People's Choice

PORNOGRAPHY IS STIRRING up debate all across America these days. Right-wing and feminist groups are burying their usual differences to team up and fight the subjugation of women in various media. Unfortunately, the Cambridge City Council has thwarted valuable discussion on the topic this fall by refusing last week to place an anti-pornography referendum on the ballot.

The proposed statute would make the sale and distribution of some sexually explicit materials illegal. In effect, it would amount to indiscriminate censorship. A clear definition of pornography is difficult, at best, and violations of First Amendment guarantees are almost inevitable under such restrictions. If the proposed referendum had been approved, it would most likely fail judicial review.

However, by taking the measure off the November ballot, the Cambridge City Council, by a vote of 5 to 4, has itself stifled free expression; the body has removed from public consideration what it finds objectionable. Their public reasoning was pre-emptive: since similar legislation passed in other cities has been declared unconstitutional, why not avoid the time and cost of litigation?

But the issue is not cutting costs, or even the control of pornography. Rather, it is one of participatory democracy. The Council has dealt a serious blow to Cambridge's traditionally progressive spirit of voter participation. In a city usually characterized by grassroots activism the referendum process has long held a privileged position, and now is not the time to belittle it. Moreover, we suspect that the democratic voices the Council is most anxious to silence are those of feminists. It seems that, once again, the opinions and grievances of women as communicated by feminist activists will not be heard.

THE PROPOSED REFERENDUM, sponsored by a local women's group and certified by the city elections commission, defines pornography as "the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words." If approved, the ordinance would allow victims--loosely defined--to seek civil damages against the maker, seller or distributor of anything deemed sexually dehumanizing.

Under Massachusetts law, ordinary citizens can file a petition demanding that a certain measure which the government has not adopted be referred to the voters. When presented with a legally certified initiative petition, a city council must either enact the proposed ordinance or put it on the ballot. In this case, Cambridge lawmakers chose neither option.

What some city councilors fail to realize is that no matter how flawed an initiative petition may seem, direct ballot access for ordinary citizens must be preserved. Only the courts can decide whether a law is constitutional or not.

Although we oppose the censorship supported in the ordinance, the referendum should be put before voters for consideration. The referendum process can provide valuable recourse against a stubborn legislative body and constitutes an important check against elected officials' sometimes patronizing behavior. An anti-pornography campaign would also focus national attention on freedom of speech issues and the exploitation of human beings.

The city councilors who supported the removal of the referendum should have more faith in the constituents who elected them--especially with elections fast approaching.