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.
Showing posts with label Nick Pell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nick Pell. Show all posts
Monday, October 02, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
What is NPN's Real Agenda?
The following has been written by Nicholas Pell, a Northampton resident and graduate of Umass- Amherst who is currently assisting Talk Back Northampton in their fight against censorship. It has not been written by the author of "An Open Letter to NoPornNorthampton" or the satirical news article about the potential dangers of adult business in town.
I appreciate the spirit with which NoPornNorthampton (NPN) has welcomed Talk Back Northampton (TBN) into the debate. A free and open marketplace of ideas seems essential to finding a reasonable, moderate solution to the present situation which includes all voices in the community. The crux of the issue seems to be over the definition and primacy of free speech in our community, as well as the unintended consequences of content-specific zoning laws which would rob us of our right to consume the kinds of entertainment we see fit. Regardless of the intentions of NPN, the proposed zoning law is content-specific and could be used later on to ban the tasteful erotica which NPN claims to support as free speech, as well as sexually frank works of art.
All concerned citizens of Northampton care about the effects of a large national retailer on the community as a whole. To be sure, Capital Video may be wise to open a dialogue with the community. But the specific concerns raised by NPN about the secondary effects of Capital Video are worth considering for any person interested in what kind of community we all wish to live in. But what will the proposed zoning law do? Some have suggested that such an establishment would be acceptable were it confined to an area further down King Street. This argument smacks of elitism. NPN apparently believes that a business which they seek to eliminate from their neighborhood is acceptable if located closer to the less-privileged sections of town- people in those neighborhoods are a lost cause anyhow, right? They also claim that the store will lead to harassment of passers-by, an idea that's slightly absurd to anyone who has studied how most publicity-shy patrons exit an adult book store.
I grew up outside of Cranston, Rhode Island in a city which boasted a combat zone comprised of a pornographic video store, several lottery sellers, cheap motels and a massive scrap metal heap. I know first hand that the secondary effects observed are not necessarily connected to the existence of adult businesses. Rather, pushing all unacceptable business into one section of a city, the poorest section, seems to be more a formula for the amorphous "blight" Mr. Cohen continually speaks of. A good theoretical topic to consider is the difference between an upscale bar and a dive. An argument about the relative merits of a bar in a neighborhood would be disingenuous if it painted all bars with the same broad brush. This debate may be more about packaging than content.
The issue, as I see it, is not conjuring up moralistic spectres with the goal of content-specific legislation. Consider for a moment another theoretical example. If, in the early 1950s, a communist group sought to open a book store across the street from Bridge Street School, there like would have been much community outcry, with similar rhetoric about protecting children from misguided attitudes and subversive characters. Would zoning an unpopular political group out of town be seen as anything other than censorship, even if the opposition groups assured the community that the material was "still widely available, particularly for anyone who has cable TV, a satellite dish, or access to the internet?" What of people who prefer to purchase hard copies of adult material? Many people have difficulty reading material on computer screens. Who wants to curl up in bed at night with a laptop rather than a book orreference magazine, be it the latest issue of Penthouse or the New York Times.
Further, the history of restrictive, content-specific legislation shows a slippery slope toward increasing restriction of our freedoms. The idea that such laws can be "loosened" down the road ignores the role of precendence in jurisprudence- laws are far easier to make than to unmake. How will we know when the law has gone too far? Shouldn't the zoning board be more concerned with content-neutral legislation which improves the quality of life in our city generally rather than specifically targeting one unpopular business?
I do not accept NPN's assertion that because of a high percentage of advanced degrees in the community we should have "little concern" about our freedoms being eroded. The claim is spurious. Germany was considered one of the most "educated" countries in Europe. It did not prevent the rise of Nazism. How will we know (and agree upon) when the law needs to be "loosened?" After all, there are reasonable and intelligent individuals on both sides of the present debate. NoPornNorthampton fails toprovide any practical guidance in this respect.
The argument regarding education further betrays the elitism of NPN. An anti-pornography voice (Shoshana Marchand, quoted in the September 22, 2006 edition of the Hampshire Daily Gazette) betrays the elitist underpinnings of the anti-free speech movement saying "[i]f the store existed out at Big Y plaza or anywhere else, I wouldn't have a problem with it." In other words, crime, blight and harassment of passers-by becomes more acceptable the closer it gets to the more underprivileged parts of King Street.
NPN's eloquent language about striking a balance between free speech and other interests soft pedals their preferences for even more restrictive measures against sexually explicit materials be they books or videos. Much of the website is dedicated not to a discussion of bettering the community using zoning laws, or even the secondary effects of such businesses on the surrounding neighborhood. Rather, NPN contains several prolonged attacks against the adult entertainment industry because they do not approve of the content. They have identified pornography as "hate speech" in their protests, a statement which should provoke a scandal among ethnic, racial and sexual minorities in the community.
NPN believes that adult women make the choice to appear in pornography because of their "judgment clouded by drugs, sexual abuse and our pornified culture." When reading such rhetoric it seems appropriate to ask who considers women adults who are capable of making their own choices, with judgment as clear as men's, in a manner that will not always be popular and who considers women easily duped children in need of extraordinary state protection. Don't take my word for it, go to their website.
NPN's rhetoric downplays their lack of opposition to such proven threats to the community as Wal-Mart and McDonalds by resorting to discredited, right-wing rhetoric about the adult entertainment industry. Anyone convinced that NPN paints an accurate picture of the adult entertainment industry unmotivated by ideology is directed to the writings of feminist porn stars Nina Hartley and Annie Sprinkle, the relevant section of Susan Faludi's seminal study of the post-war American male, Stiffed or any number of feminist writers who do not model women as helpless victims.
The "borderline legal status of the industry" which "makes performers reluctant to seek redress in court" is perpetuated by NPN and similar forces which push adult entertainment into such quasi-legaal status by creating sex panics. I little wonder why adult entertainment businesses become associated with questionable characters, similar to gambling or alcohol in the earlier part of the century.
NPN not so deftly dodges the issue of the exploitation and oppression of women and children at the hands of ideology and religion, citing a supposed lack of evidence that religions and ideologies are as or more harmful than adult entertainment. While not wishing to start a debate over the relative merits of religious and secular ideologies, it seems worth pointing to the conflict in Ulster, the recent scandals in the Catholic Church, the chattel status of women in many parts of the Islamic world, the 30 Years War, the Crusades or the forced conversion of Northern Europe to Christianity. Such examples are but the tip of the iceberg.
I welcome an open and transparent discussion of the issues. The secondary effects of all large businesses moving into town should be taken into effect both in the general and the specific. However, it seems that (intentionally or not) NPN is more likely to start a sexual witch hunt than protect women and children. If NPN seeks to marginalize and stigmatize specific lifestyle choices or forms of expression I merely ask that they stand up before the people of the community and state the (pun intended) naked truth. Their posturing that this is anything but censorship quickly falls flat when closely examined.
Shouldn't the city be nore concerned with content-neutral legislation which improves the quality of life in our city generally rather than specifically targeting one unpopular business?
I appreciate the spirit with which NoPornNorthampton (NPN) has welcomed Talk Back Northampton (TBN) into the debate. A free and open marketplace of ideas seems essential to finding a reasonable, moderate solution to the present situation which includes all voices in the community. The crux of the issue seems to be over the definition and primacy of free speech in our community, as well as the unintended consequences of content-specific zoning laws which would rob us of our right to consume the kinds of entertainment we see fit. Regardless of the intentions of NPN, the proposed zoning law is content-specific and could be used later on to ban the tasteful erotica which NPN claims to support as free speech, as well as sexually frank works of art.
All concerned citizens of Northampton care about the effects of a large national retailer on the community as a whole. To be sure, Capital Video may be wise to open a dialogue with the community. But the specific concerns raised by NPN about the secondary effects of Capital Video are worth considering for any person interested in what kind of community we all wish to live in. But what will the proposed zoning law do? Some have suggested that such an establishment would be acceptable were it confined to an area further down King Street. This argument smacks of elitism. NPN apparently believes that a business which they seek to eliminate from their neighborhood is acceptable if located closer to the less-privileged sections of town- people in those neighborhoods are a lost cause anyhow, right? They also claim that the store will lead to harassment of passers-by, an idea that's slightly absurd to anyone who has studied how most publicity-shy patrons exit an adult book store.
I grew up outside of Cranston, Rhode Island in a city which boasted a combat zone comprised of a pornographic video store, several lottery sellers, cheap motels and a massive scrap metal heap. I know first hand that the secondary effects observed are not necessarily connected to the existence of adult businesses. Rather, pushing all unacceptable business into one section of a city, the poorest section, seems to be more a formula for the amorphous "blight" Mr. Cohen continually speaks of. A good theoretical topic to consider is the difference between an upscale bar and a dive. An argument about the relative merits of a bar in a neighborhood would be disingenuous if it painted all bars with the same broad brush. This debate may be more about packaging than content.
The issue, as I see it, is not conjuring up moralistic spectres with the goal of content-specific legislation. Consider for a moment another theoretical example. If, in the early 1950s, a communist group sought to open a book store across the street from Bridge Street School, there like would have been much community outcry, with similar rhetoric about protecting children from misguided attitudes and subversive characters. Would zoning an unpopular political group out of town be seen as anything other than censorship, even if the opposition groups assured the community that the material was "still widely available, particularly for anyone who has cable TV, a satellite dish, or access to the internet?" What of people who prefer to purchase hard copies of adult material? Many people have difficulty reading material on computer screens. Who wants to curl up in bed at night with a laptop rather than a book orreference magazine, be it the latest issue of Penthouse or the New York Times.
Further, the history of restrictive, content-specific legislation shows a slippery slope toward increasing restriction of our freedoms. The idea that such laws can be "loosened" down the road ignores the role of precendence in jurisprudence- laws are far easier to make than to unmake. How will we know when the law has gone too far? Shouldn't the zoning board be more concerned with content-neutral legislation which improves the quality of life in our city generally rather than specifically targeting one unpopular business?
I do not accept NPN's assertion that because of a high percentage of advanced degrees in the community we should have "little concern" about our freedoms being eroded. The claim is spurious. Germany was considered one of the most "educated" countries in Europe. It did not prevent the rise of Nazism. How will we know (and agree upon) when the law needs to be "loosened?" After all, there are reasonable and intelligent individuals on both sides of the present debate. NoPornNorthampton fails toprovide any practical guidance in this respect.
The argument regarding education further betrays the elitism of NPN. An anti-pornography voice (Shoshana Marchand, quoted in the September 22, 2006 edition of the Hampshire Daily Gazette) betrays the elitist underpinnings of the anti-free speech movement saying "[i]f the store existed out at Big Y plaza or anywhere else, I wouldn't have a problem with it." In other words, crime, blight and harassment of passers-by becomes more acceptable the closer it gets to the more underprivileged parts of King Street.
NPN's eloquent language about striking a balance between free speech and other interests soft pedals their preferences for even more restrictive measures against sexually explicit materials be they books or videos. Much of the website is dedicated not to a discussion of bettering the community using zoning laws, or even the secondary effects of such businesses on the surrounding neighborhood. Rather, NPN contains several prolonged attacks against the adult entertainment industry because they do not approve of the content. They have identified pornography as "hate speech" in their protests, a statement which should provoke a scandal among ethnic, racial and sexual minorities in the community.
NPN believes that adult women make the choice to appear in pornography because of their "judgment clouded by drugs, sexual abuse and our pornified culture." When reading such rhetoric it seems appropriate to ask who considers women adults who are capable of making their own choices, with judgment as clear as men's, in a manner that will not always be popular and who considers women easily duped children in need of extraordinary state protection. Don't take my word for it, go to their website.
NPN's rhetoric downplays their lack of opposition to such proven threats to the community as Wal-Mart and McDonalds by resorting to discredited, right-wing rhetoric about the adult entertainment industry. Anyone convinced that NPN paints an accurate picture of the adult entertainment industry unmotivated by ideology is directed to the writings of feminist porn stars Nina Hartley and Annie Sprinkle, the relevant section of Susan Faludi's seminal study of the post-war American male, Stiffed or any number of feminist writers who do not model women as helpless victims.
The "borderline legal status of the industry" which "makes performers reluctant to seek redress in court" is perpetuated by NPN and similar forces which push adult entertainment into such quasi-legaal status by creating sex panics. I little wonder why adult entertainment businesses become associated with questionable characters, similar to gambling or alcohol in the earlier part of the century.
NPN not so deftly dodges the issue of the exploitation and oppression of women and children at the hands of ideology and religion, citing a supposed lack of evidence that religions and ideologies are as or more harmful than adult entertainment. While not wishing to start a debate over the relative merits of religious and secular ideologies, it seems worth pointing to the conflict in Ulster, the recent scandals in the Catholic Church, the chattel status of women in many parts of the Islamic world, the 30 Years War, the Crusades or the forced conversion of Northern Europe to Christianity. Such examples are but the tip of the iceberg.
I welcome an open and transparent discussion of the issues. The secondary effects of all large businesses moving into town should be taken into effect both in the general and the specific. However, it seems that (intentionally or not) NPN is more likely to start a sexual witch hunt than protect women and children. If NPN seeks to marginalize and stigmatize specific lifestyle choices or forms of expression I merely ask that they stand up before the people of the community and state the (pun intended) naked truth. Their posturing that this is anything but censorship quickly falls flat when closely examined.
Shouldn't the city be nore concerned with content-neutral legislation which improves the quality of life in our city generally rather than specifically targeting one unpopular business?
Anti-Porn Activists Want to Decide for Everyone Else
The following letter was published today in the Hampshire Daily Gazette. The author argues against Feminist Action Mobilization and NoPornNorthampton, in favor of personal choice. The letter is reprinted in its entirely by permission from the author.
To the Editor:
The town's Puritans are at it again, protesting the proposed Capital Video location in Northampton, using tired old arguments created out of whole cloth by the Christian Right, and without irony. The outlandish claim that adult films contribute to sexual violence has been refuted time and again by mainstream clinical psychiatry. Further, they demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of women in the adult film industry. In fact, women are often paid more than and have a far longer "shelf life" than their male counterparts.
In a world where most sexual predators are not at Amazing Video but in the nuclear family, it is misleading to assingn blame for sexual violence on the adult entertainment industry.
But ultimately this is all beside the point. Any thinking person has trouble figuring out what is best for themselves in an increasingly complex and nuanced world. Every non-thinking person has no problem deciding what's best for everyone else. It seems clear what type of people these anti-sex activists are.
Nicholas Pell
Northampton
To the Editor:
The town's Puritans are at it again, protesting the proposed Capital Video location in Northampton, using tired old arguments created out of whole cloth by the Christian Right, and without irony. The outlandish claim that adult films contribute to sexual violence has been refuted time and again by mainstream clinical psychiatry. Further, they demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of women in the adult film industry. In fact, women are often paid more than and have a far longer "shelf life" than their male counterparts.
In a world where most sexual predators are not at Amazing Video but in the nuclear family, it is misleading to assingn blame for sexual violence on the adult entertainment industry.
But ultimately this is all beside the point. Any thinking person has trouble figuring out what is best for themselves in an increasingly complex and nuanced world. Every non-thinking person has no problem deciding what's best for everyone else. It seems clear what type of people these anti-sex activists are.
Nicholas Pell
Northampton
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
