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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Our agenda is no more than that of homeowners who care for our neighborhood, and people who have empathy for porn performers and those who suffer from someone's consumption of porn, such as wives whose husbands succumb to porn addiction.
The 20th century provides many disturbing examples of what happens when you place one value, in this case freedom of speech, above all others, despite mounting evidence that things are out of balance.
Accusations of elitism are silly. Look who has the money, lawyers and fancy homes--the pornographers. When dealing with Kittery, Maine, Capital Video brought in lawyers from Buffalo no less in their unsuccessful effort to keep the city from regulating their porn viewing booths, well-known meetingplaces for unsafe sex.
So who decides which speech is acceptable and which is not? You? Personally? If that were the case I would perhaps not be so frightened. However, this is known as the "if I were king" syndrome, where one imagines themselves authoritatively laying down the law. In fact this is not how our government works at the local, state or federal level. We have no guarantee that the next government censor will be either reasonable or open-minded. That is the reason for First Amendment protection in the first place. Does Naked Lunch pass? Ulysses? Vincent Gallo films? The plays of Eric Bogosian? Renaissance paintings depicting rape victims? What of the recent trend in French cinema of showing explicit (and often violent) sexual intercourse such as Baise Moi?
Accusations of elitism seem far from silly considering the language of your website, as well as the monomania with which you pursue anti-free speech causes as somehow "feminist." The anti-pornography militants within second wave feminism (Dworkin, MacKinnon and co.) have been criticized (correctly in my opinion) as representing basically middle class white interests, focusing on a moral issue while minority and differently-abled women still suffer sharply from more tangible effects of gender discrimination.
Also- what exactly is wrong with Buffalo, NY? Is this more elitism?
-NP
NPN says, "The 20th century provides many disturbing examples of what happens when you place one value, in this case freedom of speech, above all others, despite mounting evidence that things are out of balance."
Such as?
Free speech and free expression are not simply values. They are protected in the Bill of Rights. Expressly and explicitly.
You are not proposing to subvert the Bill of Rights to conform to your sense of value balance, I hope?
Post a Comment