HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017199.jpg

4.2.12
WC: 191694

directed against general bookstores. We remember that boycotts had been employed widely
during the McCarthy period. The threat to boycott motion-picture studios and television stations
that employed “red,” “pink,” or “suspect” actors, directors, or technicians, led to the notorious
“black lists” and “red channels.” In an interview with Playboy magazine, I had expressed some of
those concerns:

“Take what [some of these] women are now doing and ask yourself the question. Would
you favor it if their objection were to books about atheism or communism instead of
pornography? If you would say no, then it seems to me that you can’t be in favor of a
boycott against stores that sell Playboy and Penthouse, because they’re equally protected.

The dispute between civil libertarians and feminists had split the ranks of some liberals, and the
issue was achieving some notoriety in the media. I had, perhaps, added some fuel to the fire by
my criticism of the “new feminist censors” in several articles and speeches. I did not deny that
some pornography could be degrading to women, but I argued that it is precisely the function of
the First Amendment to protect those whose speech offends and degrades.

I pointed out that some of the most vocal opponents of pornography inadvertently provided the
most compelling arguments for its constitutional protection by characterizing it as “Fascist
propaganda.” (The Fascists, not surprisingly, used to call it “Communist propaganda.”) All
propaganda is within the central core of the First Amendment. Nor did I dispute the claim that
some pornography may contribute to an atmosphere of violence against women. But speech
often causes undesirable consequences — political violence, riots, even revolutions. That should
not, I argued, be a reason for suppressing speech itself.

Some radical feminists went beyond boycotts, shooting bullets through a bookstore window in
Harvard Square to protest its sale of Playboy Magazine. Some theaters showing Deep Throat
received threats of violence, and at least one was firebombed after the patrons left.

Some of the women of Quincy House who were opposed to Deep Throat were not content to
protest. First they tried to cancel the showing by calling for a vote of the students who lived in
the dormitory. They lost by a margin of three to one. Forty-nine percent of the women who
voted opposed the showing; and forty-eight percent favored showing Deep Throat. Next they
tried to get the Harvard University administration to forbid the scheduled showing. The Dean of
Students wrote a letter to the Quincy House Film Society urging it not to show Deep Throat, but
he would not ban it. The members of the film society, caught up in the adversary challenge by the
feminists, voted to go forward with the event.

The Quincy House women, with the assistance of other feminists, decided to picket the
performances and to use the occasion to sensitize students to the evils of pornography. I
supported their protest. Pamphlets were prepared presenting the feminist perspective on
pornography. A slide show, graphically depicting the exploitive and sexist nature of pornography,
was scheduled for presentation in an adjoining room an hour before the first showing of Deep
Throat. Several prominent local feminist speakers had been asked to address the hundreds of
protesters expected in front of Quincy House on the evening of the first scheduled performance.

112

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017199