Letter to Gazette: "Protect families, children from porn shop on King St."
Posted by NPNAdmin at 9/18/2006 9:22 AM 
Categories: Ordinances and Regulations, Debate on the Issues, Northampton Worth Fighting For
Categories: Ordinances and Regulations, Debate on the Issues, Northampton Worth Fighting For
Today's Gazette publishes a letter to the editor from Lynn Shelley-Sireci of Florence, a parent of three young sons:
"...Proponents of this shop are quick to argue that it is the responsibility of parents to monitor what their children see, and if you don't like it, don't go in. But what are parents supposed to do? Black out the windows of the school bus? Blindfold our children in their cars? How can parents protect children when this is in our faces on our streets?
"...Why are we allowing an out-of-town property owner, and out-of-town business, to intrude on our town? The families of Northampton do not want it! Let's rezone the area to protect our children."
Read the complete letter (may require a paid subscription).
Might I pose one very important question here? What is it that people are expecting to see when walking,or driving by? The windows will be blocked,there will be no posters anywhere and the store "frontage" will be be rear entrance to the building. I am curious on what is expected to be seen.
Reply to this
I imagine that Capital Video will put a giant Amazing.net sign on their King Street store, just as they have in Connecticut and Springfield (examples). We have already documented the violent, misogynistic nature of the films sold at Amazing.net, which promote despair and infidelity.
Reply to this
OH NO!!!! Not a sign! The shame of a sign being hung on a business.Is that what you are afraid of seeing is a sign? And this is only you imagining that they will put up a giant sign.
Reply to this
Since we have found large blue Amazing.net signs on all the other Capital Video outlets we've visited, it seems reasonable to assume that is what they will do here.
A sign by itself is just a bunch of letters. However, when they spell Amazing.net, and you visit this website, I would hope that people with empathy for other creatures would feel disturbed.
How about addressing the meat of the issue, the content sold at Amazing.net?
Reply to this
Speaking of signs, I drove past your "demonstration" the other day with my two children in the car. My older son, who's six, saw the word "pornography" on one of the signs and asked me what it meant. Thanks for forcing me to have an uncomfortable conversation with my son. As you've already said, no Capital Video stores have "PORNOGRAPHY" written on big signs out front, but you do. What are you allowed to get away with that?
Reply to this
Perhaps you've heard of the legal standard, "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"? Our intent is to make a political statement, and to educate people about the science behind our position. By contrast, the intent of Kenneth Guarino, owner of Capital Video, is to make money. Our intent is to reduce the supply of and demand for pornography. Guarino's intent is to increase it.
There is plenty of explicit material on our blog that ordinarily we wouldn't want to see or publicize, but we provide it because people like you keep asking us for evidence to support our position. We are happy to provide that evidence, but we can't promise it won't cause uncomfortable conversations.
Reply to this
Not too sure how that fits into what I posted. The bottom line is that your demonstration seems to be more provocative and less considerate of parents passing by the store with children than what is currently happening at the store and what happens at other Capital Video store.
Reply to this
Jeff, our point is that we present uncomfortable material (in public, in print or online) only to the extent necessary to prove our case, and that we do it because we feel the long-term benefits of educating people outweigh any initial discomfort they may experience.
We feel that many people don't understand how harmful today's porn has become, so we feel a need to present explicit documentation.
Reply to this
So, basically, if people ask Capital Video for pornography, Captial Video is wrong to give it to them. But if people ask you for evidence, it's okay to give them pornography.
Got it.
Reply to this
Absolutely. Intent is important. When we cite potentially offensive material, we do it to achieve an important political purpose. When Capital Video does it, it's to make money.
Consequences are also important. We believe our campaign will benefit society in measurable ways. Capital Video, by contrast, appears heedless to the bad effects of their stores. Kittery is a recent and flagrant example.
Reply to this
What hogwash. You seem to think that because you believe your intentions are "pure" you can do whatever you want. Surely you can see that if you act on this belief, you're no better than those people at Capital Video who believe that the desire for a profit is a pure intention that should be acted on?
Reply to this
We have provided ample support for our position. Capital Video, on the other hand, has disdained to engage with the people of Northampton about their concerns, except to say they'll be consulting with their lawyers. By all means, we encourage people to judge the characters, intentions, motivations and behaviors on both sides.
Reply to this