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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
You must not have a lot of respect for the people of this town, Mr. Shelffo, if you feel they can be easily misled by bad arguments. Over 1,000 people have signed our petition because we convinced them fair and square. TBN's petition is badly lagging (just 21 signatures to date), suggesting that the thin facts and weak logic presented here are not as compelling.
If the liberal communities of Hollywood, New York and Boston can regulate their adult businesses without damaging their cultural lives, so can Northampton. There's nothing new in this debate, just rehashed hysteria about runaway censorship which simply has not been seen to result from adult-use zoning.
WE DON'T EVEN ASK PEOPLE TO SIGN OUR PETITION - WE DON'T EVEN POINT IT OUT. INSTEAD WE ASK PEOPLE TO SHOW UP COUNCIL MEETINGS -- AND LATELY THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC AT THE MEETINGS ARE AGAINST THE ZONING.
AND STOP USING NEW YORK CITY AS AN EXAMPLE. YOU ARE LYING TO THE PUBLIC. YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY ME PERSONALLY THAT THE ZONING LAWS CONCERNING PORN IN NYC ARE SUBJECT TO AN INJUNCTION -- NOT BEING ENFORCED. SO STOP IT. YOU ARE LOSING MY RESPECT NOW BY THE MINUTE.
Yours/AC
Mr. Cohen,
The fact that you've been able to scare over 1,000 people into signing a petition doesn't surprise me, nor does it convince me that your arguments are right. People are misled by bad arguments all the time; why would I think your bad argument would be any different?
By the way, why don't you tell us how many of those people signed the petition when the viewing booths were part of Capital Video's plans?
I think that pointing out how misleading the examples you continue to cite in your arguments are shows respect for the people of Northampton because it means that they are fully informed. Your tactics are to cherry pick "facts" and piece together an argument to support your extreme views. Intellectualy dishonesty like that certainly shows a lack of respect for people and no faith that people can make up their minds on their own.
Let's back up and see if I can get you to concede a single point. At
http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/did-you-know.html
Nick Pell defended TBN's post of October 11 by saying, "I do know that the overwhelming majority of gay male pornography made in America include condoms."
Mr. Pell is correct, and I got the impression that he approves the use of condoms in gay male pornography. I would like to ask if you support extending this protection to female porn workers, in light of the study we cite at NoPornNorthampton.org that found that 40% of porn workers have at least one STD?
When you watch most porn that involves women, you are watching one of the most harmful workplaces in America. What if 40% of Wal-Mart's employees got an STD as part of their job? Would you be so forgiving?
Peter, no matter how you slice it, there are far more people on record supporting adult-use zoning in Northampton than opposing it.
As for New York, our essential point is that adult-use zoning has been in force there for years and runaway censorship--your primary fear--has not occurred. This is the same as the experience in Hollywood, Boston and elsewhere. The fact that the manner of adult-use zoning in New York is currently a matter of dispute does not invalidate our case.
Your claims that adult-use zoning leads to increasing censorship are groundless, and you are attempting to spread this groundless fear among the public. Fortunately, the mayor and most of our council members understand where the merits lie in this debate, and they are responding to the valid concerns of their constituents.
An absolute defense of the First Amendment might have seemed "sexy" and noble a generation ago, but America now has decades of experience with adult businesses and adult-use zoning. We understand the harms that adult businesses can cause, and the proven value of narrowly tailored solutions like zoning. We have learned how to achieve a better balance for our communities than to just let large adult businesses locate where they will.
At the end of the day, you're just helping a callous businessman make money by exploiting women and men, while he exposes a large number of Northampton residents, businesses and pedestrians to well-documented risks.
As Wethersfield has discovered, Mr. Shelffo, Capital Video can add viewing booths to existing stores if a town has no regulations regarding them. Getting viewing booths regulated remains an important part of our campaign. All of the signatures on our petition are valid in this regard.
Adam, assuming you are correct at about the record, you mean to say this issue of banishing objectional ideas and expression to the outskirts of town should be ruled by the tyranny of the majority?
What is the "record" to which you refer? Is it a sceintific poll, or just your petition? And where people and lawyers would be shunned by a signifant portion of the community if they were openly pro porn (as Andrew Sirulink points out in his missive published in the Gazette), how can you be sure the majority agree with you?
Narrowly tailored? That's bullshit.
Exploiting men and women for profit is wrong? Adam, that's capitalism. On that basis, then we have to banish a lot more than porn from society. Read your Marx.
Yours/AC
Wow. Seems pretty cold that women should get sick or even die so you can see them have sex without a condom.
Mr. Cohen,
As to Wethersfield: since the booths have been added, what have the secondary effects been on the town?
And why won't you say how many people signed the petition before the viewing booths were removed from Capital Video's plans?
As we discuss at
http://nopornnorthampton.org/2006/10/08/capital-video-added-viewing-booths-to-its-meriden-store-just-last-year.aspx#comment-139383
the Wethersfield store is located on a true highway strip. It is not nearly as surrounded by homes, schools and churches as 135 King Street is. There are few if any pedestrians around to scare away. That's what Northampton's proposed adult-use zoning is trying to accomplish, to keep large adult businesses away from homes.
Local residents certainly don't seem too thrilled with the Capital Video store in Springfield:
http://nopornnorthampton.org/2006/10/24/springfield-citizens-beat-back-an-expansion-of-capital-videos-porn-shop-there.aspx
We became aware that Capital Video had suspended viewing booths from its plans on August 4. We revised our petition to reflect this fact on August 5:
http://nopornnorthampton.org/2006/07/10/nopornnorthampton-petition-ready-for-circulation.aspx
Viewing booth regulation has always been part of our petition, before and after August 5.
Plenty of petition signatures continue to come in even now, and we look forward to presenting our new ones to the city council on November 2.
Mr. Cohen,
I guess I'll have to live with the fact that you won't tell us how many people signed the petition before the viewing booths were removed from Capital Video's plans. You do know that it's just a petition and not a loyalty oath, right? I'm sure many people were motivated to sign the petition because of the existenc of the video booths in the plans. Now that they're not in the plans, it is plausible that some of the people who signed it wouldn't sign it now, isn't it?
The studies you cite on your website about secondary effects don't break down the effects based on location of an adult business or size of that business, so I'm a bit mystified as to why you wouldn't cite information about the secondary effects experienced by Wethersfield. The experiences of present-day Wethersfield are much more relevant than the experienes of Des Moines in the 70s or Minneapolis in the 80s. In fact, I'd be interested to see statistics that show the increase in secondary effects from any of the cities where Capital Video is located. (I'd prefer that you use a different city than Kittery, Maine, though, since you've used that one so many times.)
You could even use Springfield. Can you show us the effects that store has had on that neighborhood? And please don't stop at the neighbors' displeasure and provide hard facts, similar to the facts your cite in the Minneapolis study about the 9.18 (I may have the number wrong; if I do, I apologize) per thousand increase in the crime rate.
If you can't provide this information, please let us know that, too.
Mr. Shelffo, while I can break down the petition signatures by date, I still don't see why that's material. Viewing booth regulation has been important to us at every point in this campaign.
Your speculation about the state of mind of those who signed at any particular time is just speculation. Certainly a two-thirds majority of our city councilors, plus the mayor, believed their constituents wanted them to regulate adult businesses as of October 19. The mayor in particular has become more pro-regulation as time has gone by.
As I mentioned before, many signatures continue to arrive in the present days, when Capital Video's suspension of its viewing booth plans are well known, so we will show that public sentiment remains strongly in favor of adult-use regulation.
You may trust that, absent regulation, Capital Video will not reintroduce viewing booths into its 135 King Street location at a later time. I don't.
Is it not elitist to disregard the manifest, well-supported concerns of so many citizens and elected officials, and assert that you and a handful of other porn defenders just know better what's good for them?
Speaking of elitism, how easily you dismiss the lived experience of Capital Video's neighbors in Springfield, and the 9-0 City Council vote to block an expansion of Capital Video's store at 486 Bridge Street in 2002. Many Springfield residents opposed the store when it opened in 1990, and many residents opposed its expansion in 2002, suggesting to me that the experience of living with a Capital Video porn shop is no more pleasurable than the anticipation of it.
Can the people of Springfield really be that confused about where their true interests lie?
In summary, you care little about female porn workers catching disease, you dismiss the opinions and experience of people who live next to a Capital Video porn shop, but you do object to people having to drive an extra mile or two to get their porn.
I don't share your priorities.
I believe you have mischaracterized me, and I think you should apologize. I have never suggested that I don't care for female, or male, porn workers. This is a typical tactic of NoPorn to label anyone who questions them as "pro-porn" and uncaring about porn workers. You know full well that this zoning regulation will do nothing to the amount of pornography that is available and consumed in Northampton. Therefore, any discussion about "caring" about porn workers is a smoke screen.
I am trying to find the facts to support your position. You're saying that we need to pass these zoning regulations to prevent the scourge of secondary effects from raining down on Northampton. I ask you to provide substantive proof that secondary effects necessarily follow the opening of an adult business. I ask for this information because we have adult stores in Northamtpon presently, and I'm not aware of any increase in secondary effects, and because while you cite studies, they don't seem to fit what's going on with present-day Northampon. I suggest that maybe we look at the experiences of Wethersfield and Springfield, two Capital Video locations YOU reference. Somehow, because I want statistics on the impact of these businesses on the respective cities that means I don't care about porn workers?
And once again, I am not dismissing the opinion of residents. Instead, I am trying to find evidence to verify those opinions. As you youreself has said, just because someone believes that the CIA is listening to their thoughts, that doesn't mean it's true. So, just because someone belives that an adult business will bring hideous secondary effects to a city, why should we believe it's going to happen?
I'll leave the video booth argument aside right now, because I have confidence that if Capital Video submitted plans somewhere down the road, the mayor, whomever that may be, would not issue the license.
I'll wait for your apology.
Andrew
I'm glad to hear you care about porn workers, Andrew. It gets a bit confusing in this comment thread because some of Peter's comments make me concerned that he doesn't care.
The conditions of porn workers may not be directly related to matters of adult-use zoning, but they do have a bearing on the nobility, or baseness, of those who try to help Capital Video do what they do. We are also hoping that people will voluntarily reduce their consumption of porn.
If residents complain to their public officials about a porn shop, that suggests to me that secondary effects may well be present. If a mayor required a scientific study from residents before responding to any reasonable complaint, that person would probably soon be an ex-mayor.
So, I guess you don't have the statistics?
I got the impression that he approves the use of condoms in gay male pornography.
For the record, I neither approve nor disapprove of condom use in pornography (or real life, for that matter). I see every individual as responsible for taking measures to ensure their health and safety. That said, I agree with NPN that requiring workers to sign releases holding companies not liable for occupational hazards is problematic and I suspect that it is likely illegal. However, if people want to watch other people having unprotected sex the market will have no trouble finding people willing to do so on camera. Indeed, the ubiquity of condoms in gay pornography has led to a backlash and fetishization of unprotected sex.
Post a Comment