such walkable neighborhoods that include churches, residences or schools. These voids discourage walking or decrease the number of trips that are done without a car or are done by younger children on their own, …”
“Additionally, the secondary effects of larger scale Islamic establishments with Islamic material often include impacts to adjoining businesses that may result in economic decline and declining property values which further spread the inactive void along the street façade. This economic decline may be less serious in areas where everyone drives and is cloistered from the effects of nearby business, but in Mrs. Pottersville where many people walk, and we are investing large sums to increase the number of trips done on foot (and by bicycle) the impacts would be devastating. …”
In an earlier radio debate Jendi Reiter claimed that Adam and Peter have “no right to subject her neighborhood to excessive physical risks, risks documented at NoMoslemNorthampton.org.” and that “the relocation of the Fatwa Video store to the outskirts of town will be but a slight inconvenience.”
Adam retorted, “You act like you own the neighborhood. Jendi, you don’t.” Peter and Adam also live near 135 King Street. In fact, closer than 134 North Street where Jendi and Adam lived together.
Peter protested that the public which they wish to reach are the pedestrians and bicyclers who roam the downtown area, as well as drive-by shoppers who may pass the Center as they come and go from the downtown area. “After all,” said Peter, “if you are not already a follower of Muhammad the Prophet, would you make a special trip to an Islamic Center somewhere behind the Wal-Mart?”
Adam further claimed that “the Center should draw many more pedestrian travelers, albeit many at first who are Islamic, out further down King Street from the downtown area in accordance with the City’s goals for the City.”
In public hearings on the matter, the City’s Planning Director has identified, albeit vaguely, two places where he believes the Center could be located under the proposed zoning ordinance, but has not released any definitive study about either the presumed secondary effects or the availability of places where the Center could be located. Indeed, as Peter pointed out in the radio debate, “who knows even if the owners of those alternative locations would sell or lease to us? If not, what then? What purpose does the First Amendment serve if a City can, as a practical matter, zone you out of town?”
In the radio debate, Adam, tried to finish it off with a philosophical flourish, “If a tree falls in the forest, it doesn’t make a sound if there is no one there to hear it!”
“Adam,” Peter said, “I think its ‘If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?'”
“But, Peter ….”
“Whatever!”
In other news, President Cheney invited Mayor Mrs. Potter, one of the leading socially conservative “red” democrats, to visit the White House and boost her campaign for Governor …
My Experience With Breast Cancer
The Gazette today published a letter to the editor by Tarn Martin, who wrote, "I understand that people are having a difficult time with the idea of a porn shop moving into town but, honestly, shouldn't we be putting our efforts toward something that is truly work fighting for, such as breast cancer." Four years ago in October of 2002 my beloved, Siyeta, passed away from breast cancer after a seven year battle. I think in the end she was just tired of it all, the kemo, the red tape, the etc. She just wanted to live a normal life again which she did for a number of months before the lack of regular kemo treatments ... I'd just like to share with you all a couple of special things that I learned from the experience that may help.
First, in 2000 when Siyeta was thin and frail and falling out of bed and could not get out of the tub on her own and the doctors had exhausted all the kemo options ... she learned of a dietary supplement called MGN-3 that had helped a friend of a friend ... She began to take significant quantities of it daily and over the next few months, in combination with the kemo treatments, she remarkably recovered. It helped boost her immune system. MGN-3 is no longer on the market, the distributor having run afoul of the FDA, but I believe with a little research you can find virtually the same supplement under a different name from a different distributor.
Second, I discovered a wonderful support organization called CancerCare. CancerCare is a national nonprofit organization that provides free, professional support services for anyone affected by cancer. Although I learned of it too late to save Siyeta, in her case at least it enabled us to cut through the red tape of social services in her final weeks so she could rest comfortably in the care of the hospital and doctors she preferred. I just can't express how great my appreciation for them is .... Here's their contact info: Call 1-800-813-HOPE or email info@cancercare.org.
Yours/AC
First, in 2000 when Siyeta was thin and frail and falling out of bed and could not get out of the tub on her own and the doctors had exhausted all the kemo options ... she learned of a dietary supplement called MGN-3 that had helped a friend of a friend ... She began to take significant quantities of it daily and over the next few months, in combination with the kemo treatments, she remarkably recovered. It helped boost her immune system. MGN-3 is no longer on the market, the distributor having run afoul of the FDA, but I believe with a little research you can find virtually the same supplement under a different name from a different distributor.
Second, I discovered a wonderful support organization called CancerCare. CancerCare is a national nonprofit organization that provides free, professional support services for anyone affected by cancer. Although I learned of it too late to save Siyeta, in her case at least it enabled us to cut through the red tape of social services in her final weeks so she could rest comfortably in the care of the hospital and doctors she preferred. I just can't express how great my appreciation for them is .... Here's their contact info: Call 1-800-813-HOPE or email info@cancercare.org.
Yours/AC
Saturday, October 28, 2006
A Parent's Concern That Fear Is Driving The City Council
Editors note: Here are the comments that Andrew Shelffo made before the City Council at its last meeting before it voted 6 to 3 for the proposed zoning concering adult book and video stores, etc. Andrew lives not far from me and 135 King Street in Northampton with his wife and two children. He is also the author of The Prospect Perspective Blog on Masslive.com.
The link to his blog is: http://www.masslive.com/northampton/prospect/weblog/
I come here tonight to speak about the proposed zoning ordinance regarding the size and location of adult businesses. I come here not as a pro-porn person or an anti-porn person, but as a husband and father who lives near the King St. location.
When I first heard about the store proposed for King Street, my immediate reaction was that I didn't want it to be there. I have two young children and I envisioned having to have uncomfortable conversations with them about what "that store" is all about. I didn't think that having the store there would be a good thing for parents who go by that location with their children; there are some things, after all, that parents should have the right to explain to their children on their own terms and not be forced by external circumstances.
However, as the debate has gone on and I've done some research on the subject and thought about the consequences involved in trying to regulate this material and the very real first amendment issues involved, I've found that my position has evolved. And as anyone who's a parent knows, that's a major part of parenting: the need to adjust your beliefs in the face of new challenges as you struggle to deal with the day-to-day stuff. In addition to that, thanks to the recent protests and the headlines in the newspapers, I've had initial conversations with my older son about what pornography is. And I've realized that having that conversation is important and represents an important opportunity for me to teach my children about some of the more uncomfortable things in the world.
The fact of the matter is that pornography of all stripes exists in our society and is readily available in Northampton. The proposed regulations will do nothing to change that. And the suggestion that the regulations will "protect" us and our children from pornography is fear-mongering at its worst. Pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry that has grown tremendously in recent years. If pornography is as harmful as some people would suggest, we would expect to see a resulting rise in sexual offenses and sexual deviance in people who've been exposed to pornography, but this has not happened. What has happened is that the media has become enamored of sensationalism and the most lurid and disgusting stories get the most attention. This, too, plays upon people's fears.
And that's what I see happening here. Fear has turned into panic and we're scrambling to try and come up with an ordinance that will protect us from something we don't need to be protected from. That, to me, is a bad way to make laws.
The link to his blog is: http://www.masslive.com/northampton/prospect/weblog/
I come here tonight to speak about the proposed zoning ordinance regarding the size and location of adult businesses. I come here not as a pro-porn person or an anti-porn person, but as a husband and father who lives near the King St. location.
When I first heard about the store proposed for King Street, my immediate reaction was that I didn't want it to be there. I have two young children and I envisioned having to have uncomfortable conversations with them about what "that store" is all about. I didn't think that having the store there would be a good thing for parents who go by that location with their children; there are some things, after all, that parents should have the right to explain to their children on their own terms and not be forced by external circumstances.
However, as the debate has gone on and I've done some research on the subject and thought about the consequences involved in trying to regulate this material and the very real first amendment issues involved, I've found that my position has evolved. And as anyone who's a parent knows, that's a major part of parenting: the need to adjust your beliefs in the face of new challenges as you struggle to deal with the day-to-day stuff. In addition to that, thanks to the recent protests and the headlines in the newspapers, I've had initial conversations with my older son about what pornography is. And I've realized that having that conversation is important and represents an important opportunity for me to teach my children about some of the more uncomfortable things in the world.
The fact of the matter is that pornography of all stripes exists in our society and is readily available in Northampton. The proposed regulations will do nothing to change that. And the suggestion that the regulations will "protect" us and our children from pornography is fear-mongering at its worst. Pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry that has grown tremendously in recent years. If pornography is as harmful as some people would suggest, we would expect to see a resulting rise in sexual offenses and sexual deviance in people who've been exposed to pornography, but this has not happened. What has happened is that the media has become enamored of sensationalism and the most lurid and disgusting stories get the most attention. This, too, plays upon people's fears.
And that's what I see happening here. Fear has turned into panic and we're scrambling to try and come up with an ordinance that will protect us from something we don't need to be protected from. That, to me, is a bad way to make laws.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Constitutional Zoning Law & Secondary Effects
Editor’s note: The below was primarily prepared by our remote research staff, who happen to be professional researchers. They require that their identities not be revealed for fear of losing their “day jobs.” The very fact that researchers, all of people, feel they may lose their jobs … I think speaks volumes as to what this debate is ultimately all about: the “politically correct” or "appropiate" suppression of unpopular, if not downright offensive, ideas and expression, and the coercive effect it has upon public discourse -- an element essential, I think, for the health, vigor and maintenance of a democratic society.
To combat the development of adult businesses, many cities have relied on the crude instrumentality of zoning laws to protect their communities from the adverse secondary effects of these businesses. Supported by the Supreme Court’s opinion in City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres past court decisions have often ruled in the favor of the cities. However, things have begun to change. In City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books the Supreme Court ruled that cities can “rely on evidence reasonably believed to be relevant to demonstrate a connection between adult businesses and adverse secondary effects.”[1] However, the Court also demanded more from the cities in terms of the evidence used to demonstrate this correlation between adult businesses and secondary effects. “Cities can no longer rely on the ‘reasonable belief’ argument when the affected businesses produce evidence casting doubt on the regulations’ effectiveness, underlying rationale, or tendency to reduce speech.”[2] In short, with respect to zoning measures which banish adult establishments from the proximity of most of their customers, as well as residences, churches, etc., cities only have the benefit of a “rebuttable presumption” that an adult establishment will cause adverse secondary effects to an unreasonable extent. Several recent court cases have highlighted the more restrictive criteria that cities must meet.
In the case of Daytona Grand v. City of Daytona Beach a United States District Court ruled in favor of a nude dancing club. In this case, the plaintiffs provided expert testimony (Drs. Linz and Fisher, whose background the court ruled established their expertise in secondary effects) that showed “the City’s pre-enactment evidence consists either of purely anecdotal evidence or opinions based on highly unreliable data. Most notably, the City’s evidence lacks data which would allow for a comparison of the rate of crime occurring in and around adult entertainment establishments with the rate of crime occurring in and around similarly situated establishments.”[3] The experts for the plaintiffs also conducted their own secondary effects studies of crime around adult cabarets in Daytona Beach, and they did not find an increase in crime linked to the cabarets. The court ruled, “In failing to renew support for a theory justifying its ordinances, the City leaves the Court with only one option: to declare Ordinances 81-334 and 02-496 unconstitutional and strike them accordingly.”[4]
Another recent case was R.V.S., L.L.C. v. City of Rockford (7th Circuit 2004). In this case, the city of Rockford, IL passed an ordinance forcing exotic dancing nightclubs to apply for a special permit and not operate within 1000 feet “‘of a church, school, residential district or another exotic dancing nightclub.’”[5] Again, the court ruled in the favor of the plaintiffs. The court’s decision was based on “Rockford does not identify any studies, judicial opinions, or experience-based testimony that it considered in adopting the Ordinance…. Most of the Rockford’s evidence, at least as presented to date, does not appear to be directly relevant to the type of entertainment that Rockford seeks to regulate…. Additionally, the Ordinance does not appear to be narrowly tailored to affect a category of business establishments shown to produce unwanted secondary effects—or even establishments that could conceivably produce them.”[6]
In addition, there is less and less evidence that adult business necessarily tend to cause adverse secondary effects. The United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals remarked in a recent case, Peek-A-Boo Lounge v. Manatee County: “The evidence in the record relating to conditions in Fulton County shows unequivocally that property values in neighborhoods adjoining the Clubs have increased during the time the Clubs have been in existence, and that surrounding buildings show no signs of blight, or lack of physical maintenance. Moreover, the Fulton County police study found greater reported crime connected with establishments that served alcohol but did not feature adult entertainment. In other words, local studies commissioned both by the Clubs and the Board found no evidence of the secondary effects with which the Board was purportedly concerned. The question thus becomes, was it reasonable for Defendants to ignore relevant local studies and rely instead upon remote foreign studies in determining whether adverse secondary effects were attributable to the Fulton County Clubs?”[7]
The plaintiff, Peek-A-Boo Lounge, presented three studies that demonstrated that the Lounge did not cause adverse secondary effects. The studies were:
Dr. Terry A. Danner, Chair of the Department of Criminology at St. Leo University, conducted a study utilizing the County’s own crime statistics that examined the criminogenic effects of the Appellant’s specific businesses and found that Appellants businesses did not cause such effects. Dr. Randy D. Fisher, Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Central Florida, prepared a study titled “Evidence for the Adverse Secondary Effects of Adult Entertainment: The Manatee County Record,” which examined the record submitted by the County in support of Ordinance 99-18 and concluded that because “the only statistical data provided [in the record] showed lower rates of crime . . . [and] substantial increases in property values, both in the long run and in the shorter run, in the areas around the existing adult businesses,” the specific evidence relating to the Appellants’ businesses contradicted any suggestion that “the two existing adult businesses in Manatee County have ‘adverse secondary effects.” Finally, Mr. Richard Schauseil, a licensed Florida real estate agent, conducted an extensive “Market Study and Report” on the effects of Appellants’ businesses on neighboring properties which found that there were “absolutely no signs of any negative effects on adjoining property values or conditions” resulting from Appellants’ businesses.[8]
Once again, the city did not (or was unable) to provide any data that could contradict the adult business' findings, and the court again ruled in favor of the adult business.
Dr. Daniel Linz (University of California, Santa Barbara) and Dr. Bryant Paul (Indiana University) have published several papers on adult businesses and secondary effects. Their research has found that the methodology of many secondary effects studies is flawed;[9] that there was less crime around adult businesses in Charlotte, NC than control areas;[10] and there was not a crime problem at peep show establishments in San Diego.[11]
In a couple of federal circuits, the courts seem to follow the Alameda Books opinion in words more than spirit, particularly the 10th Federal Circuit, which includes states like Kansas. Was it Kansas where in the public schools they banned the teaching of evolution and required creation theory to be taught?
Nonetheless, the above court cases and studies highlight that most cities at least can no longer rely on past studies and their pre-existing impressions to find that all adult establishments, regardless of how sensitive to the community and responsibly operated they are, tend to cause adverse secondary effects to an unreasonable degree. Cities are being drawn into lengthy and expensive legal battles to fight a problem that, as these studies suggest, may not be any more problematic than bars and other entertainment establishments may be.
To combat the development of adult businesses, many cities have relied on the crude instrumentality of zoning laws to protect their communities from the adverse secondary effects of these businesses. Supported by the Supreme Court’s opinion in City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres past court decisions have often ruled in the favor of the cities. However, things have begun to change. In City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books the Supreme Court ruled that cities can “rely on evidence reasonably believed to be relevant to demonstrate a connection between adult businesses and adverse secondary effects.”[1] However, the Court also demanded more from the cities in terms of the evidence used to demonstrate this correlation between adult businesses and secondary effects. “Cities can no longer rely on the ‘reasonable belief’ argument when the affected businesses produce evidence casting doubt on the regulations’ effectiveness, underlying rationale, or tendency to reduce speech.”[2] In short, with respect to zoning measures which banish adult establishments from the proximity of most of their customers, as well as residences, churches, etc., cities only have the benefit of a “rebuttable presumption” that an adult establishment will cause adverse secondary effects to an unreasonable extent. Several recent court cases have highlighted the more restrictive criteria that cities must meet.
In the case of Daytona Grand v. City of Daytona Beach a United States District Court ruled in favor of a nude dancing club. In this case, the plaintiffs provided expert testimony (Drs. Linz and Fisher, whose background the court ruled established their expertise in secondary effects) that showed “the City’s pre-enactment evidence consists either of purely anecdotal evidence or opinions based on highly unreliable data. Most notably, the City’s evidence lacks data which would allow for a comparison of the rate of crime occurring in and around adult entertainment establishments with the rate of crime occurring in and around similarly situated establishments.”[3] The experts for the plaintiffs also conducted their own secondary effects studies of crime around adult cabarets in Daytona Beach, and they did not find an increase in crime linked to the cabarets. The court ruled, “In failing to renew support for a theory justifying its ordinances, the City leaves the Court with only one option: to declare Ordinances 81-334 and 02-496 unconstitutional and strike them accordingly.”[4]
Another recent case was R.V.S., L.L.C. v. City of Rockford (7th Circuit 2004). In this case, the city of Rockford, IL passed an ordinance forcing exotic dancing nightclubs to apply for a special permit and not operate within 1000 feet “‘of a church, school, residential district or another exotic dancing nightclub.’”[5] Again, the court ruled in the favor of the plaintiffs. The court’s decision was based on “Rockford does not identify any studies, judicial opinions, or experience-based testimony that it considered in adopting the Ordinance…. Most of the Rockford’s evidence, at least as presented to date, does not appear to be directly relevant to the type of entertainment that Rockford seeks to regulate…. Additionally, the Ordinance does not appear to be narrowly tailored to affect a category of business establishments shown to produce unwanted secondary effects—or even establishments that could conceivably produce them.”[6]
In addition, there is less and less evidence that adult business necessarily tend to cause adverse secondary effects. The United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals remarked in a recent case, Peek-A-Boo Lounge v. Manatee County: “The evidence in the record relating to conditions in Fulton County shows unequivocally that property values in neighborhoods adjoining the Clubs have increased during the time the Clubs have been in existence, and that surrounding buildings show no signs of blight, or lack of physical maintenance. Moreover, the Fulton County police study found greater reported crime connected with establishments that served alcohol but did not feature adult entertainment. In other words, local studies commissioned both by the Clubs and the Board found no evidence of the secondary effects with which the Board was purportedly concerned. The question thus becomes, was it reasonable for Defendants to ignore relevant local studies and rely instead upon remote foreign studies in determining whether adverse secondary effects were attributable to the Fulton County Clubs?”[7]
The plaintiff, Peek-A-Boo Lounge, presented three studies that demonstrated that the Lounge did not cause adverse secondary effects. The studies were:
Dr. Terry A. Danner, Chair of the Department of Criminology at St. Leo University, conducted a study utilizing the County’s own crime statistics that examined the criminogenic effects of the Appellant’s specific businesses and found that Appellants businesses did not cause such effects. Dr. Randy D. Fisher, Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Central Florida, prepared a study titled “Evidence for the Adverse Secondary Effects of Adult Entertainment: The Manatee County Record,” which examined the record submitted by the County in support of Ordinance 99-18 and concluded that because “the only statistical data provided [in the record] showed lower rates of crime . . . [and] substantial increases in property values, both in the long run and in the shorter run, in the areas around the existing adult businesses,” the specific evidence relating to the Appellants’ businesses contradicted any suggestion that “the two existing adult businesses in Manatee County have ‘adverse secondary effects.” Finally, Mr. Richard Schauseil, a licensed Florida real estate agent, conducted an extensive “Market Study and Report” on the effects of Appellants’ businesses on neighboring properties which found that there were “absolutely no signs of any negative effects on adjoining property values or conditions” resulting from Appellants’ businesses.[8]
Once again, the city did not (or was unable) to provide any data that could contradict the adult business' findings, and the court again ruled in favor of the adult business.
Dr. Daniel Linz (University of California, Santa Barbara) and Dr. Bryant Paul (Indiana University) have published several papers on adult businesses and secondary effects. Their research has found that the methodology of many secondary effects studies is flawed;[9] that there was less crime around adult businesses in Charlotte, NC than control areas;[10] and there was not a crime problem at peep show establishments in San Diego.[11]
In a couple of federal circuits, the courts seem to follow the Alameda Books opinion in words more than spirit, particularly the 10th Federal Circuit, which includes states like Kansas. Was it Kansas where in the public schools they banned the teaching of evolution and required creation theory to be taught?
Nonetheless, the above court cases and studies highlight that most cities at least can no longer rely on past studies and their pre-existing impressions to find that all adult establishments, regardless of how sensitive to the community and responsibly operated they are, tend to cause adverse secondary effects to an unreasonable degree. Cities are being drawn into lengthy and expensive legal battles to fight a problem that, as these studies suggest, may not be any more problematic than bars and other entertainment establishments may be.
Footnotes:
[1] Lawlor, James. “Adult Business Rules Subject to Closer Scrutiny.” Planning 72.4 (April 2006): 49.
[2] Ibid. 49.
[3] Daytona Grand v. City of Daytona. 410 F.Supp.2d 1173. (M.D. Fla. 2006).
[4] Ibid.
[5] R.V.S., L.L.C. v. City of Rockford. 361 F.3d 402. (7th Cir. Ill. 2004).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Flanigan’s Enters., Inc. v. Fulton County, Ga. 242 F.3d 976, 986. (11th Cir. Fla. 2001).
[8] Peek-A-Boo Lounge v. Manatee County, Fl. 337 F.3d 1251. (11th Circ. Fla. 2003).
[9] Bryant Paul, Daniel Linz, and Bradley J. Shafer. “Government Regulation of "Adult" Businesses Through Zoning and Anti-Nudity Ordinances: Debunking the Legal Myth of Negative Secondary Effects.” Communication Law & Policy 6 (2001): 355.
[10] Linz, Daniel, et. al. “An Examination of the Assumption that Adult Businesses Are Associated with Crime in Surrounding Areas: A Secondary Effects Study in Charlotte, North Carolina.” Law and Society Review 38 (March 2004): 69.
[11] Linz, Daniel, Bryant Paul, and Mike Z. Yao. “Peep Show Establishments, Police Activity, Public Place, and Time: A Study of Secondary Effects in San Diego, California.” Journal of Sex Research 43.2 (May 2006): 182.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
The Real Evil ...
(abridged edition)
Is that devil loathsome fear.
In our horror at the prospect of a triple-X porn store in our midst, we fail to venture forth to even imagine better solutions for an increasingly common problem: how to protect the free flow of expression and ideas, on the one hand, and women and children and the integrity of neighborhoods, on the other hand. Didn’t one of the greatest leaders in our history once declare, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself!”
A hip-hop club and bar could not be stopped from doing business at 135 King Street and utilizing the entire 6,000 square feet based upon the assumption that its content alone causes bad secondary effects, but many justifiably claim adult establishments can be.
This is so because the Supreme Court’s City of Renton opinion (written by the same justice that would uphold laws criminalizing homosexuality) says that bad secondary effects flow from the pornographic content of an adult establishment inevitably as light from the sun.
The truth is that the content of adult establishments do not cause secondary effects anymore than hip-hop music in clubs and bars. What really makes the difference is how adult establishments and hip-hop clubs and bars are managed and operated.
Nonetheless, many of us seem all too eager to zone adult establishments out of town based upon the content of the materials they sell, alone. Just because the Supreme Court states that a law is constitutional does not make it right. The Supreme Court upheld “separate but equal” laws for decades.
The City’s Memorandum to the City Council justifying the zoning proposal states that the issue here is size. But this is not a big box issue; Cap Video has no plans to expand the size of the existing structure, which really is no larger, and may be smaller, than many establishments nearby.
A far smaller triple-X porn store at 135 King Street, however, would still be allowed. So, what does the zoning law and other proposals accomplish? Not much really unless they become the first step of a progressively more repressive agenda. As one leading council member stated in the last city council meeting, “We should not stop now.”
If history is to be consulted as our guide, yes, no doubt, these measures will be the first step. The tyranny of the majority in a democracy never successfully starts out looking like what it is. It begins by preying upon the people’s most noble sentiments to protect what the public believes to be most vulnerable, be it women and children, public morality and decency, the integrity of neighborhoods, or our sacred “American way of life.”
The goal will become banishing a certain type of adult content entirely because implies that certain types of offensive and harmful sexual conduct should be tolerated, if not accepted and celebrated. But the second step shall be merely to put all of our pornography in places where pedestrian residents and customers of downtown Northampton are highly unlikely to travel, and thus be less likely to consider the merits of its “bad” message for themselves. Oh my …!
Dear City Citizens and Council Members please be free to counter with speech and ideas the speech and ideas that you find offensive and harmful, but by making it far less likely for pedestrians like me to incidentally consider certain ideas and expression, you now embark upon censorship of ideas and expression based upon what you alone deem to be without merit. No, I should have the right to judge for myself, thank you.
Moreover, as a practical matter, enactment of the pending zoning ordinances will no doubt sooner or later prompt litigation by Cap Video or another adult retail vendor intent upon expanding into our community. These measures in practice prove most successful with respect to spawning litigation that makes lawyers, like me, rich.
I say, let’s put off the proposed zoning ordinance until the parties have exhausted themselves on negotiations. After all, what’s the rush? Adult establishments are not grandfathered – protected from subsequent zoning by the City – under Massachusetts law.
With all of the diversity of opinion in America there are few things that we, the people, including pornographers, seem to agree upon, aside from opposing taxation without representation and making lawyers rich for no good purpose.
And there lies the common ground from which the City and Cap Video can begin to negotiate a solution that addresses their respective concerns and interests.
The City could begin, as I have suggested before in The Real Challenge, by asking Cap Video to comply with a licensing scheme similar in certain respects to the licensing scheme applied to bars. It could also ask if Cap Video would invest in that area of King Street in a manner that would advance the City’s hopes and dreams for that area.
If Cap Video had a vested interest in protecting, if not improving upon, the quality of life in the same neighborhood, it would be far less likely to tolerate a drop in the quality of life and the irresponsible management of its adult establishment located in the very same area. But, to my knowledge, the City leaders have not engaged Cap Video in a discussion of this nature.
John Lennon once wrote the song, “Imagine,” expressing for an entire generation our inner most desires. Yes, with all the intellect and creativity we have to draw upon, imagine the difference we can make here and now, just by refusing to repeat the same old litigious insanity … Yes, sweet Northampton, Imagine. For with respect to that effort, at least, I say we have nothing to fear, but fear itself.
Yours/AC
Is that devil loathsome fear.
In our horror at the prospect of a triple-X porn store in our midst, we fail to venture forth to even imagine better solutions for an increasingly common problem: how to protect the free flow of expression and ideas, on the one hand, and women and children and the integrity of neighborhoods, on the other hand. Didn’t one of the greatest leaders in our history once declare, “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself!”
A hip-hop club and bar could not be stopped from doing business at 135 King Street and utilizing the entire 6,000 square feet based upon the assumption that its content alone causes bad secondary effects, but many justifiably claim adult establishments can be.
This is so because the Supreme Court’s City of Renton opinion (written by the same justice that would uphold laws criminalizing homosexuality) says that bad secondary effects flow from the pornographic content of an adult establishment inevitably as light from the sun.
The truth is that the content of adult establishments do not cause secondary effects anymore than hip-hop music in clubs and bars. What really makes the difference is how adult establishments and hip-hop clubs and bars are managed and operated.
Nonetheless, many of us seem all too eager to zone adult establishments out of town based upon the content of the materials they sell, alone. Just because the Supreme Court states that a law is constitutional does not make it right. The Supreme Court upheld “separate but equal” laws for decades.
The City’s Memorandum to the City Council justifying the zoning proposal states that the issue here is size. But this is not a big box issue; Cap Video has no plans to expand the size of the existing structure, which really is no larger, and may be smaller, than many establishments nearby.
A far smaller triple-X porn store at 135 King Street, however, would still be allowed. So, what does the zoning law and other proposals accomplish? Not much really unless they become the first step of a progressively more repressive agenda. As one leading council member stated in the last city council meeting, “We should not stop now.”
If history is to be consulted as our guide, yes, no doubt, these measures will be the first step. The tyranny of the majority in a democracy never successfully starts out looking like what it is. It begins by preying upon the people’s most noble sentiments to protect what the public believes to be most vulnerable, be it women and children, public morality and decency, the integrity of neighborhoods, or our sacred “American way of life.”
The goal will become banishing a certain type of adult content entirely because implies that certain types of offensive and harmful sexual conduct should be tolerated, if not accepted and celebrated. But the second step shall be merely to put all of our pornography in places where pedestrian residents and customers of downtown Northampton are highly unlikely to travel, and thus be less likely to consider the merits of its “bad” message for themselves. Oh my …!
Dear City Citizens and Council Members please be free to counter with speech and ideas the speech and ideas that you find offensive and harmful, but by making it far less likely for pedestrians like me to incidentally consider certain ideas and expression, you now embark upon censorship of ideas and expression based upon what you alone deem to be without merit. No, I should have the right to judge for myself, thank you.
Moreover, as a practical matter, enactment of the pending zoning ordinances will no doubt sooner or later prompt litigation by Cap Video or another adult retail vendor intent upon expanding into our community. These measures in practice prove most successful with respect to spawning litigation that makes lawyers, like me, rich.
I say, let’s put off the proposed zoning ordinance until the parties have exhausted themselves on negotiations. After all, what’s the rush? Adult establishments are not grandfathered – protected from subsequent zoning by the City – under Massachusetts law.
With all of the diversity of opinion in America there are few things that we, the people, including pornographers, seem to agree upon, aside from opposing taxation without representation and making lawyers rich for no good purpose.
And there lies the common ground from which the City and Cap Video can begin to negotiate a solution that addresses their respective concerns and interests.
The City could begin, as I have suggested before in The Real Challenge, by asking Cap Video to comply with a licensing scheme similar in certain respects to the licensing scheme applied to bars. It could also ask if Cap Video would invest in that area of King Street in a manner that would advance the City’s hopes and dreams for that area.
If Cap Video had a vested interest in protecting, if not improving upon, the quality of life in the same neighborhood, it would be far less likely to tolerate a drop in the quality of life and the irresponsible management of its adult establishment located in the very same area. But, to my knowledge, the City leaders have not engaged Cap Video in a discussion of this nature.
John Lennon once wrote the song, “Imagine,” expressing for an entire generation our inner most desires. Yes, with all the intellect and creativity we have to draw upon, imagine the difference we can make here and now, just by refusing to repeat the same old litigious insanity … Yes, sweet Northampton, Imagine. For with respect to that effort, at least, I say we have nothing to fear, but fear itself.
Yours/AC
My Boo-Boo
In the city council meeting last week I contended that the award of attorneys’ fees the City of Revere had to pay the plaintiff pornographer for violation of its first amendment rights had been set at $900,000 +; I was wrong, apparently. The issue is still before the trial court after remand by the appellate court. The appellate court reduced the award in certain respects merely because the plaintiff’s attorneys had failed to ask for their fees for certain segments of the litigation at the appropriate times before the appropriate courts. In other respects the appellant court did question, among other things, the necessity for the work that was done by plaintiff’s attorneys.
I stand corrected.
Yours/AC
I stand corrected.
Yours/AC
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
The Point of View of a NPN Neighborhood Father of Young Children
Editors note: Andrew Shelffo lives in Northampton with his wife and two children. He is also the author of The Prospect Perspective Blog on Masslive.com.
The link to his blog is: http://www.masslive.com/northampton/prospect/weblog/
I moved to Northampton in 2001 because I liked the scenic beauty of the area, the slower pace of things (when compared to the New York-Metropolitan area) and the variety of things there are to do here. I chose to move here and raise my family here also because I value the diversity of thought that exists here in Northampton and the generally tolerant attitude around here.
Recently I've been disappointed to find out that one of the qualities that I thought existed here in Happy Valley may not be so abundant as I thought. I'm referring to the quality of intellectual rigor and honesty.
I've spent enough time in college, and in school after college, to know a bad argument when I see it, and the NoPorn people have been foisting a bad argument upon the people of Northampton for weeks now. The truly alarming part, though, is that people, particularly some on the City Council, are buying the argument. I can only assume that's because they haven't taken a good look at what NoPorn is saying.
First of all, despite the smoke screen that NoPorn has been emitting from their website, pornography already exists in great supply in Northampton, both the "good" kind and the "bad" kind, according to NoPorn's own definitions. This means that whatever the outcome of the current debate regarding zoning ordinances, the amount of pornography available in the city won't really change.
This is important to note because much of NoPorn's arguments center around the evil that they consider pornography to be. They blame pornography for everything from divorce to addiction and child molestation. Despite the questionable validity of these beliefs, the fact remains that their actions won't eradicate pornography from Northampton.
The second point is closely related to the first. NoPorn has done a really good job of scaring people into believing that if Capital Video opens a store on King Street, it will only be a matter of time before Northampton is inundated with prostitutes, sex fiends, and criminals because pornography and the stores that sell it bring with them negative "secondary effects." As evidence, NoPorn ignores the stores that sell pornography in town and the lack of negative effects they've had on Northampton and instead has consistently pointed to two things: Kittery, Maine, and their own petition. Kittery Maine had some problems with a Capital Video store in town that had viewing booths. While those problems were very real, the Capital Video store proposed for King Street won't have viewing booths, which seems to make any comparison between Kittery, Maine, and Northampton moot.
The second piece of evidence they throw out when people question the pertinence of the experiences of Kittery. As a matter of fact, they used this very argument on Valley Free Radio the night of October 15th. "Well," the argument goes. "You many not see the similarities, but the 1,100 people who signed our petition do, so that's evidence of the potential harm of secondary effects."
So, let me get this straight: NoPorn scares people into believing that Northampton is going to hell in a handbasket and then uses evidence of that fear to show that we are, in fact, going to hell in a handbasket? Can you say, circular reasoning?
Thanks to NoPorn, there's been a lot of discussion around town lately about movies. NoPorn, in fact, sent out a letter to everyone in Northampton that contained some rather salacious titles and plot summaries of pornographic movies available from Capital Video. I want to thank NoPorn for the recommendations, but I'm not particularly interested in these movies, and if the store does open, I don't plan on shopping there. But I do want to recommend a movie to them, a good, old-fashioned family movie.
One of the highlights of this movie is when the protagonist points out the dangers of playing pool. Playing pool, he says, will lead to degradation. "Look, folks!" he says. "Right here in River City/Trouble with a capital 'T'/And that rhymes with 'P' and that stands for pool!"
In our case, it would be, "Right here in paradise city/Trouble with a capital 'T'/And that rhymes with 'P' and that stand for porn!"
So, rent The Music Man and watch a professional charlatan as he uses song and dance to convince a town that they're going down the wrong path. As you do, I hope you picture the song and dance that the NoPorn people have been doing for the last four months.
The link to his blog is: http://www.masslive.com/northampton/prospect/weblog/
I moved to Northampton in 2001 because I liked the scenic beauty of the area, the slower pace of things (when compared to the New York-Metropolitan area) and the variety of things there are to do here. I chose to move here and raise my family here also because I value the diversity of thought that exists here in Northampton and the generally tolerant attitude around here.
Recently I've been disappointed to find out that one of the qualities that I thought existed here in Happy Valley may not be so abundant as I thought. I'm referring to the quality of intellectual rigor and honesty.
I've spent enough time in college, and in school after college, to know a bad argument when I see it, and the NoPorn people have been foisting a bad argument upon the people of Northampton for weeks now. The truly alarming part, though, is that people, particularly some on the City Council, are buying the argument. I can only assume that's because they haven't taken a good look at what NoPorn is saying.
First of all, despite the smoke screen that NoPorn has been emitting from their website, pornography already exists in great supply in Northampton, both the "good" kind and the "bad" kind, according to NoPorn's own definitions. This means that whatever the outcome of the current debate regarding zoning ordinances, the amount of pornography available in the city won't really change.
This is important to note because much of NoPorn's arguments center around the evil that they consider pornography to be. They blame pornography for everything from divorce to addiction and child molestation. Despite the questionable validity of these beliefs, the fact remains that their actions won't eradicate pornography from Northampton.
The second point is closely related to the first. NoPorn has done a really good job of scaring people into believing that if Capital Video opens a store on King Street, it will only be a matter of time before Northampton is inundated with prostitutes, sex fiends, and criminals because pornography and the stores that sell it bring with them negative "secondary effects." As evidence, NoPorn ignores the stores that sell pornography in town and the lack of negative effects they've had on Northampton and instead has consistently pointed to two things: Kittery, Maine, and their own petition. Kittery Maine had some problems with a Capital Video store in town that had viewing booths. While those problems were very real, the Capital Video store proposed for King Street won't have viewing booths, which seems to make any comparison between Kittery, Maine, and Northampton moot.
The second piece of evidence they throw out when people question the pertinence of the experiences of Kittery. As a matter of fact, they used this very argument on Valley Free Radio the night of October 15th. "Well," the argument goes. "You many not see the similarities, but the 1,100 people who signed our petition do, so that's evidence of the potential harm of secondary effects."
So, let me get this straight: NoPorn scares people into believing that Northampton is going to hell in a handbasket and then uses evidence of that fear to show that we are, in fact, going to hell in a handbasket? Can you say, circular reasoning?
Thanks to NoPorn, there's been a lot of discussion around town lately about movies. NoPorn, in fact, sent out a letter to everyone in Northampton that contained some rather salacious titles and plot summaries of pornographic movies available from Capital Video. I want to thank NoPorn for the recommendations, but I'm not particularly interested in these movies, and if the store does open, I don't plan on shopping there. But I do want to recommend a movie to them, a good, old-fashioned family movie.
One of the highlights of this movie is when the protagonist points out the dangers of playing pool. Playing pool, he says, will lead to degradation. "Look, folks!" he says. "Right here in River City/Trouble with a capital 'T'/And that rhymes with 'P' and that stands for pool!"
In our case, it would be, "Right here in paradise city/Trouble with a capital 'T'/And that rhymes with 'P' and that stand for porn!"
So, rent The Music Man and watch a professional charlatan as he uses song and dance to convince a town that they're going down the wrong path. As you do, I hope you picture the song and dance that the NoPorn people have been doing for the last four months.
The City's Justification
The below is a copy of the Memorandum that the City intends to rely upon to justify the proposed zoning measure to banish adult establishments to the outskirts of town. You know, where few, if any, downtown residents and busniess customers will have ready pedestrian access like they do for any other book and video stores that may locate in the vicinity of 135 King Street. The irony is that the City's justification is that the porn store will inhibit, rather than promote, pedistrial traffic in that section of King Street.
If Cap Video was targeting non-Northampton residential customers, then it would have found far less expensive property to buy or lease further away from downtown, closer to and more visible from Interstate 91. Instead, the store is conveniently located to draw to the King Street neighborhood pedestrian traffic from downtown, as people go about their daily business or their evening festivities.
And the City really presents no hard evidence to justify its claim that the threat of potential secondary effects is any less based upon the mere size of an adult establishment. This is not a big box issue; Cap Video has no plans to expand the size of the existing structure, which really is no larger, and may be smaller, than many of the establishments nearby.
What the City really intends to accomplish is clear. Banish a certain type of adult content because it implies that certain types of offensive sexual conduct should be accepted, if not celebrated. Put it where the residents and customers of downtown Northampton are less likely to travel, and thus enjoy the material and consider the merits of its message. Dear City of Northampton, be free as Nopornnorthampton to counter speech you find offensive and harmful, but how dare you disingenuously contend that this proposed zoning is anything but real censorship of objectionable speech.
The Supreme Court opinion in the case City of Renton upon which the justification for this zoning proposal rests is just as disingenuous. It was written by the same man who voted to uphold criminal laws against homosexuality.
Many of our civic leaders happen to be gay. It seems that many, but not all of them, believe it is now safe to turn upon the very same liberalization of sexuality and free speech that historically allowed them to gain the acceptance of mainstream society that they enjoy today. In fact, they gleefully rely upon the City of Renton Supreme Court opinion to prove that they are not violating free speech.
Now, that is reprehensive.
Yours/A.C.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Long Time Resident Writes to the Gazette
Letter to the Editor
Daily Hampshire Gazette
Opinion@Gazettenet.com
Dear Editor:
Until the recent controversy over the effort by Capital Video to establish a business in Northampton, I took pride in being a long time citizen of this city, having seen over the decades many dramatic and positive changes in the culture and infrastructure, and have always taken pride in the city's values of diversity, tolerance, and inclusion.
The recent opposition to Capital Video’s plans, and the Planning Board's recommendations of 'adult' ordinances, seem in direct opposition to our community's values, and serves to solidify my views that diversity, tolerance, and inclusion have been increasingly defined by the city's 'progressives' liberal circle. There is, in my opinion, rank hypocrisy and sanctimonious statements of opposition to Capital Video by the one-party liberal elite who try to enforce their views on others.
I am proud to have made the first unsolicited contribution to TalkBackNorthampton, a group that I believe is wise in its formulation of the issues, and appropriately raises the issues of unintended consequences on other businesses in Northampton. As a clinical social worker, I am concerned about fairness, diversity, and tolerance. Rank hypocrisy is exhibited when opponents of Capital Video use an elitist argument of "...anywhere but in my backyard...", ie. put the establishment away from the central business district. And, “...doing it for the children...” is, in my opinion, a tired old-saw that political liberals and conservatives, alike, have used for decades.
The article by Drs. J. Wesley and T. Boyd, professors of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, in addition to other scientific research on the effects of pornography, are well-founded. The arguments against pornography are not based in logic, reason, or statistics, but in demagoguery. Ideas and values have consequences, and I hope this fair city can sort them out in a positive manner.
Sincerely,
David Banas
71 Leonard Street
Leeds, MA 01053
Daily Hampshire Gazette
Opinion@Gazettenet.com
Dear Editor:
Until the recent controversy over the effort by Capital Video to establish a business in Northampton, I took pride in being a long time citizen of this city, having seen over the decades many dramatic and positive changes in the culture and infrastructure, and have always taken pride in the city's values of diversity, tolerance, and inclusion.
The recent opposition to Capital Video’s plans, and the Planning Board's recommendations of 'adult' ordinances, seem in direct opposition to our community's values, and serves to solidify my views that diversity, tolerance, and inclusion have been increasingly defined by the city's 'progressives' liberal circle. There is, in my opinion, rank hypocrisy and sanctimonious statements of opposition to Capital Video by the one-party liberal elite who try to enforce their views on others.
I am proud to have made the first unsolicited contribution to TalkBackNorthampton, a group that I believe is wise in its formulation of the issues, and appropriately raises the issues of unintended consequences on other businesses in Northampton. As a clinical social worker, I am concerned about fairness, diversity, and tolerance. Rank hypocrisy is exhibited when opponents of Capital Video use an elitist argument of "...anywhere but in my backyard...", ie. put the establishment away from the central business district. And, “...doing it for the children...” is, in my opinion, a tired old-saw that political liberals and conservatives, alike, have used for decades.
The article by Drs. J. Wesley and T. Boyd, professors of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, in addition to other scientific research on the effects of pornography, are well-founded. The arguments against pornography are not based in logic, reason, or statistics, but in demagoguery. Ideas and values have consequences, and I hope this fair city can sort them out in a positive manner.
Sincerely,
David Banas
71 Leonard Street
Leeds, MA 01053
Cap Video Response To Brooks Letter
Mr. Guarino is a no show for now ... his loss?
Dear Mr. Brooks:
I am writing on behalf of Mr. Guarino in reference to your letter relating to Capital Video's applications to open up its business at 135 King Street in Northampton. Your insight into the issues regarding this application is appreciated.
Capital Video operates many stores throughout New England. Please be assured that the company’s business is committed to the health, safety and welfare of its employees, patrons, and the community, and the business consistently follows and promotes those safeguards that are available and under its control. The company does not display sexual explicit signage, nor are there any depictions of sexual conduct that are visible from the stores. Capital Video recently re-opened its store in Peabody, MA with a new, fresh look, and has been upgrading its stores to provide a very comfortable atmosphere that is pleasing to adult men, women and couples, and to be pleasing aesthically to the community. The business to be built in Northampton will be of the same caliber as Peabody, and should offer a very pleasant atmosphere, presented in a tasteful and appropriate manner.
The company would like to work with the community to develop a cooperative relationship going forward, and will be happy to meet with the Planning Board and the City Council to discuss, and further develop ideas regarding any issues reglating to the proposed store. Capital Video hopes that the community will continue to respect the rights of all of its citizens.
We appreciate your sincere interest in protecting the first amendment constitutional rights for everyone, and appreciate your support in this regard.
Lesley S. Rich, Esq., CPA General Counsel
Capital Video Corporation
1060 Park Avenue Cranston, RI 02910
Dear Mr. Brooks:
I am writing on behalf of Mr. Guarino in reference to your letter relating to Capital Video's applications to open up its business at 135 King Street in Northampton. Your insight into the issues regarding this application is appreciated.
Capital Video operates many stores throughout New England. Please be assured that the company’s business is committed to the health, safety and welfare of its employees, patrons, and the community, and the business consistently follows and promotes those safeguards that are available and under its control. The company does not display sexual explicit signage, nor are there any depictions of sexual conduct that are visible from the stores. Capital Video recently re-opened its store in Peabody, MA with a new, fresh look, and has been upgrading its stores to provide a very comfortable atmosphere that is pleasing to adult men, women and couples, and to be pleasing aesthically to the community. The business to be built in Northampton will be of the same caliber as Peabody, and should offer a very pleasant atmosphere, presented in a tasteful and appropriate manner.
The company would like to work with the community to develop a cooperative relationship going forward, and will be happy to meet with the Planning Board and the City Council to discuss, and further develop ideas regarding any issues reglating to the proposed store. Capital Video hopes that the community will continue to respect the rights of all of its citizens.
We appreciate your sincere interest in protecting the first amendment constitutional rights for everyone, and appreciate your support in this regard.
Lesley S. Rich, Esq., CPA General Counsel
Capital Video Corporation
1060 Park Avenue Cranston, RI 02910
Do You Know ...
That the Advisory Board and the Legal Affairs Committees of the Feminist For Free Expression are made up of the women listed below? Nopornnorthampton and others have questioned the creditability of the FFE’s information we posted below on October 10th, titled "Did You Know ...." We ask you to take notice of the credentials these women possess and then consider the likelihood that the FFE's information is discreditable.
Legal Committee
Ann Beeson (Co-Chair)
ACLU
Jody Kelly
Jenner & Block
Jeanne Baker
Baker & Moscowitz
Jane M. Whicher
ACLU of Illinois
Harriette Dorsen
Bantam Doubleday Dell, and
Former General Counsel of Random House
Amy Adler
NYU School of Law
Marjorie Heins
NCAC
Cathy Crosson
Weston, Sarno, Garrou & DeWitt
Advisory Board
Marilyn Fitterman
Past President, NOW NY
Nadine Strossen
President, American Civil Liberties Union
Betty Friedan
Author, 1921-2006
Joan Nestle
Lesbian Herstory Archives
Legal Committee
Ann Beeson (Co-Chair)
ACLU
Jody Kelly
Jenner & Block
Jeanne Baker
Baker & Moscowitz
Jane M. Whicher
ACLU of Illinois
Harriette Dorsen
Bantam Doubleday Dell, and
Former General Counsel of Random House
Amy Adler
NYU School of Law
Marjorie Heins
NCAC
Cathy Crosson
Weston, Sarno, Garrou & DeWitt
Advisory Board
Marilyn Fitterman
Past President, NOW NY
Nadine Strossen
President, American Civil Liberties Union
Betty Friedan
Author, 1921-2006
Joan Nestle
Lesbian Herstory Archives
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Did You Know...
That half the adult videos bought or rented in the US are done so by women or women in couples? Surprised? TalkBackNorthampton presents the following article from the Feminists for Free Expression Free Speech Pamphlet Series which debunks many widely held beliefs about pornography, such as:
The full text of this highly informative article can be found at Feminists for Free Expression
NP
- Pornography causes violence against women.
- Pornography is responsible for "copycat" behavior
- Pornography degrades women
- Pornography is only (or overwhelmingly) for men
- Pornography inherently exploits and abuses women
- Pornography is inherently "bad"- sexist, violent, etc.
- The "offensive" offensive nature of pornography warrants government action
The full text of this highly informative article can be found at Feminists for Free Expression
NP
Feminists on Artistic Expression and Free Speech
Should feminists be concerned about artistic expression? Does sexist or indecent art harm women? The following informative pamphet from Feminists for Free Expression rebuts the idea that free speech comes at the expense of women and that meaures taken to retricit, ban or exclude indecent or offensive artistic works from the general pubic will expand the rights of women. FFE instead demonstrates that the best remedy for countering harmful expression is free expression!
See the full text here.
See the full text here.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
TalkBackNorthampton Presents: The Real Challenge
The Real Challenge
An Open Letter to the City of Northampton
The real challenge facing the City of Northampton is how to deal with the secondary effects that might flow from an Amazing porn store, and others like it, while preserving as much latitude to all forms of expression and diversity of lifestyle as possible. I submit that in our panic to banish threatening porn stores to the outskirts of town, we verge on losing exactly what makes Northampton so special: its renowned tolerance, if not celebration, of intellectual, artistic, cultural and life style diversity. In large part, that is why Northampton is a destination for many who visit us and why so many of us who live here feel truly at home.
Northampton, stand back and look at the sweep of the various amendments to the zoning laws we are considering, a perfect storm of censorship, all really because of one proposed porn shop. Let’s be honest. Even if an Amazing porn store at 135 King Street displayed less than 1,000 square feet of adult material many of us would still believe it would sit there like filthy fly, infecting the neighborhood.
How pitiful that, in our panic, we feel compelled to use a sledge hammer to swat a fly where a swatter would serve us better. After all, what will this sledge hammer accomplish? After smashing into the furniture, our sledge hammer will have only made this fly and flies like it move to different spots not so far from where we first swung.
How pitiful that we lack the imagination, with all the intellect and creativity around us, to more closely consider what exactly causes the secondary effects we fear and to devise the appropriate measures to more surgically and effectively deal with them.
Let’s take a closer look by asking if adult entertainment inherently causes the secondary effects we fear, or if there is merely a coincidence of secondary effects often, but not always, observed where adult entertainment establishments may be located. If the latter, then one may reasonably conclude that other factors may be involved, and porn and porn stores alone, are not the causes of the secondary effects.
Do undesirable secondary effects necessarily flow into a neighborhood from the purchase, sale and use of pornography, as many seem to believe? Of course not. Consider all the pornography being enjoyed in households and dorm rooms all across Northampton via cable and the internet every week. Has it increased crime in surrounding areas? Depressed the property values across the City? Created a City wide dead-zone? The belief that undesirable secondary effects necessary flow into a community from the distribution and use of pornographic material and adult entertainment alone is just silly.
Do undesirable secondary effects necessarily flow into a neighborhood from the mere presence of porn shops? Of course not. Consider the porn shops in the West Village on Sixth Avenue, West 4th Street and Christopher Street, the French Quarter in New Orleans, the Red Light district in Amsterdam or the existent porn shops in Northampton, Oh My …. and Pride and Joy. Have they ruined the cities and neighborhoods in which they are located? To the contrary, in the eyes of many, on a net basis, the adult entertainment establishments enhance their cities and neighborhoods. Not all pornographic and adult entertainment establishments foul the neighborhoods in which they are located.
Indeed we at TalkBackNorthampton are learning that the studies relied upon by Nopornnorthampton and others are fundamentally flawed, including the NYC Adult Entertainment Study touted by Nopornnorthampton. Reputable researchers who are not pawns of the adult entertainment industry find, upon close scrutiny, that these studies ultimately rely upon other studies which lack credibility. As the work involved in preparing a critique of these studies is quite substantial, our critique will be featured in separate posts at this blog site. Some preliminary critiques are provided as footnotes.
For present purposes I submit that the real problem is that undesirable secondary effects flow from adult entertainment establishments for the same reasons that undesirable secondary effects flowed from other retail establishments which historically were irresponsibly operated and insensitive to the interests of the communities in which they were located, be it laundromats, bars, tanneries or Chinese restaurants.
To be sure, porn shops do have a bad reputation, and well earned. This is not surprising when we consider how historically society has viewed pornography, adult entertainment and anyone openly involved with it. Historically, no responsible community member would openly have anything to do with it! So, to fulfill its demand for sexually explicit materials and entertainment, respectable society left the job up to the very characters that could not care less about the interests of the community and the responsible operation of their establishments.
So, what should we do? The demand for, and therefore the production and distribution of “erotica” or “pornography” will never really go away. Perhaps we should accept the facts of life and channel that energy in manner calculated to result in a town that resembles in part the West Village in NYC rather than Eight Avenue in Hell’s Kitchen? At the very least, we should search for measures to implement that would discourage owners and operators of adult entertainment establishments for insensitive and irresponsible behavior. Set forth below, I list a number of ideas to start the process of devising viable alternatives to the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinances, many of which will be easier to equitably apply in practice than the 1,000 square foot rule:
Face the Community. The owners of Oh My … and Pride and Joy are among us, so they must face and discuss with us the concerns community members may have. Why not require something similar for absentee owners and operators? See my letter to the de facto owner of the Amazing video porn store chain posted below.
Presence. Perhaps require the de facto owners and operators of adult entertainment establishments be either community members, or actually work at their establishments on a full time basis?
Esthetic Measures. The City Council is considering amendments to ban sexually explicit content from storefronts, but that alone does not guarantee esthetically pleasing storefronts. Indeed, the Amazing video store front in Springfield was nothing but a tawdry sign and ugly cinder block. Why not look into measures that could be implemented to require or encourage esthetically pleasing storefronts?
Care for Surrounding Areas. What about requiring appropriate outdoor lighting? Care and maintenance of the grounds surrounding the premises? Funding for extra police officers to patrol the premises and surrounding areas, if the establishment stays open during late night hours?
Licensing. Perhaps there could be implemented a licensing scheme where an adult entertainment establishment would lose its license to operate if there are repeated violations of the standards we require it to abide by? I note to my chagrin how Northampton bar owners, managers and staff throw out their customers as 2 am approaches with remarkable energy and vigor …
At this juncture, I really do not know if any of the above ideas will be particularly viable or legal, but there are two things I do know: First, adult entertainment establishments are not going away. Indeed, Capital Video may either reduce the size of their display of adult content to under 1,000 square feet or ultimately prevail in court. Second, when we fail to hold owners and operators of pornographic stores and adult entertainment establishments to high quality of life standards, but instead, just attempt to relocate them to already depressed parts of town, then, at best, we merely relocate the problem from one area of Northampton to another. For that we all should be ashamed.
Sincerely yours,
Always Controversial
Footnotes
The findings of the NYC Adult Entertainment Study are at odds with its conclusions (which were driven more by politics than science). The NYC study ultimately relies upon studies conducted in other cities to support its conclusions, many of which subsequently have been discredited. The only real causal link established by the NYC study was that the mere public perception of concentration of porn stores and adult entertainment establishments caused undesirable secondary effects, not necessarily the adult entertainment establishments themselves!
Here are just a few our notes which put the NYC study in a more unbiased perspective than Nopornnrothampton would have you believe:
1. The survey also interviewed community liaisons and beat officers in study areas. “When the survey and control block fronts were compared for criminal complaints and allegations, the officers generally did not link higher incidents with adult uses…. Four of the six officers thought the adult uses have no effect on crime” (50).
2. In the words of interviewed brokers: “Several brokers added comments to explain their responses about the impact of adult entertainment establishments on nearby property values. Some said that property value decreases would be minimal or that values may be affected differently depending on the age make-up of the area” (51).
3. On pages 52-54, the study attempts to analyze criminal complaints between survey areas containing adult entertainment establishments and control areas. However, the study admits “it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions from the analysis of criminal complaints. Land uses other than adult entertainment establishments, e.g., subway station access, appear to have a far stronger relationship to criminal complaints. It was not possible to isolate the impact of adult uses relative to criminal complaints” (66). (Emphasis added.)
4. On property value: “The analysis of trends in assessed valuation relative to adult entertainment uses was inconclusive” (54). Also: “While the total assessed values on the survey block fronts may be influenced to some extent by the presence of adult entertainment uses, demonstrating such effects is very difficult” (54).
5. The study also acknowledges: “In some cases, particularly in study areas with only one adult entertainment establishment, the DCP survey did not yield conclusive evidence of a direct relationship between the adult use and the urban ills affecting the community. This reflects the fact that, in a city as dense and diverse as New York, it is difficult to isolate specific impacts attributable to any particular land use. Other cities that have conducted similar studies have acknowledged the same difficulty” (62).
An Open Letter to the City of Northampton
The real challenge facing the City of Northampton is how to deal with the secondary effects that might flow from an Amazing porn store, and others like it, while preserving as much latitude to all forms of expression and diversity of lifestyle as possible. I submit that in our panic to banish threatening porn stores to the outskirts of town, we verge on losing exactly what makes Northampton so special: its renowned tolerance, if not celebration, of intellectual, artistic, cultural and life style diversity. In large part, that is why Northampton is a destination for many who visit us and why so many of us who live here feel truly at home.
Northampton, stand back and look at the sweep of the various amendments to the zoning laws we are considering, a perfect storm of censorship, all really because of one proposed porn shop. Let’s be honest. Even if an Amazing porn store at 135 King Street displayed less than 1,000 square feet of adult material many of us would still believe it would sit there like filthy fly, infecting the neighborhood.
How pitiful that, in our panic, we feel compelled to use a sledge hammer to swat a fly where a swatter would serve us better. After all, what will this sledge hammer accomplish? After smashing into the furniture, our sledge hammer will have only made this fly and flies like it move to different spots not so far from where we first swung.
How pitiful that we lack the imagination, with all the intellect and creativity around us, to more closely consider what exactly causes the secondary effects we fear and to devise the appropriate measures to more surgically and effectively deal with them.
Let’s take a closer look by asking if adult entertainment inherently causes the secondary effects we fear, or if there is merely a coincidence of secondary effects often, but not always, observed where adult entertainment establishments may be located. If the latter, then one may reasonably conclude that other factors may be involved, and porn and porn stores alone, are not the causes of the secondary effects.
Do undesirable secondary effects necessarily flow into a neighborhood from the purchase, sale and use of pornography, as many seem to believe? Of course not. Consider all the pornography being enjoyed in households and dorm rooms all across Northampton via cable and the internet every week. Has it increased crime in surrounding areas? Depressed the property values across the City? Created a City wide dead-zone? The belief that undesirable secondary effects necessary flow into a community from the distribution and use of pornographic material and adult entertainment alone is just silly.
Do undesirable secondary effects necessarily flow into a neighborhood from the mere presence of porn shops? Of course not. Consider the porn shops in the West Village on Sixth Avenue, West 4th Street and Christopher Street, the French Quarter in New Orleans, the Red Light district in Amsterdam or the existent porn shops in Northampton, Oh My …. and Pride and Joy. Have they ruined the cities and neighborhoods in which they are located? To the contrary, in the eyes of many, on a net basis, the adult entertainment establishments enhance their cities and neighborhoods. Not all pornographic and adult entertainment establishments foul the neighborhoods in which they are located.
Indeed we at TalkBackNorthampton are learning that the studies relied upon by Nopornnorthampton and others are fundamentally flawed, including the NYC Adult Entertainment Study touted by Nopornnorthampton. Reputable researchers who are not pawns of the adult entertainment industry find, upon close scrutiny, that these studies ultimately rely upon other studies which lack credibility. As the work involved in preparing a critique of these studies is quite substantial, our critique will be featured in separate posts at this blog site. Some preliminary critiques are provided as footnotes.
For present purposes I submit that the real problem is that undesirable secondary effects flow from adult entertainment establishments for the same reasons that undesirable secondary effects flowed from other retail establishments which historically were irresponsibly operated and insensitive to the interests of the communities in which they were located, be it laundromats, bars, tanneries or Chinese restaurants.
To be sure, porn shops do have a bad reputation, and well earned. This is not surprising when we consider how historically society has viewed pornography, adult entertainment and anyone openly involved with it. Historically, no responsible community member would openly have anything to do with it! So, to fulfill its demand for sexually explicit materials and entertainment, respectable society left the job up to the very characters that could not care less about the interests of the community and the responsible operation of their establishments.
So, what should we do? The demand for, and therefore the production and distribution of “erotica” or “pornography” will never really go away. Perhaps we should accept the facts of life and channel that energy in manner calculated to result in a town that resembles in part the West Village in NYC rather than Eight Avenue in Hell’s Kitchen? At the very least, we should search for measures to implement that would discourage owners and operators of adult entertainment establishments for insensitive and irresponsible behavior. Set forth below, I list a number of ideas to start the process of devising viable alternatives to the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinances, many of which will be easier to equitably apply in practice than the 1,000 square foot rule:
Face the Community. The owners of Oh My … and Pride and Joy are among us, so they must face and discuss with us the concerns community members may have. Why not require something similar for absentee owners and operators? See my letter to the de facto owner of the Amazing video porn store chain posted below.
Presence. Perhaps require the de facto owners and operators of adult entertainment establishments be either community members, or actually work at their establishments on a full time basis?
Esthetic Measures. The City Council is considering amendments to ban sexually explicit content from storefronts, but that alone does not guarantee esthetically pleasing storefronts. Indeed, the Amazing video store front in Springfield was nothing but a tawdry sign and ugly cinder block. Why not look into measures that could be implemented to require or encourage esthetically pleasing storefronts?
Care for Surrounding Areas. What about requiring appropriate outdoor lighting? Care and maintenance of the grounds surrounding the premises? Funding for extra police officers to patrol the premises and surrounding areas, if the establishment stays open during late night hours?
Licensing. Perhaps there could be implemented a licensing scheme where an adult entertainment establishment would lose its license to operate if there are repeated violations of the standards we require it to abide by? I note to my chagrin how Northampton bar owners, managers and staff throw out their customers as 2 am approaches with remarkable energy and vigor …
At this juncture, I really do not know if any of the above ideas will be particularly viable or legal, but there are two things I do know: First, adult entertainment establishments are not going away. Indeed, Capital Video may either reduce the size of their display of adult content to under 1,000 square feet or ultimately prevail in court. Second, when we fail to hold owners and operators of pornographic stores and adult entertainment establishments to high quality of life standards, but instead, just attempt to relocate them to already depressed parts of town, then, at best, we merely relocate the problem from one area of Northampton to another. For that we all should be ashamed.
Sincerely yours,
Always Controversial
Footnotes
The findings of the NYC Adult Entertainment Study are at odds with its conclusions (which were driven more by politics than science). The NYC study ultimately relies upon studies conducted in other cities to support its conclusions, many of which subsequently have been discredited. The only real causal link established by the NYC study was that the mere public perception of concentration of porn stores and adult entertainment establishments caused undesirable secondary effects, not necessarily the adult entertainment establishments themselves!
Here are just a few our notes which put the NYC study in a more unbiased perspective than Nopornnrothampton would have you believe:
1. The survey also interviewed community liaisons and beat officers in study areas. “When the survey and control block fronts were compared for criminal complaints and allegations, the officers generally did not link higher incidents with adult uses…. Four of the six officers thought the adult uses have no effect on crime” (50).
2. In the words of interviewed brokers: “Several brokers added comments to explain their responses about the impact of adult entertainment establishments on nearby property values. Some said that property value decreases would be minimal or that values may be affected differently depending on the age make-up of the area” (51).
3. On pages 52-54, the study attempts to analyze criminal complaints between survey areas containing adult entertainment establishments and control areas. However, the study admits “it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions from the analysis of criminal complaints. Land uses other than adult entertainment establishments, e.g., subway station access, appear to have a far stronger relationship to criminal complaints. It was not possible to isolate the impact of adult uses relative to criminal complaints” (66). (Emphasis added.)
4. On property value: “The analysis of trends in assessed valuation relative to adult entertainment uses was inconclusive” (54). Also: “While the total assessed values on the survey block fronts may be influenced to some extent by the presence of adult entertainment uses, demonstrating such effects is very difficult” (54).
5. The study also acknowledges: “In some cases, particularly in study areas with only one adult entertainment establishment, the DCP survey did not yield conclusive evidence of a direct relationship between the adult use and the urban ills affecting the community. This reflects the fact that, in a city as dense and diverse as New York, it is difficult to isolate specific impacts attributable to any particular land use. Other cities that have conducted similar studies have acknowledged the same difficulty” (62).
An Open Letter to Kenneth Guarino & Capital Video
October 4, 2006
Via Facsimile and Regular Mail
Mr. Kenneth Guarino
Captial Video Corporation
780 Reservoir Ave.
Cranston, Rhode Island 02910
Re: 135 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060
Dear Mr. Guarino:
I am a resident of the neighborhood in Northampton, Massachusetts where you intend to establish another Amazing video store. By speaking out at City Council and relevant committee meetings, and running my blog, http://www.blogger.com/, I have become what some characterize as a member of the responsible opposition to the proposed amendments to the City’s zoning ordinances to banish your store to the outskirts of town. You may believe that I write to offer my support, but I write, instead, to call you out.
My complaint is that you have done nothing to address the concerns of the community about the secondary effects that your establishments have caused elsewhere and might cause here. While I do not subscribe to the theory that secondary effects inherently flow from adult entertainment establishments, there is no doubt that secondary effects flow from owners of retail establishments who are irresponsible members of the communities in which they operate, be it owners of porn stores, bars or Chinese restaurants. The mere content sold within your establishments is not responsible for the secondary effects. You are.
It is mostly because of irresponsible operators of adult establishments who are insensitive to the communities in which they locate that porn has the near universal bad reputation that it has. Little wonder that even our liberal community accepts as gospel truth that secondary effects flow as inevitably from a porn shop as light from the sun. For that reason, few people anywhere disagree with the sentiment that hard core porn retailers like you deserve whatever treatment they get.
Perhaps you prefer it that way, basking in your defiance, or just don’t really care. But, acting as a responsible owner of an adult establishment in the community is, if nothing else, just good business. The pendulum of First Amendment protection is swinging further and further away from you, and may get stuck there far, far away for a long, long time.
The public is becoming more and more accepting everyday of censorship measures more commonly associated with China, of all places, than the USA – so do not expect the Internet to save your business empire. Have you noticed how the government lately has shut down off-shore on-line gambling operations? Curtailed on-line tobacco operations situated on Indian reservations? Purely as a business decision, it’s time to rely upon something more than the First Amendment and your lawyers.
In light of first, the prevailing public perception that plagues hard core sex establishments, and, secondly, the advantages that may flow from reliance upon more than your shrinking First Amendment rights, you may be better off requiring your stores to be community leaders in the neighborhoods where they are located.
I visited your store in Springfield this last week. It is a small, low class joint with a bland cinder block store front in a neighborhood that needs a good sweeping, wash and paint job, at the very least. There was no reason to believe your store has hastened the demise of, or improved upon, the neighborhood. But I submit that it is in your best interest to require your stores to be better than the rest of the stores in a neighborhood. For starters, why was the sidewalk in front of your store no cleaner than the sidewalk in front of the neighboring stores? Why have you not spent the pocket change to put up an attractive mural on the storefront? Etc., etc.
Here in Northampton, you can start by acting as, or even better than, any other responsible local business owner would. Any other local business operator carrying on a type of business associated with undesirable secondary effects, be it noise, drunken patrons or refuse, in this small town must face the community in person and address its concerns, be it in the coffee shops, or in formal city council or committee meetings.
Why not you? You could pro-actively appear in person, negotiate and agree to specific measures to prevent and be held accountable for the secondary effects that may flow from the irresponsible operation of an establishment such as yours, like any other local business owner.
Sure, legally, I suppose you could send representatives in your stead, or hope your lawyers prevail in court, but that will only reinforce the impression among us that you do not respect the community, and if you do not respect it, why should it respect you?
You may think you need not prove to us that you deserve respect. You have reputedly partnered with tough characters in the past. But that hardly engenders the respect you seek, and may ultimately need, from this community.
Other owners of adult enterprises, such as Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt long ago began to step up and still step up to face the public. But so far you have proven merely that you are afraid that a small town city council and its community members can stare you down.
In short, Mr. Guarino, you have proven nothing but that you are a coward, unworthy of respect. So, take your shoddy operation and get the hell out of town, or step up, face the public and be a real man.
Very truly yours,
Peter L. Brooks
Via Facsimile and Regular Mail
Mr. Kenneth Guarino
Captial Video Corporation
780 Reservoir Ave.
Cranston, Rhode Island 02910
Re: 135 King Street, Northampton, MA 01060
Dear Mr. Guarino:
I am a resident of the neighborhood in Northampton, Massachusetts where you intend to establish another Amazing video store. By speaking out at City Council and relevant committee meetings, and running my blog, http://www.blogger.com/, I have become what some characterize as a member of the responsible opposition to the proposed amendments to the City’s zoning ordinances to banish your store to the outskirts of town. You may believe that I write to offer my support, but I write, instead, to call you out.
My complaint is that you have done nothing to address the concerns of the community about the secondary effects that your establishments have caused elsewhere and might cause here. While I do not subscribe to the theory that secondary effects inherently flow from adult entertainment establishments, there is no doubt that secondary effects flow from owners of retail establishments who are irresponsible members of the communities in which they operate, be it owners of porn stores, bars or Chinese restaurants. The mere content sold within your establishments is not responsible for the secondary effects. You are.
It is mostly because of irresponsible operators of adult establishments who are insensitive to the communities in which they locate that porn has the near universal bad reputation that it has. Little wonder that even our liberal community accepts as gospel truth that secondary effects flow as inevitably from a porn shop as light from the sun. For that reason, few people anywhere disagree with the sentiment that hard core porn retailers like you deserve whatever treatment they get.
Perhaps you prefer it that way, basking in your defiance, or just don’t really care. But, acting as a responsible owner of an adult establishment in the community is, if nothing else, just good business. The pendulum of First Amendment protection is swinging further and further away from you, and may get stuck there far, far away for a long, long time.
The public is becoming more and more accepting everyday of censorship measures more commonly associated with China, of all places, than the USA – so do not expect the Internet to save your business empire. Have you noticed how the government lately has shut down off-shore on-line gambling operations? Curtailed on-line tobacco operations situated on Indian reservations? Purely as a business decision, it’s time to rely upon something more than the First Amendment and your lawyers.
In light of first, the prevailing public perception that plagues hard core sex establishments, and, secondly, the advantages that may flow from reliance upon more than your shrinking First Amendment rights, you may be better off requiring your stores to be community leaders in the neighborhoods where they are located.
I visited your store in Springfield this last week. It is a small, low class joint with a bland cinder block store front in a neighborhood that needs a good sweeping, wash and paint job, at the very least. There was no reason to believe your store has hastened the demise of, or improved upon, the neighborhood. But I submit that it is in your best interest to require your stores to be better than the rest of the stores in a neighborhood. For starters, why was the sidewalk in front of your store no cleaner than the sidewalk in front of the neighboring stores? Why have you not spent the pocket change to put up an attractive mural on the storefront? Etc., etc.
Here in Northampton, you can start by acting as, or even better than, any other responsible local business owner would. Any other local business operator carrying on a type of business associated with undesirable secondary effects, be it noise, drunken patrons or refuse, in this small town must face the community in person and address its concerns, be it in the coffee shops, or in formal city council or committee meetings.
Why not you? You could pro-actively appear in person, negotiate and agree to specific measures to prevent and be held accountable for the secondary effects that may flow from the irresponsible operation of an establishment such as yours, like any other local business owner.
Sure, legally, I suppose you could send representatives in your stead, or hope your lawyers prevail in court, but that will only reinforce the impression among us that you do not respect the community, and if you do not respect it, why should it respect you?
You may think you need not prove to us that you deserve respect. You have reputedly partnered with tough characters in the past. But that hardly engenders the respect you seek, and may ultimately need, from this community.
Other owners of adult enterprises, such as Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt long ago began to step up and still step up to face the public. But so far you have proven merely that you are afraid that a small town city council and its community members can stare you down.
In short, Mr. Guarino, you have proven nothing but that you are a coward, unworthy of respect. So, take your shoddy operation and get the hell out of town, or step up, face the public and be a real man.
Very truly yours,
Peter L. Brooks
Monday, October 02, 2006
The Possible Effects of Censorship on Art
Below Nick Pell shares his concerns about the secondary effects theory and legislating the morality propounded at the Nopornnorthampton web site. While for myself (Always Controversial), personally, I may believe I am better off adopting in many respects, but not all respects, the morality Adam and Jendi recommend, I do share Nick's concerns about the secondary effects theory and legislating morality.
Tasteful erotica, we are told by NoPornNorthampton (NPN), depicts a state of love and commitment between participants. This idea, while perfectly fine as a personal preference, is incredibly dangerous to a society which values free speech, free expression and free choice when the proponent seeks to impose their preference on others. On the one hand, it describes a set of behaviors as normal and desirable, marginalizing those not in monogamous, heterosexual relationships or those with allegedly deviant sexuality. On the other, it seeks to eliminate specific content from the city. While NPN assures us that such limitations will be reasonable, I find little reason to accept their premise at face value. As always, political debates do not take place in a vacuum. The proposed zoning legislation comes at a time when the Bush administration is aggressively pursuing obscenity laws against artists, as well as speaking out in favor of repression of sexual minorities. In the final analysis, however, the rights of artists and a contemporary history of censorship lie at the center of this issue. Repressive elements in society have no shortage of reasons that consenting adults such as you and I do not have the right to make choices for ourselves. In considering the new zoning law, it seems prudent to consider what consequences could come later, particularly in regards to censorship and creeping fascism- two dangers far more insidious than the "secondary effects" spoken of time and again by NPN. The entire community should be concerned when a few vocal individuals take it upon themselves to not only dictate how we can choose to spend our money, but also what the "correct" forms of sexuality are. Allowing such voices to prevail can only lead down a slippery slope to an increasingly repressive environment. The First Amendment Center has a thorough and thoughtful analysis of how "secondary effects" are routinely used to undermine free expression, including using "secondary effects" to prohibit high schoolers from dying their hair unusual colors. The text can be read in full here.
It seems worthwhile to quote NPN: "We are not against sex. We are against mindless sex, abusive sex, sex without regard for issues like love, fidelity, commitment, pregnancy, disease and children." In other words, they are opposed to casual sex, polyamory, condoms and other forms of birth control. Why don't they- as someone has recently suggested on their website- move to Ave Maria, FL, a planned community for people who wish to avoid the terrible burden of being exposed to the sexuality of consenting adults. Just as the repression of pornography in Weimar Germany opened the door for repression of some of the best art of the period (Futurism and Dadaism were verboten), so will content-specific legislation open the door to repression of "obscene" or "indecent" or "degrading" forms of art- with the judge of such content not being the sensibilities of individual citizens, but a government censorship board in everything but name. Content-specific legislation will not only effect the kinds of "tasteful erotica" that NPN claims to support (such as how burlesque performers must have all of their naughty bits covered in the state of Massachusetts) but also art and literature. Universally lauded works of art as Ulysses and Naked Lunch have been banned as obscene. Recent critically acclaimed Vincent Gallo film The Brown Bunny (which features a potentially disturbing, arguably degrading act of oral sex as the film's climax), or even the television show Desperate Housewives (which depicts suburban infidelity and sexual relations between adults and minors) would be questionable using the criteria outlined by NPN above. The recent French film Baise Moi (translation- "fuck me") includes a graphic rape scene, with real penetration as did the similarly themed Irreversible, which Roger Ebert declared an essentially moralistic film. In short, sexually explicit and sexually transgressive art did not end with Henry Miller. The tradition is alive and well today, particularly in cinema but also in literature and the visual arts. How would the proposed laws effect a gallery showing of Trevor Brown or a midnight showing of The Brown Bunny? What of the measures enacted after what we are being told are the "first steps"?
Lest anyone think this discussion has become to abstract, I direct your attention to the National Coalition Against Censorship's Selective Timeline of Censorhip in the U.S.A. Many of these examples come from New York City, arguably the artistic capital of the world. The vague, undefinable nature of NPN's rhetoric should be cause for alarm. What is to stop, for example, films like Kinsey and Auto Focus being declared obscene because of their frank portrayal of sex? In fact, such films have been not merely protested by conservative Christian organizations but the subject of attempted bans. Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute states that "Just as Reagan was not content to contain communism but announced a rollback, pro-family organizations are not content to protest the latest outrage anymore, but will seek legislation and will punish sponsors of lewd entertainment." (Washington Post Article) Again, the groups opposed to the biopic about Dr. Kinsey did not outwardly protest, but rather ran a disinformation campaign aimed at smearing a man dead for four decades as a child molester and blaming him personally for AIDS, incest and pornography. NPN makes similar arguments attacking pornography generally- not the proposed location of Capital Video or relevant zoning laws. This should bring into question their claims about not being in favor of censorship.
In fact, NPN leader Adam Cohen has gone to great lengths to speak out in favor of the erotic material that he thinks people should be allowed to purchase. His list of signs that the pornography you consume may be "bad" can be found here.
The list seems to say far more about Adam Cohen's sexual ethics than anything else. This is further evidenced by Mr. Cohen's laundry list of material that he finds personally offensive, which can be found here. Included in the list is the infamous wedding night video of Paris Hilton, created between two consenting adults in a monogamous, legally-sanctioned relationship. So much for the claim that NPN seeks to do anything but proscribe a set of behaviors and choices in the community. It is my position that Mr. Cohen and his co-thinkers have the right to hold any beliefs they wish about pornography, sex and intimacy. What they do not have is the right to impose those positions on the broader community using legitimate concerns about the city's zoning as a smoke screen.
Tasteful erotica, we are told by NoPornNorthampton (NPN), depicts a state of love and commitment between participants. This idea, while perfectly fine as a personal preference, is incredibly dangerous to a society which values free speech, free expression and free choice when the proponent seeks to impose their preference on others. On the one hand, it describes a set of behaviors as normal and desirable, marginalizing those not in monogamous, heterosexual relationships or those with allegedly deviant sexuality. On the other, it seeks to eliminate specific content from the city. While NPN assures us that such limitations will be reasonable, I find little reason to accept their premise at face value. As always, political debates do not take place in a vacuum. The proposed zoning legislation comes at a time when the Bush administration is aggressively pursuing obscenity laws against artists, as well as speaking out in favor of repression of sexual minorities. In the final analysis, however, the rights of artists and a contemporary history of censorship lie at the center of this issue. Repressive elements in society have no shortage of reasons that consenting adults such as you and I do not have the right to make choices for ourselves. In considering the new zoning law, it seems prudent to consider what consequences could come later, particularly in regards to censorship and creeping fascism- two dangers far more insidious than the "secondary effects" spoken of time and again by NPN. The entire community should be concerned when a few vocal individuals take it upon themselves to not only dictate how we can choose to spend our money, but also what the "correct" forms of sexuality are. Allowing such voices to prevail can only lead down a slippery slope to an increasingly repressive environment. The First Amendment Center has a thorough and thoughtful analysis of how "secondary effects" are routinely used to undermine free expression, including using "secondary effects" to prohibit high schoolers from dying their hair unusual colors. The text can be read in full here.
It seems worthwhile to quote NPN: "We are not against sex. We are against mindless sex, abusive sex, sex without regard for issues like love, fidelity, commitment, pregnancy, disease and children." In other words, they are opposed to casual sex, polyamory, condoms and other forms of birth control. Why don't they- as someone has recently suggested on their website- move to Ave Maria, FL, a planned community for people who wish to avoid the terrible burden of being exposed to the sexuality of consenting adults. Just as the repression of pornography in Weimar Germany opened the door for repression of some of the best art of the period (Futurism and Dadaism were verboten), so will content-specific legislation open the door to repression of "obscene" or "indecent" or "degrading" forms of art- with the judge of such content not being the sensibilities of individual citizens, but a government censorship board in everything but name. Content-specific legislation will not only effect the kinds of "tasteful erotica" that NPN claims to support (such as how burlesque performers must have all of their naughty bits covered in the state of Massachusetts) but also art and literature. Universally lauded works of art as Ulysses and Naked Lunch have been banned as obscene. Recent critically acclaimed Vincent Gallo film The Brown Bunny (which features a potentially disturbing, arguably degrading act of oral sex as the film's climax), or even the television show Desperate Housewives (which depicts suburban infidelity and sexual relations between adults and minors) would be questionable using the criteria outlined by NPN above. The recent French film Baise Moi (translation- "fuck me") includes a graphic rape scene, with real penetration as did the similarly themed Irreversible, which Roger Ebert declared an essentially moralistic film. In short, sexually explicit and sexually transgressive art did not end with Henry Miller. The tradition is alive and well today, particularly in cinema but also in literature and the visual arts. How would the proposed laws effect a gallery showing of Trevor Brown or a midnight showing of The Brown Bunny? What of the measures enacted after what we are being told are the "first steps"?
Lest anyone think this discussion has become to abstract, I direct your attention to the National Coalition Against Censorship's Selective Timeline of Censorhip in the U.S.A. Many of these examples come from New York City, arguably the artistic capital of the world. The vague, undefinable nature of NPN's rhetoric should be cause for alarm. What is to stop, for example, films like Kinsey and Auto Focus being declared obscene because of their frank portrayal of sex? In fact, such films have been not merely protested by conservative Christian organizations but the subject of attempted bans. Robert Knight of the Culture and Family Institute states that "Just as Reagan was not content to contain communism but announced a rollback, pro-family organizations are not content to protest the latest outrage anymore, but will seek legislation and will punish sponsors of lewd entertainment." (Washington Post Article) Again, the groups opposed to the biopic about Dr. Kinsey did not outwardly protest, but rather ran a disinformation campaign aimed at smearing a man dead for four decades as a child molester and blaming him personally for AIDS, incest and pornography. NPN makes similar arguments attacking pornography generally- not the proposed location of Capital Video or relevant zoning laws. This should bring into question their claims about not being in favor of censorship.
In fact, NPN leader Adam Cohen has gone to great lengths to speak out in favor of the erotic material that he thinks people should be allowed to purchase. His list of signs that the pornography you consume may be "bad" can be found here.
The list seems to say far more about Adam Cohen's sexual ethics than anything else. This is further evidenced by Mr. Cohen's laundry list of material that he finds personally offensive, which can be found here. Included in the list is the infamous wedding night video of Paris Hilton, created between two consenting adults in a monogamous, legally-sanctioned relationship. So much for the claim that NPN seeks to do anything but proscribe a set of behaviors and choices in the community. It is my position that Mr. Cohen and his co-thinkers have the right to hold any beliefs they wish about pornography, sex and intimacy. What they do not have is the right to impose those positions on the broader community using legitimate concerns about the city's zoning as a smoke screen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
