No To Question 3

FOR THE FIRST TIME anywhere, Cambridge voters will have the opportunity tomorrow to approve a bill equating pornography with sex discrimination. We agree that pornography contributes to the degradation and subordination of women. But the measure proposed in Question 3 is neither an appropriate, nor a just, nor an efficient means of combating the discrimination against which it is targeted. An unconstitutional attempt at censorship, it does not touch the deeper problems of women's economic inequality and inadequate protection by rape laws and other legislation.

Primarily, Question 3 amounts to a massive violation of the First Amendment. It would lead to an immeasurable wave of censorship. Moreover, as egregious as pornography often is, it cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be legislated against. The referendum defines pornography as the "graphic, sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words." But we cannot condone the implications of that definition, particularly of the word "subordination." While the bill would allow for prosecution of pornographers who kidnap, rape and film women--and this is clearly a good motivation--it would also, presumably, subject to legal action museum and gallery displays, advertisements, and even literary works and other texts taught in schools. And the provision for legal action against anyone "forcing pronography" on another could be interpreted to include, for example, professors assigning literary erotica which some students find distasteful.

As far as its Constitutionality, Question 3 already has a dismal track record. Although slightly revised, the bill in Question 3 is substantially the same as its earlier incarnations in Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Los Angeles County, and Suffolk County, N.Y.--where it was either rejected or struck down. In the case of Indianapolis, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that Question 3's text is unconstitutional.

Some of the ordinance's supporters seem to acknowledge the logistical problems of the bill, and the risks that it could be more broadly applied than it is intended to be. But they feel these potential damages are worthwhile sacrifices for the larger cause of freeing women from the subordination they have suffered throughout history. We disagree. We feel that sexism and violence against women are better attacked by more severe punishments for such offenses as assault, rape, sexual discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere, and by efforts to bring about economic parity for women through comparable worth legislation.

Women need laws that are stringent, focused, and effective. Women need laws that target the real harm being done every day, in the streets and in illicit places. Assault, kidnapping, coercion, and rape--all elements of much of the most egregious pornography--are all illegal. Those crimes must be better prosecuted. In particular, the laws involving reporting and prosecution of rape need to be reworked to offer victims better protection and ensure that rapists are more severely punished.

But an intrinsically flawed, anti-Constitutional and potentially dangerous Question 3--no matter how well intentioned--could do more harm than good.