Minneapolis city officials heard testimony about peoples’ encounters with porn, those
who consume porn and those who produce it at a hearing of the Minneapolis Government Operations Committee on
December 13, 1983. This account appears in In Harm’s Way: The Pornography Civil Rights Hearings (p.140-142).
The following letter was submitted by Valerie Harper, star of the TV show Rhoda, and read by Catharine MacKinnon:
…Approximately six years ago, on an evening when I was about to film a segment of “Rhoda”, the CBS series in which I play the title role, I was presented with a gift by three co-workers. I opened the package to find a framed likeness of myself that measured about eight inches by ten inches. It was not a photograph but rather a sketch and the face was absolutely recognizable as me. It was a full length figure, naked except for high heeled shoes and stockings, taking off a shirt. Never in my life had I posed for any photography, drawing, or painting remotely similar to this image. The people giving me this laughed, thought it was funny, thought I would find it funny, and truly meant no harm–they are all talented, intelligent, nice people, an indication of the extent of the pornographic mind set we all suffer under. I felt upset, ripped-off, diminished, insulted, abused, hurt, furious and powerless. All of which I concealed from my friends by smiling and saying, “Where did you get this?” (For the moment I thought they had had it made up by the art department at the studio.) “From a magazine,” was the answer. Added to the aforementioned reactions was horror! I thought, “this has been published! It is publicly available for anyone to see and assume I may have posed for it.”
I curtailed my honest reaction because in a few minutes we would all have to begin filming our show–which we did. They thinking it had been a fun joke, me in a great deal of pain and distress.
Subsequently I saw the same drawing in a magazine, I believe was called Chic. In one corner was a short rhyme or limerick alluding to Rhoda although not using the name Valerie Harper. However, a short time later, I was told about an advertisement in Hustler magazine which I saw. It was for T-shirts called Shock Tops that people could send away for. The buyer had their choice of seven famous women pictured in the nude; all of our full names were listed and, of course, choice of color of T-shirt. I was appalled and angry and had meetings with a lawyer regarding what action I should take. All my then advisors, this attorney, my personal manager (regarding career) and my business manager (regarding accounting and finances) advised strongly against taking any action whatsoever. They all concurred that it would be extremely costly and would draw attention to and sell more of the shirts.
I retained another lawyer who in several phone calls seemed to scare the magazine sufficiently as to discontinue the advertisement. He checked the magazine the following issue and the ad was not there. From there I dropped the whole matter, hoping it was over but feeling quite incomplete and unsatisfied about it.
As a young dancer-actress-singer in New York City, I experienced first-hand (and have heard countless accounts from many other women in these fields and modeling) continual attempts to convince, that pornography, photography, films, et cetera were a stepping stone to stardom. Young people and children are particularly vulnerable to this kind of enticement in New York City and Los Angeles as they are show business centers. A common statement was, and may still be, “Marilyn Monroe did that calendar and look what she became.”
Also, during the audition process, actresses, singers, dancers, models are extremely vulnerable. I know of instances when women have entered the audition room to find the man who would be giving the job completely nude. Point blank proposals of sexual service as part of getting the job are extremely common.
A real fear now exists in terms of the horror of snuff movies, films in which women’s actual murders have been recorded and then presented as pornographic entertainment. The audition process in unscrupulous hands can put the job applicant at tremendous risk.
A detective in NYC [New York City] cited a case to me of a pornography ring in Manhattan that enticed young models to an office supposedly for a job interview. Once there the young women were attacked, subdued by beating or drugs and then photographed in hideous pornographic poses, tied, tortured, bound to trees in sexual union with animals, several men and on and on. When they came to or were released, it was with the warning that if they contacted the police all the Polaroid shots of them would be sent to their parents, places of business, schools and so forth.
The police officer told me it wasn’t until scores of women were so victimized in this manner that one finally took it to the authorities. This group had been doing millions of dollars worth of business. I have been working with the Rape Treatment Center of Santa Monica Hospital for almost five years now (adjacent to LA area). It is the opinion of the staff there that rape, sexual and physical assaults on women and children are definitely linked to pornography, as a particular climate is created by its use, acceptability and encouragement…
This was a very moving article!! I believe everyone should read it!!!
The Al Mohler blog mentions the recent national report on children looking at internet porn. The report states that 80% of elementary age kids who look at internet porn are actively seeking it. Locally, a Mass. state senator (former state Senator Dave Magnani) tried to file a bill to have elementary school libraries block porn sites, but the ACLU had already won a case to ensure that children have access to porn in the public elementary school libraries. The ACLU is a terrible organization!
I’ve been bugged by this one for a while now. I’m not sure which case you’re referring to, but I think your attitude here represents a deeply naïve and wrong-headed view about how our legal system works.
You may be right in thinking that the ACLU is a “horrible organization” for taking the government to court in defense of whatever. But you don’t mention the judiciary at all. You should realize that the ACLU did not win the case all by themselves. In order to win the case, the courts had to side with them. The ACLU argues cases, but the courts decide who wins. So however horrible you think the ACLU is, you must think that the judiciary is that much more horrible, since they alone have the power to make rulings, and they ruled in favor of the ACLU.
Furthermore, I’d be very surprised if the ACLU and the deciding courts would describe themselves as trying to “ensure that children have access to porn in the public elementary school libraries.” Probably they were trying to ensure that the government cannot prohibit certain kinds of speech based on its content. In order to see exactly what was going on in the case you describe, where Dave Magnani proposed a law to block porn in elementary school libraries, it is necessary to know the details of the proposed law and the decision that is supposed to have scuttled it. Perhaps the proposed law was poorly written and overbroad. Perhaps the relevant case should be overturned. It’s impossible to tell without the relevant details. Which you haven’t provided.
The problem with the ACLU is that in their slavish adherence to a limited set of values, they often trample on other important values. In particular, the ACLU does not appear to give enough consideration to the role of adult porn and child porn in child molestation. The ACLU’s strong financial ties to pornographers raises concern that their judgment may be impaired in this area:
Lawyers are not absolved of their social responsibilities just because they might get a court to agree with them. Legal skills such as the ACLU possesses are precious. With respect to porn, hopefully someday the ACLU will devote its resources to helping those who are oppressed and exploited, rather than advocating for the oppressor.
For more on this theme, please see our additional posts on legal ethics.
I think you may have misunderstood my point. I did not say anything in defense of the ACLU, their goals, or tactics. I did say that they probably would not have described themselves as trying to “ensure that children have access to porn in the public elementary school libraries.” (On this basis: I can’t imagine anyone describing himself that way.) I was trying to be as fair as possible to both sides.
I also didn’t say or imply that the fact that some lawyer is victorious absolves him of his social responsibilities. I said, “You may be right in thinking that the ACLU is a ‘horrible organization’ for taking the government to court in defense of whatever.” (I say ‘whatever’ b/c of my earlier point.)
The misunderstanding is my fault, since I neglected to state my thesis clearly in the lead paragraph, which all good writers know to do. It is: “however horrible you think the ACLU is, you must think that the judiciary is that much more horrible, since they alone have the power to make rulings, and they ruled in favor of the ACLU.”
My point was that although the ACLU argued the case, the courts *decided it.* The ACLU did not decide it—they can only argue their case and then cross their fingers. The ultimate responsibility, therefore, lies with the judiciary, not the ACLU. So if you’re angry or dissatisfied with the ACLU for arguing the case, you must be that much more dissatisfied with the judiciary for *deciding it in their favor.*
I also tried to point out that without knowing the particulars, it’s impossible to know how objectionable the ruling really is, or whether that’s really why the law failed. The commentator I was responding to didn’t mention *which case* she was talking about. She also didn’t include any details about the proposed law (this was forgivable, given space limitations). Without knowing the relevant details, it’s impossible to know what’s going on. Maybe the ruling should be overturned. Maybe the proposed law was poor, and ought not have been passed. Who knows? Not us, since we don’t know which ruling and law she’s talking about.
As for slavish devotion to a narrow value set, one might say the same thing about you. While the ACLU focuses narrowly on civil liberty-related issues, you focus narrowly on porn-related issues. It has been argued that in your narrow focus on porn, you trample on the first amendment. Perhaps, though, it’s merely that their priorities differ from yours. You bristle when people suggest to you that you should change your priorities; why should they change theirs?
I think it’s OK for political organizations to have whatever priorities they want. The “balancing” is up to the legislators and the courts. In this case, the courts thought that the liberties were more important. If you disagree, take it up with them.
Sure, the courts can get it wrong, and smart lawyers deserve some of the blame when they help the court reach a wrong decision. All too often one gets the sense that many lawyers forget that their games with words affect the lives of real people. No one has an obligation to help pornographers exploit people and put communities at risk.
The phenomenon of porn is a broad cultural problem in America. It is reasonable to suspect that porn has degraded the standards of acceptable behavior for many in the judiciary just as it has for many members of the general public.
Despite your attempts to portray us as narrow and close-minded, we have in fact worked hard to accommodate objections from the beginning. For example, after holding an open community meeting in early August (something Capital Video has yet to do), we changed the language of our proposed adult-use zoning ordinance to address concerns of local businesses like Pride & Joy. More generally, we have given the First Amendment careful and sophisticated consideration over nearly three dozen posts.
I saw this news item on Yahoo! today. It seems plausible to me that this is the case “Susan” was referring to, though I don’t really know.
A Federal Judge with the Eastern PA District Court of Appeals struck down the 1998 “Child Online Protection Act” on the basis that it was unconstitutionally vague.
The problem is that it isn’t specific enough about what it prohibits. According to Judge Lowell Reed, who presided over the trial and issued the ruling, the law went beyond protecting children and would have affected the freedoms of adults. These freedoms are protected by the first amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld an injunction against the law in 2003 on the grounds that it was likely to be overturned by a lower court. This may have been the event Susan was talking about, that prohibited Sen. Magnani from introducing his law.
Another law, upheld by the court, requires schools and libraries to install porn-filtering software on their internet terminals in order to recieve certain federal funds. This sort of prohibition is OK.
This lends credence to my earlier contention that neither the ACLU nor the Courts were trying to ensure that porn was available to children in their libraries. Both groups were trying to protect the legitimate, constitutionally protected freedoms of adults.
It also lends credence to my earlier suggestion that the law might have been poorly written, overbroad, and perhaps should not have been passed. Since the presiding Judge described the act as “unconstitutionally vague,” it seems to me that the law *was* poorly written, and should have been struck down.
By the way, I’m still waiting for a retraction and apology. I appreciate your prompt attention to the matter.
Sorry, no apology with respect to people trying to persuade victims that they’re not really being harmed. I am still interested, however, in what you propose to do for the residents of Minneapolis and Springfield when they say they’re suffering from secondary effects. If it’s not the adult enterprises, what’s causing the harm? Why would police advise despairing residents in St. Paul to move away? If you don’t approve of zoning, how should elected officials address citizens’ desire for prosperous, safe neighborhoods?
I agree that there are tricky issues surrounding people’s access to information in libraries. Perhaps there is room for creative solutions here. For example, perhaps the computers in a library could be divided into filtered ones for the general public and unfiltered ones for adults only.
I do not approve of what the police in St. Paul told residents to do 25 years ago, if that’s really what happened. I doubt it, though.
I would suggest, though I am no expert on Springfield, that Springfield’s problems are not caused by one porn store. I would suggest that the years of economic decay, crumbling infrastructure, poverty, corruption of the city government, poor law enforcement, lack of educational opportunities, and assorted other deeply serious problems, which I read about in the Republican *all the time* have something to do with it, too. I would suggest that even if the porn store plays a role, the role is miniuscule compared to these other, much more serious and severe, problems.
I would suggest that if Springfield wants to become the wonderful place it once was, rooting out the corruption, repairing their economy, strengthening their educational system, etc, will do much more to help the real problems than naively focusing on the red herring of the porn store company you oppose.
Your questioning of the credibility of the St. Paul resident has no foundation that I can see.
I agree that Springfield’s problems are not caused just by one porn shop. Springfield needs many solutions, of which the closing of public nuisances and the implementation of better adult-use zoning are just two steps. Certainly residents and businesspeople who live and work around the Capital Video porn shop in Springfield perceive it to be a major problem, attracting drug sales, prostitution, and scaring off desirable businesses like grocery stores. You appear to have little respect for the opinion of people with personal knowledge of the situation. Why should we give you more credit than they?
When cities get serious about combating the secondary effects of adult businesses, they can have a major effect. I offer you this study of Oklahoma City, from a time when the region was both prosperous with oil money and suffering a major case of secondary effects: QUALITY OF LIFE: A Look At Successful Abatement of Adult Oriented Business Nuisances in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (1984-1989) (PDF).
While you acknowledge that “poor law enforcement” plays a role in Springfield’s problems, I would assign it a higher priority than you seem to:
When citizens feel that a city can’t or won’t deal with obvious nuisances like Capital Video’s porn shop, it is understandable that they would feel despair. Despair is another important part of Springfield’s problems.
As Rudy Giuliani understood well, small things matter. You have to start somewhere. Shutting down Capital Video’s porn shop in Springfield as a public nuisance would be an unmistakable signal that the city has the will and the ability to care for its residents.
Like I said, I’m no expert on Springfield. And I have no disdain or ill-will toward the residents of Springfield. I hope they can recover from the recent public disasters.
And I’m glad they’re getting law enforcement back on its feet. But I would have thought that I assigned it a higher priority than you, since I mentioned it specifically as a problem, and you didn’t (until I brought it up).
Perhaps adequate law enforcement can clear out the prostitution and drugs without abridging speech. I find it very difficult to believe that the police are helpless to do anything. Perhaps they should be doing more to make that area a less attractive place to do business.
I would also have expected the widespread sense of dispair felt by Springfield’s residents to be caused by the years of economic decay, crumbling infrastructure, poverty, corruption of the city government, poor law enforcement, lack of educational opportunities, and assorted other deeply serious problems, which I read about in the Republican *all the time.* And not by the one porn store. If the porn store plays a role, it would have to be a small one compared to these other problems.
I respect the opinions of the residents of Springfield. But unless they’re experts on urban planning, socio-economics, criminology, and the relationships between these fields, it is unclear why I should regard their diagnosis of Springfield’s problems as anything more than speculation.
Since you can’t *see* causation, it’s entirely possible that the residents of Springfield might see what has happened to their commnity, see the porn store on the corner, and think that there’s a causal relationship. This inference might be based on timing, or it might be based on the adult-related theme of both the store and the crime.
But this might be totally incorrect. There might be no relationship, or both things might be caused by the crumbling economy and government corruption, or something else entirely.
Shutting down Capital Video’s Springfield store would be a feather in your cap, but unless they also and simultaneously improve the basic economy, infrastructure, education, government, and law enforcement, it is unlikely to have any real effect.