Pornography Issue Removed From November Ballot By City Council

Calling a proposed anti-pornography ordinance "unconstitutional," the Cambridge City Council has decided not to let local voters decide this fall whether to make the production or sale off pornography a punishable offense in the city.

By a 5-4 vote, the nine-member body preempted a grassroots effort to place the issue on the November 5 ballot as a non-binding referendum--a move which has drawn the threat of legal action from local anti-pornography groups, but praise from some other women's groups.

Acting on the advice of the city solicitor, Cambridge lawmakers opposed to placing the question on the ballot argued that the courts have already declared identical measures in other cities unconstitutional. But some officials said that Cambridge voters, not the city, should resolve the pornography issue.

8 Percent

Last month the Cambridge Election Commission said that the petitioners had gathered the necessary signatures of 8 percent of the city's registered voters, thereby approving the issue for a November vote. But Cambridge statutes give the city council 20 days to decide whether a non-binding referendum should be placed on the ballot, according to election commissioner Sondra Scheir.

The initiative petition, signed by more than 5000 registered voters, defines pornography as "the graphic sexuallly explicit subordination of women through pictures or words." As an amendment to the city's newly created Human Rights Commission, the ordinance would permit a victim to seek civil damages against the maker, distributor, seller or exhibitor of anything deemed sexually dehumanizing.

Nationwide Controversy

For the past two years, anti-pornography feminist groups across the country have tried to enact identical laws in Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, and New York. Last month, a U.S. Appeals Court of Appeals upheld the unconstitutionality of the Indianapolis statute.

Local women's groups and civil libertarians--including the Cambridge Commission on the Status of Women--oppose the measure on the grounds that it violates first amendment rights of free speech. They charge that such a law could be used against women to ban valuable publications on birth control and women's bodies.

The issue will be taken up again at next Monday night's regularly scheduled city council meeting when officials could reverse their decision. But sponsors of the November opinion poll say they are exploring legal ways to bring the issue before the city's voters if the council doesn't change its mind.

"It's inappropriate for a legislative body to feel that they have the authority for determining the constitutionality of a law presented on an initiative petition," said Ellen Corey, a member of the Women's Alliance Against Pornography, a group advocating the measure. Corey said her organization is consulting lawyers on possible legal action against the city for withdrawing the petition.

"I don't have any doubt that this matter is unconstitutional [although] we have no choice but to place it on the ballot," said City Councilor David E. Sullivan, who called the proposal "repugnant to free speech" and "thought-control."

Mayor Francis H. Duehay '55, who cast the deciding vote Monday night, said that there is "substantial legal precedent for city governments keeping an unconstitutional issue off the ballot." Duehay added, however, that a court order could override the city's decision.

In 1982 the city was involved in a similar dispute when it tried to keep a petition making Cambridge a nuclear free zone off the ballot. The city later bowed to state and judicial pressure, and allowed the issue on the ballot. Voters defeated the referendum.

Election commission officials said earlier this week, that they would probably print two versions of the ballot--one with the question and one without--just in case.

The issue has already divided and embittered some local women's groups who charge that the petitioners are not Cambridge residents. According to members of the Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce (FACT), Cambridge was specifically targeted for this referendum by national groups because the city has a national reputation for voting on controversial, non-binding resolutions.

Janice Irvine, a resident of Cambridge and a FACT member, said the petitioners did not consult with local women's groups before forcing the issue on the city. "If you're talking about grassroots efforts mobilizing to fight discrimination against women, then you would expect to contact women's groups in the area."

Corey denied the charges, saying that supporters are feminists involved in local groups who "wanted to hear what the women of Cambridge have to say about the issue without being censored."