state of Israel. Mr. Falwell also supports the continued existence of the state of Israel. We know that the reasons of this particular woman are different in kind and in quality from
Mr. Falwell’s reasons. Since Mr. Falwell’s expressions of support for Israel sometimes have an anti-Semitic edge and always have a Cold War rationale, it would be slanderous to say the same position, broadly construed, means the same politics,
or that her position does not exist independent of his.
pornography and repeatedly links us with Mr. Falwell or his
Moral Majority, also supports the existence of the state of
Israel. We know their reasons are not Mr. Falwell’s. We know
their politics are not Mr. Falwell’s. We do not liken Nobel
Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel to Mr. F alwell because both
support the state of Israel, or Natan Sharansky, or Jacobo
Timmerman. The New Jewish Agenda, a leftist group, supports the existence of the state of Israel, but its politics are opposed to, not the same as, Mr. Falwell’s.
Specious analogizing is ludicrous, no less on pornography
than on Israel. It is fair to say that there are many issues that
can be articulated broadly enough—pro or con—so that a
strange spectrum of folks seem to be on the same side.
Supporting Israel is one; opposing pornography is another.
But this has only been done to those of us who oppose pornography from a feminist perspective of radical equality. We have had to try to survive in an environment saturated with
this kind of intellectual lie and political slander. We never expected feminist media to fall for this propagandistic nonsense, but they did, repeating it over a period of years. We never ex-Questions and Answers
77
pected the Left to descend to this gut er level of intellectual
corruption but they did, apparently without a second thought
and with no remorse. Ultimately the effect was to erase our
political identities. Women, of course, are used to being erased
from political dialogue and history but not by folks who apply
the word
The double standard was also alive and wel when feminists
who opposed pornography were told to shut up to protect free
speech. Again, from the very beginning, before feminists
created or endorsed any legal strategies against pornography,
we were told repeatedly that anything we said or did against
pornography would endanger free speech. For instance, when
we were protesting the film “Snuf * in New York City in February 1976, one civil-liberties stalwart wrote in his regular newspaper column that we should stop picketing the film because our picketing endangered free speech. His reasoning was that in response to the pickets a theater manager might
decide not to show “Snuff” This was the danger our picketing
created. Picketing, of course, is a quintessential exercise of free
speech. The whole idea of free speech is that someone might
change their mind and their behavior. At least, this is the whole
idea of picketing. Picketing is not usually friendly and compliant and supportive speech. Usually it is speech in opposition to what is going on, and it is speech that wants results. This
civil libertarian believed that the showing of “Snuff’ was vital
to free speech and our picketing was not. Over a period of
years, in newspaper articles, on editorial pages, in debates, we
were told, usually with polite condescension, sometimes in a
holy rage, that we were endangering free speech by talking
