NPN’s friends in City Hall in their Memorandum dated October 12, 2006 made official factual findings that where the interior display area of adult content is restricted to 1,000 sq. feet or less that there are no adverse secondary effects caused. See the Memorandum again incorporated into TBN’s “The City’s Justification” post at
http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/citys-justification.html. Yet, NPN continues to rant on and on that the Cap Video store will cause the feared secondary effects.
Gee, may be because one (size) has little to do with the other (secondary effects)? NPN may be onto something... :)
Yours/AC
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Friday, December 15, 2006
The Law of Unintended Consequences Strikes Back!
Last night the Planning Board considered Cap Video’s site plan. So as to avoid any legal grounds for its submission to be denied, Cap Video naturally submitted the bare minimum necessary. Well, almost. It did submit a photo of that naughty bondage store front display from one of its other stores.
After the board and the public made it became clear that the photo was not helpful to its cause, Cap Video withdrew the photo as part of its submission, and submitted an oral representation that it would abide by the Victoria Secret standard. NPN will have to write to Victoria Secret and find out what that is! But we've all seen the store fronts in malls across the country. (I noticed the scantily clad and suggestive, but tasteful, dress of the manikins in the Fredricks of Hollywood store front tonight at the Ingleside Mall.)
Many of the board members were clearly uncomfortable finding the site plan acceptable, but they did do their duty, as they were constrained to do, and I commend them for that. With the window display withdrawn, the plan clearly complied with the legal requirements, including the 1,000 square ft. rule.
At the meeting, it quickly dawned upon them, and the public, that the passage of the anti-porn zoning ordinances this fall was a waste of valuable time and effort on the part of the City. Instead of focusing on the content of the wares to be sold in the privacy of the store, the City could have and should have instead focused on passing measures more specifically aimed at up scaling that area of King Street and other external concerns, as I urged it to do.
But this last fall and summer the City was driven by the stridently intolerant no-porn cabal lead by NPN and so it focused on measures based upon content and not the specific potential secondary effects external to the store we all sought to prevent. I'm sorry that it did not.
Yours/AC
After the board and the public made it became clear that the photo was not helpful to its cause, Cap Video withdrew the photo as part of its submission, and submitted an oral representation that it would abide by the Victoria Secret standard. NPN will have to write to Victoria Secret and find out what that is! But we've all seen the store fronts in malls across the country. (I noticed the scantily clad and suggestive, but tasteful, dress of the manikins in the Fredricks of Hollywood store front tonight at the Ingleside Mall.)
Many of the board members were clearly uncomfortable finding the site plan acceptable, but they did do their duty, as they were constrained to do, and I commend them for that. With the window display withdrawn, the plan clearly complied with the legal requirements, including the 1,000 square ft. rule.
At the meeting, it quickly dawned upon them, and the public, that the passage of the anti-porn zoning ordinances this fall was a waste of valuable time and effort on the part of the City. Instead of focusing on the content of the wares to be sold in the privacy of the store, the City could have and should have instead focused on passing measures more specifically aimed at up scaling that area of King Street and other external concerns, as I urged it to do.
But this last fall and summer the City was driven by the stridently intolerant no-porn cabal lead by NPN and so it focused on measures based upon content and not the specific potential secondary effects external to the store we all sought to prevent. I'm sorry that it did not.
Yours/AC
Thursday, December 14, 2006
NPN: Repeal the First Amendment
I don't know why NPN in its post today tries to make Michael Pill's history as a lawyer relevant. When in the business of representing clients in adversarial proceedings, lawyers are civil mercenaries; over the course of an entire career, it’s not uncommon for them to be found representing different clients with inconsistent points of view.
Our freedom of speech may not be absolute, as nothing is, but because freedom of speech is a constitutional right, when we put it into the scale of conflicting rights and interests, it ought to be given significantly more weight than non-constitutional rights and interests.
NPN needs to reconcile itself to the truth of its position which in effect means our right to free speech should not be a constitutional right, and honestly admit that it would have us repeal the first amendment. It would be a compassionate step on their part; NPN's denial of the truth hurts us all, including themselves, very deeply.
Our freedom of speech may not be absolute, as nothing is, but because freedom of speech is a constitutional right, when we put it into the scale of conflicting rights and interests, it ought to be given significantly more weight than non-constitutional rights and interests.
NPN needs to reconcile itself to the truth of its position which in effect means our right to free speech should not be a constitutional right, and honestly admit that it would have us repeal the first amendment. It would be a compassionate step on their part; NPN's denial of the truth hurts us all, including themselves, very deeply.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Child Pornography & The Ames Letter
Editor's note: I posted the following comment to the letter to the Editor published today (December 13, 2006) by the Hampshire Gazette. Bill Ames, a respected former educator (and city council member?) wrote with respect to the recent news that police had busted Ron Garney for the possession of child pornography in his home. Bill questioned whether or not it the mere possession and viewing of child pornography in the our own homes justifies the government’s intrusion into our privacy. In other words, whether or not it should be criminal to possess and view child pornography in the privacy of our own homes, for if it was not criminal, then the government’s prosecutorial power to conduct such “search and seizure” missions would be unjustified.
I believe the production of child porn should be illegal. As much as I disagree with society’s obsession with protecting children these days, I do agree children that young are bereft of the exposure and life experience (and rights, even if they do have the exposure and life experience) necessary for them to have a meaningful choice in the matter of being involved in the production of pornography.
But I commend Bill Ames for his courage to speak out. Historically, we might be surprised to learn how much in other societies, from the Greek and Roman to whatever, sex with and between minors (and related pornographic imagery) was accepted as perfectly legitimate. So, too, was gladiator fights, etc.
There seems to be a lot of debate about whether or not violence in movies, television, video games, etc. causes more violence. There are also websites where for free or for a fee I can see graphic images of actual beheadings. For example, go the website for radio jockey, Michael Savage, at
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html. The “actors” in the actual beheadings no doubt have been abused and their participation is involuntary. So, there are a lot of abusive “productions” - both commercial and non-commercial – that we are free to view in the privacy of our homes. Undeniably, they espouse and celebrate social and political ideas and viewpoints that are highly offensive and threatening, just like child pornography does, but they are ideas and viewpoints of a social and political nature, qualifying for first amendment protection.
This morning I happened to be in a conversation with a dyed in the wool, politically correct feminist lawyer and a news reporter. Perhaps it should not have come to me as a surprise, but it did, that both of them believed it wrong to criminalize the mere possession of and viewing of child pornography in the privacy of one’s own home, however sick and abhorrent it seemed to all of us.
Bill, you are not alone.
Yours/AC
I believe the production of child porn should be illegal. As much as I disagree with society’s obsession with protecting children these days, I do agree children that young are bereft of the exposure and life experience (and rights, even if they do have the exposure and life experience) necessary for them to have a meaningful choice in the matter of being involved in the production of pornography.
But I commend Bill Ames for his courage to speak out. Historically, we might be surprised to learn how much in other societies, from the Greek and Roman to whatever, sex with and between minors (and related pornographic imagery) was accepted as perfectly legitimate. So, too, was gladiator fights, etc.
There seems to be a lot of debate about whether or not violence in movies, television, video games, etc. causes more violence. There are also websites where for free or for a fee I can see graphic images of actual beheadings. For example, go the website for radio jockey, Michael Savage, at
http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/index.html. The “actors” in the actual beheadings no doubt have been abused and their participation is involuntary. So, there are a lot of abusive “productions” - both commercial and non-commercial – that we are free to view in the privacy of our homes. Undeniably, they espouse and celebrate social and political ideas and viewpoints that are highly offensive and threatening, just like child pornography does, but they are ideas and viewpoints of a social and political nature, qualifying for first amendment protection.
This morning I happened to be in a conversation with a dyed in the wool, politically correct feminist lawyer and a news reporter. Perhaps it should not have come to me as a surprise, but it did, that both of them believed it wrong to criminalize the mere possession of and viewing of child pornography in the privacy of one’s own home, however sick and abhorrent it seemed to all of us.
Bill, you are not alone.
Yours/AC
Why We Protect Porn & The Alameda Books Case
I was amused a while back on 11-30-06 when NPN posted its missive, “US Supreme Court Sets Reasonable Guidelines for Adult-Use Zoning in City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books (2002).” While no justice would say they were retreating from the leading City of Renton opinion, Alameda Books has proven to be the beginning of the end of the Renton opinion in many of the federal circuit of appeals courts, as explained below.
First, to NPN’s credit, NPN did not edit out the most important part of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the Alameda case which modified and eroded, in effect, the controlling Renton opinion. Now a city enjoys merely a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness in passing a no porn zoning law; the aggrieved retailer of sexual content can now come forward with evidence rebutting a city's presumptions about secondary effects and prevail. As its states:
"This is not to say that a municipality can get away with shoddy data or reasoning. The municipality's evidence must fairly support the municipality's rationale for its ordinance. If plaintiffs fail to cast direct doubt on this rationale, either by 'demonstrating that the municipality's evidence does not support its rationale or by furnishing evidence that disputes the municipality's factual findings, the municipality meets the standard set forth in Renton."
I cited a few of the cases where the plaintiff has in fact succeeded pursuant to the Alameda decision in my blog at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/constitutional-zoning-law-secondary.html.
Second, nonetheless, I think the majority opinion is Alameda was wrong to equate the private display and sale of sexually explicit expression with captive audience billboards and non-speech industrial factory activity, without requiring more from a city to justify a prior restraint upon, that is banishment of, constitutionally protected expression.
After all, should not our constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights be treated as more important than rights that are not? To be sure, the private consumption of sexually explicit expression is far less important to many, if not most, of the public than other rights which do not enjoy constitutional protection. Typically, sexually explicit materials express and celebrate points of view about what are acceptable manners to behave that are very contrary to the values and morals upon which our Judeo-Christian society rests. And in graphic form its very powerful expression. After all, "a picture is worth a thousand words." This powerful combination is therefore very threatening. But so are many other points of view, such as those shared by Islamic fundamentalists.
Third, the majority opinion in Alameda soft peddles the issue of whether or not sexually explicit material can be made and will be still readily accessible to the public in preferred forms. If the internet was an entirely satisfactory means of communicating all of the serious and not so serious intellectual material the public desires to offer and consume, then no commercially viable video and bookstores would remain downtown. But, in fact, people want and, to a significant extent, still need, the brick and motor, hard copy experience for the enjoyment of non-sexual as well as sexually explicit material. And the retailers, themselves, will testify as to how important location is; it’s critical.
So, in sum, where no captive audiences are involved, the Alameda court should have applied a strict scrutiny standard applicable to political speech, instead of the intermediate standard, in my opinion. Would it be more burdensome for cities? Sure, but not everything a city planner needs to be concerned about is enshrined in the constitution.
First, to NPN’s credit, NPN did not edit out the most important part of the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the Alameda case which modified and eroded, in effect, the controlling Renton opinion. Now a city enjoys merely a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness in passing a no porn zoning law; the aggrieved retailer of sexual content can now come forward with evidence rebutting a city's presumptions about secondary effects and prevail. As its states:
"This is not to say that a municipality can get away with shoddy data or reasoning. The municipality's evidence must fairly support the municipality's rationale for its ordinance. If plaintiffs fail to cast direct doubt on this rationale, either by 'demonstrating that the municipality's evidence does not support its rationale or by furnishing evidence that disputes the municipality's factual findings, the municipality meets the standard set forth in Renton."
I cited a few of the cases where the plaintiff has in fact succeeded pursuant to the Alameda decision in my blog at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/constitutional-zoning-law-secondary.html.
Second, nonetheless, I think the majority opinion is Alameda was wrong to equate the private display and sale of sexually explicit expression with captive audience billboards and non-speech industrial factory activity, without requiring more from a city to justify a prior restraint upon, that is banishment of, constitutionally protected expression.
After all, should not our constitutional rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights be treated as more important than rights that are not? To be sure, the private consumption of sexually explicit expression is far less important to many, if not most, of the public than other rights which do not enjoy constitutional protection. Typically, sexually explicit materials express and celebrate points of view about what are acceptable manners to behave that are very contrary to the values and morals upon which our Judeo-Christian society rests. And in graphic form its very powerful expression. After all, "a picture is worth a thousand words." This powerful combination is therefore very threatening. But so are many other points of view, such as those shared by Islamic fundamentalists.
Third, the majority opinion in Alameda soft peddles the issue of whether or not sexually explicit material can be made and will be still readily accessible to the public in preferred forms. If the internet was an entirely satisfactory means of communicating all of the serious and not so serious intellectual material the public desires to offer and consume, then no commercially viable video and bookstores would remain downtown. But, in fact, people want and, to a significant extent, still need, the brick and motor, hard copy experience for the enjoyment of non-sexual as well as sexually explicit material. And the retailers, themselves, will testify as to how important location is; it’s critical.
So, in sum, where no captive audiences are involved, the Alameda court should have applied a strict scrutiny standard applicable to political speech, instead of the intermediate standard, in my opinion. Would it be more burdensome for cities? Sure, but not everything a city planner needs to be concerned about is enshrined in the constitution.
More On Moslem Zoning – Texas Style
Most of the comments made in response to the “Moslem Zoning” satire I posted (see the post under the “lighter side”) were negative because they did not see apparently the connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I was surprised because no less than four people reviewed it prior to its publication. Among the pre-publication reviewers were an attorney who favored the zoning measure, a PhD and a journalism student. All of them saw the parallels I drew between City’s proposal to effectively zone out of town offensive sexual expression and, in the satire, the City’s proposal to effectively zone out of town offensive religious expression.
To me, it is all too obvious that free speech is intertwined with other issues, such as cultural and religious issues. When we feel a speaker should not be allowed to express a point of view in the manner he or she is fit to express it, either because it is not politically correct, appropriate, or too controversial we are limiting the debate coercively, rather than through argument, that is, reason.
After I published the Moslem zoning satire, however, another friend explained to me that the connection between freedom of religion and freedom of speech is not as self-evident to most people as it is to me. I should have explained that because the communication of ideas is an important part of the free exercise of just about any religion so too then is the unabridged freedom to express those ideas, however offensive and dangerous. And there is little doubt that radical Islamic fundamentalism espouses many ideas, often very graphically, that many in western culture find abhorrent, including very much myself.
Both pornographic and radical Islamic (and Christian) fundamentalist expression and practice are very offensive and threatening to many of us and merit our concern and criticism. The difference here is merely that censorship of sexually liberated heterosexual citizens is fashionable, but censorship of “oppressed” Moslems is not, particularly in politically correct Northampton. Some people have even speculated, albeit wrongfully, I believe, that anti-porn Noho feminists would conspire with radical Islamic extremists to ban exhibition of women’s bodies behind Muslim Sharia Law veils and scarfs.
So, freedom of religion is very much dependant upon freedom of speech, and attacks upon one often resemble the attacks upon the other. Just the other day, for example, I noticed a headline, “Residents use pig races to deter building of mosque.” The complaints and ostensive “concerns” of near by residents in that Texas town cited in the article echoed many of the complaints and concerns voiced by NPN and its supporters:
“ ‘Its not an appropriate place to have a [porn shop] … As a house of [sexually explicit material], they shouldn’t be disturbing the peach and tranquility of 15 homes’ … Neighbors tell us they’re concerned about traffic …” and no doubt about the people who will be working and visiting the mosque, which will also include a gym and school. Imagine the stuff they may be viewing and teaching there. Who knows what may happen if those ignorant murderous misogynous Moslems get to your kids!
One neighbor’s proposed solution in that Texas town was to hold Friday night pig races next to the mosque. In our case, we may lament “if only the City had such imagination.” But evidently, when dealing with the potential secondary effects of pornography, City Hall did not.
You might still be able to view the article at http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=4808968&ft=print.
Yours/AC
To me, it is all too obvious that free speech is intertwined with other issues, such as cultural and religious issues. When we feel a speaker should not be allowed to express a point of view in the manner he or she is fit to express it, either because it is not politically correct, appropriate, or too controversial we are limiting the debate coercively, rather than through argument, that is, reason.
After I published the Moslem zoning satire, however, another friend explained to me that the connection between freedom of religion and freedom of speech is not as self-evident to most people as it is to me. I should have explained that because the communication of ideas is an important part of the free exercise of just about any religion so too then is the unabridged freedom to express those ideas, however offensive and dangerous. And there is little doubt that radical Islamic fundamentalism espouses many ideas, often very graphically, that many in western culture find abhorrent, including very much myself.
Both pornographic and radical Islamic (and Christian) fundamentalist expression and practice are very offensive and threatening to many of us and merit our concern and criticism. The difference here is merely that censorship of sexually liberated heterosexual citizens is fashionable, but censorship of “oppressed” Moslems is not, particularly in politically correct Northampton. Some people have even speculated, albeit wrongfully, I believe, that anti-porn Noho feminists would conspire with radical Islamic extremists to ban exhibition of women’s bodies behind Muslim Sharia Law veils and scarfs.
So, freedom of religion is very much dependant upon freedom of speech, and attacks upon one often resemble the attacks upon the other. Just the other day, for example, I noticed a headline, “Residents use pig races to deter building of mosque.” The complaints and ostensive “concerns” of near by residents in that Texas town cited in the article echoed many of the complaints and concerns voiced by NPN and its supporters:
“ ‘Its not an appropriate place to have a [porn shop] … As a house of [sexually explicit material], they shouldn’t be disturbing the peach and tranquility of 15 homes’ … Neighbors tell us they’re concerned about traffic …” and no doubt about the people who will be working and visiting the mosque, which will also include a gym and school. Imagine the stuff they may be viewing and teaching there. Who knows what may happen if those ignorant murderous misogynous Moslems get to your kids!
One neighbor’s proposed solution in that Texas town was to hold Friday night pig races next to the mosque. In our case, we may lament “if only the City had such imagination.” But evidently, when dealing with the potential secondary effects of pornography, City Hall did not.
You might still be able to view the article at http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=local&id=4808968&ft=print.
Yours/AC
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
NPN’s Store Front Shocker!
Editor’s note: In NPN’s recent post about Cap Video’s plans for its storefront NPN takes to task Cap Video. NPN suggests that the store front plans are prohibited because of their darker sexually suggestive nature, among other things, which NPN contends conflicts with Cap Video’s prior representations. The "plans" were photos taken of a Cap Video store front at another location. Having had conversations with the General Counsel for Cap Video I was disappointed by the plans but not surprised. The following subsequent dialogue I (A.C.) had with NPN explains why.
AC:
As for the store front and signage, I’m afraid Cap Video may not see any point in trying to improve upon their other store fronts when it appears they would never be accepted by NPN et al. no matter what they did or do, so why invest in making the effort? Your alienating attitude toward Cap Video made it abundantly clear that Cap Video would not be accepted under any circumstances. … or … Could you ever accept them and let them be, as you do others who sell sexually explicit materials? As for the inside of the store, Cap Video said they would comply with the zoning ordinance and the plan indicates that they will by condensing all of the adult material together into one compressed section…As for parking, I really don’t see how anyone at this point can say there is any reason to believe it will be more of a problem for a Cap Video store than the A to Z children’s store just down the street… And is the signage of the auto body shops, hardware and etc., stores in the surrounding neighborhood more artful than the signage Cap Video seemingly intends to use?As for noise, lighting, etc., first, while I share these concerns, I do not know if the City can legally consider these factors. Second, if not, amelioration of the potential secondary effects by examining such measures should have been the focus of the City’s efforts over this past many months, rather than attempting to zone the store out of town based upon the content of the wares sold inside.This is what I urged the City to do, but to no avail, no thanks to you NPN. So, after the courts have ruled on all this, if we end up stuck with an ugly Cap Video store at that location, the City probably has no one to blame more than you.
NPN:
While Capital Video may not have a legal obligation to have a tasteful appearance, they did promise it. They have now gone back on that promise in a big way, reinforcing our opinion that they are not to be trusted.If the people could trust adult enterprises to locate in reasonable places, not endanger public health, and respect community opinion, there wouldn't be such a need for adult-use zoning, would there? …It's true that we will always object to films … We are also critical of companies that profit from portraying …
We might not be able to achieve all our desires in a short period, so we strive to secure as much benefit for Northampton as we can at each point.For months we've been hearing a lot from you about the merits of First Amendment-safe urban planning that will meet the needs of the community. Have you come up with any specific recommendations or examples?
AC:
Examples and recommendations? I’ve made a number of suggestions and you know it, NPN. So why do you raise the question but to infer that I have not? These suggestions were made in posts I made to the talkbacknorthampton blog site. See, e.g., http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/talkbacknorthampton-presents-real.html, and http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/real-evil.html.
First, you maintain the intellectually dishonest position of claiming you support free speech while being entirely intolerant of the private communication of speech you find offensive; second, you made unfounded accusations that Andrew Shelffo had been secretly compensated by Cap Video to switch his position; and now, third, you accuse me of never making any alternative suggestions to the zoning ordinance? How deceptively disrespectfully low will you, NPN, go? …
Reasonable places? Yes, as far as I am concerned every neighborhood needs an adult establishment or two. In my opinion, sexual appetite and gratification should be understood as just another facet of normal and healthy living according to how we are made, and your ever increasing prudish attitude towards it is more unhealthy and unsafe for a community on balance than the proposed Cap Video store. The spirit of puritan Salem lives on …
Cap Video promises? To be sure I heard them, too. But you didn’t rest with passage of the ordinances you championed to drive them out of town. NPN et al. made it clear that NPN et al. will never tolerate them regardless of what they do. So why should they try to upscale and be more sensitive to the community’s sensitivities?
Yours/AC
TalkBackNorthampton
AC:
As for the store front and signage, I’m afraid Cap Video may not see any point in trying to improve upon their other store fronts when it appears they would never be accepted by NPN et al. no matter what they did or do, so why invest in making the effort? Your alienating attitude toward Cap Video made it abundantly clear that Cap Video would not be accepted under any circumstances. … or … Could you ever accept them and let them be, as you do others who sell sexually explicit materials? As for the inside of the store, Cap Video said they would comply with the zoning ordinance and the plan indicates that they will by condensing all of the adult material together into one compressed section…As for parking, I really don’t see how anyone at this point can say there is any reason to believe it will be more of a problem for a Cap Video store than the A to Z children’s store just down the street… And is the signage of the auto body shops, hardware and etc., stores in the surrounding neighborhood more artful than the signage Cap Video seemingly intends to use?As for noise, lighting, etc., first, while I share these concerns, I do not know if the City can legally consider these factors. Second, if not, amelioration of the potential secondary effects by examining such measures should have been the focus of the City’s efforts over this past many months, rather than attempting to zone the store out of town based upon the content of the wares sold inside.This is what I urged the City to do, but to no avail, no thanks to you NPN. So, after the courts have ruled on all this, if we end up stuck with an ugly Cap Video store at that location, the City probably has no one to blame more than you.
NPN:
While Capital Video may not have a legal obligation to have a tasteful appearance, they did promise it. They have now gone back on that promise in a big way, reinforcing our opinion that they are not to be trusted.If the people could trust adult enterprises to locate in reasonable places, not endanger public health, and respect community opinion, there wouldn't be such a need for adult-use zoning, would there? …It's true that we will always object to films … We are also critical of companies that profit from portraying …
We might not be able to achieve all our desires in a short period, so we strive to secure as much benefit for Northampton as we can at each point.For months we've been hearing a lot from you about the merits of First Amendment-safe urban planning that will meet the needs of the community. Have you come up with any specific recommendations or examples?
AC:
Examples and recommendations? I’ve made a number of suggestions and you know it, NPN. So why do you raise the question but to infer that I have not? These suggestions were made in posts I made to the talkbacknorthampton blog site. See, e.g., http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/talkbacknorthampton-presents-real.html, and http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/real-evil.html.
First, you maintain the intellectually dishonest position of claiming you support free speech while being entirely intolerant of the private communication of speech you find offensive; second, you made unfounded accusations that Andrew Shelffo had been secretly compensated by Cap Video to switch his position; and now, third, you accuse me of never making any alternative suggestions to the zoning ordinance? How deceptively disrespectfully low will you, NPN, go? …
Reasonable places? Yes, as far as I am concerned every neighborhood needs an adult establishment or two. In my opinion, sexual appetite and gratification should be understood as just another facet of normal and healthy living according to how we are made, and your ever increasing prudish attitude towards it is more unhealthy and unsafe for a community on balance than the proposed Cap Video store. The spirit of puritan Salem lives on …
Cap Video promises? To be sure I heard them, too. But you didn’t rest with passage of the ordinances you championed to drive them out of town. NPN et al. made it clear that NPN et al. will never tolerate them regardless of what they do. So why should they try to upscale and be more sensitive to the community’s sensitivities?
Yours/AC
TalkBackNorthampton
Monday, December 11, 2006
The Smut Played by Pleasant Street Theater …
Is really good. A couple of friends and I went to see the independent feature “ShortBus” at the Pleasant Street Theater last Friday night. Chock full of cocks and balls, tits, ass and pussy, male on male, female on female, male and female two-somes, three-somes and more, fighting and fucking! One fellow is even shown blowing himself and swallowing his own come. I’ve certainly never seen that before!
So, why isn’t NPN sounding the alarm and whipping up the troops to banish Pleasant Street Theater out of town? Or are they again going to be intellectually dishonest and try to distinguish this instance of grossly graphic sexual expression as their non-gratuitous “erotica” or something?
Go ahead NPN, make my day.
Yours/AC
So, why isn’t NPN sounding the alarm and whipping up the troops to banish Pleasant Street Theater out of town? Or are they again going to be intellectually dishonest and try to distinguish this instance of grossly graphic sexual expression as their non-gratuitous “erotica” or something?
Go ahead NPN, make my day.
Yours/AC
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
NPN Still Will Not Come Clean!
Editor’s note: Below is a) the response of NPN to my request that it apologize to Andrew Shelffo for insinuating that he was secretly acting on behalf of Cap Video by demanding that he declare that has not been, even though he long ago explained in public and at this blog why he changed his opinion about the anti-porn zoning ordinance that recently passed and b) my reply. See below
http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-are-doing-npn.html, and http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/12/npn-censorship-by-benign-neglect-im.html.
NPN’s Response:
Asking a journalist (even a citizen journalist) a relevant question about their motivations is just being a good investigator. By calling it "character assassination" you are discouraging free inquiry and short circuiting the feedback process between the media and the public. This does not serve free speech or quality journalism.I wasn't convinced by Andrew Shelffo's reasoning or yours about the basis for his arguments. I felt it important to press the question of a conflict of interest to get clarity on that important point.Mr. Shelffo's arrogant attitude towards our questions is not appropriate for someone who enjoys the privilege of having MassLive host their blog.
A.C.’s Reply:
Just how often are journalists put on the stand to defend their credibility without cause cited? It was not a relevant question unless NPN had a cited reason for asking Andrew in particular, as it has not questioned the integrity of anyone else in the debate, such as Bill Dwight. By not stating a reason justifying the question, NPN turned the question into an unfounded insinuation – an innuendo. It was dirty rhetorical question, and Andrew saw it for what it was.
In response to my asking NPN its reason for asking the question it claimed it just could not believe someone would change their minds after looking into the anti-porn rhetoric more critically than NPN does. Pretty lame reason. So lame that it makes me wonder if NPN really did have a valid reason to ask the question when they went after Andrew, other than to silence him by leveling upon him a personal attack. As a father of young children who disagrees with NPN’s point of view living approximately no further from the proposed Cap Video store than NPN does, for NPN he is a particularly threatening figure in the debate.
Masslive can make its own decisions as to who should have the “privilege” of being hosted by them. Who is NPN to tell Masslive who it may host? Is NPN jealous that it is not hosted by Masslive or something?
Further, NPN continues to cover up the fact that it went after Mr. Shelffo even though Andrew had explained himself weeks ago before the council and on-line at my blog. It knew or should have known as the responsible "investigative" journalists they claim to be that Andrew had long ago explained himself and there was no reason to believe he was acting on behalf of Cap Video. Yet NPN still covers up its malfeasance and pretends to be so righteous as to preach to us journalist ethics!
Congratulations, NPN, you have joined the ranks of Rush Limbaugh and the like. What next for you, a show on Fox News?
All I asked is that NPN admit that it wronged Andrew and make an apology to restore its own honor and credibility; but it refuses.
http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/12/what-are-doing-npn.html, and http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/12/npn-censorship-by-benign-neglect-im.html.
NPN’s Response:
Asking a journalist (even a citizen journalist) a relevant question about their motivations is just being a good investigator. By calling it "character assassination" you are discouraging free inquiry and short circuiting the feedback process between the media and the public. This does not serve free speech or quality journalism.I wasn't convinced by Andrew Shelffo's reasoning or yours about the basis for his arguments. I felt it important to press the question of a conflict of interest to get clarity on that important point.Mr. Shelffo's arrogant attitude towards our questions is not appropriate for someone who enjoys the privilege of having MassLive host their blog.
A.C.’s Reply:
Just how often are journalists put on the stand to defend their credibility without cause cited? It was not a relevant question unless NPN had a cited reason for asking Andrew in particular, as it has not questioned the integrity of anyone else in the debate, such as Bill Dwight. By not stating a reason justifying the question, NPN turned the question into an unfounded insinuation – an innuendo. It was dirty rhetorical question, and Andrew saw it for what it was.
In response to my asking NPN its reason for asking the question it claimed it just could not believe someone would change their minds after looking into the anti-porn rhetoric more critically than NPN does. Pretty lame reason. So lame that it makes me wonder if NPN really did have a valid reason to ask the question when they went after Andrew, other than to silence him by leveling upon him a personal attack. As a father of young children who disagrees with NPN’s point of view living approximately no further from the proposed Cap Video store than NPN does, for NPN he is a particularly threatening figure in the debate.
Masslive can make its own decisions as to who should have the “privilege” of being hosted by them. Who is NPN to tell Masslive who it may host? Is NPN jealous that it is not hosted by Masslive or something?
Further, NPN continues to cover up the fact that it went after Mr. Shelffo even though Andrew had explained himself weeks ago before the council and on-line at my blog. It knew or should have known as the responsible "investigative" journalists they claim to be that Andrew had long ago explained himself and there was no reason to believe he was acting on behalf of Cap Video. Yet NPN still covers up its malfeasance and pretends to be so righteous as to preach to us journalist ethics!
Congratulations, NPN, you have joined the ranks of Rush Limbaugh and the like. What next for you, a show on Fox News?
All I asked is that NPN admit that it wronged Andrew and make an apology to restore its own honor and credibility; but it refuses.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Friday, December 01, 2006
NPN: Censorship by Benign Neglect; I'm Back, Sadly.
I ceased contributing to the TalkBackNorthampton blog after the City Council passed the proposed zoning ordinance to banish Cap Video out of town. For better or worse, unless Cap Video complies with the regulation (which it may), the constitutional issue will be decided by the courts in due course. I also found it less than healthy for my own well being to be so wrapped up into such an acrimonious public debate for so long. Having moved here from tumultuous New York City, I had hoped enjoy the relative peace and tranquility that the Northampton area offers.
I did continue to submit comments at the NPN website from time to time, and noticed the continuation of a disturbing tendency on the part of NPN. Because NPN “moderates” submissions, the submissions typically do not appear, if at all, until long after the NPN blog entry has been featured and replaced by new material, and then only if NPN has developed a rebuttal response. So, as a practical matter few, if any, of the public will notice the submitted comments once they are posted by NPN, and only then when NPN has the last word.
The most recent example of this is when in a submission I asked NPN why they were demanding Andrew Schefflo to disclose if he had any ties to Cap Video, which was posted with their contention in response that Andrew never explained why his thinking on the issue switched. I then submitted an explanation that Andrew had in fact explained his shift in thinking when he first spoke up at a City Council meeting, and noted that I posted his comments incorporating his explanation at this blogsite not long after Andrew made them before the City Council. See http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-children-or-fear-driving-city.html.
Instead of forthwith posting this submission, which cleared up the matter and demonstrated how little attention NPN really pays to opposing points of view, NPN in the meantime instead chose to post at least three rather lengthy features to their website burying the matter of their misadventure, rather than fess up. Even more remarkable is that the last of these three posts by NPN is all about the importance of trust and transparency between bloggers and their audience!
Its is sad to see NPN first sink to the level of implicitly alleging that Andrew was connected to Cap Video without mentioning any justification for casting him in such a light, and then to bury their error with moralistic and ethical rhetoric.
There’s been nothing pornographic about the comments I have submitted; they are all within the realm of political discourse one would assume NPN believes is worthy of respect, not censorship. Nonetheless, NPN appears to be more concerned with spewing forth whatever material they can find which solely supports their viewpoints. After all, in public debate quantity of speech often trumps quality of speech. No wonder one of NPN most common arguments is that the quantity of speech they can find which supports their viewpoints, rather than the quality of such speech, far exceeds the quantity of speech in support of contrary viewpoints. But this "common sense" which they trumpet is hardly in depth and critical analysis. If “common sense” were to rule the day, the world would still be flat, and women and children - who NPN claims to be so concerned about -- would still be the chattels of men.
Its time for NPN to be honest with us -- as well as themselves, if necessary -- and fess up to the truth: they do not believe the right to free speech should be a constitutional right justifying a broad and special scope of protection, and they would have us repeal the first amendment. While this point of view may be verboten in America, internationally it would not be so controversial. Many a democracy, such as the United Kigndom, thrive without a constitutional right to free speech. Further, censorship as a civil right has become more important both domestically and internationally than free speech. See the blog entry below on this trend at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-censorship-civil-right.html.
It may be very well time for the constitution to catch up to the reality of the laws and judicial opinions by which we really live and end the intellectual hypocrisy perpetuated by the Supreme Court and NPN, among others. But, having little patience for intellectual hypocrisy, I am back to blogging for better or worse.
I did continue to submit comments at the NPN website from time to time, and noticed the continuation of a disturbing tendency on the part of NPN. Because NPN “moderates” submissions, the submissions typically do not appear, if at all, until long after the NPN blog entry has been featured and replaced by new material, and then only if NPN has developed a rebuttal response. So, as a practical matter few, if any, of the public will notice the submitted comments once they are posted by NPN, and only then when NPN has the last word.
The most recent example of this is when in a submission I asked NPN why they were demanding Andrew Schefflo to disclose if he had any ties to Cap Video, which was posted with their contention in response that Andrew never explained why his thinking on the issue switched. I then submitted an explanation that Andrew had in fact explained his shift in thinking when he first spoke up at a City Council meeting, and noted that I posted his comments incorporating his explanation at this blogsite not long after Andrew made them before the City Council. See http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/10/is-children-or-fear-driving-city.html.
Instead of forthwith posting this submission, which cleared up the matter and demonstrated how little attention NPN really pays to opposing points of view, NPN in the meantime instead chose to post at least three rather lengthy features to their website burying the matter of their misadventure, rather than fess up. Even more remarkable is that the last of these three posts by NPN is all about the importance of trust and transparency between bloggers and their audience!
Its is sad to see NPN first sink to the level of implicitly alleging that Andrew was connected to Cap Video without mentioning any justification for casting him in such a light, and then to bury their error with moralistic and ethical rhetoric.
There’s been nothing pornographic about the comments I have submitted; they are all within the realm of political discourse one would assume NPN believes is worthy of respect, not censorship. Nonetheless, NPN appears to be more concerned with spewing forth whatever material they can find which solely supports their viewpoints. After all, in public debate quantity of speech often trumps quality of speech. No wonder one of NPN most common arguments is that the quantity of speech they can find which supports their viewpoints, rather than the quality of such speech, far exceeds the quantity of speech in support of contrary viewpoints. But this "common sense" which they trumpet is hardly in depth and critical analysis. If “common sense” were to rule the day, the world would still be flat, and women and children - who NPN claims to be so concerned about -- would still be the chattels of men.
Its time for NPN to be honest with us -- as well as themselves, if necessary -- and fess up to the truth: they do not believe the right to free speech should be a constitutional right justifying a broad and special scope of protection, and they would have us repeal the first amendment. While this point of view may be verboten in America, internationally it would not be so controversial. Many a democracy, such as the United Kigndom, thrive without a constitutional right to free speech. Further, censorship as a civil right has become more important both domestically and internationally than free speech. See the blog entry below on this trend at http://talkbacknorthampton.blogspot.com/2006/09/is-censorship-civil-right.html.
It may be very well time for the constitution to catch up to the reality of the laws and judicial opinions by which we really live and end the intellectual hypocrisy perpetuated by the Supreme Court and NPN, among others. But, having little patience for intellectual hypocrisy, I am back to blogging for better or worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
