DAVID AARON CLARK writes: "Hey, Gene -- Thanks for the two amusements in this morning's column ...first, the kicker at the end of the Free Speech fundraiser plug that explains "Proceeds will go to a positive study of adult establishments and their social impact."
Gee, nothing like a "study" that draws conclusions before it's even conceived, eh? Isn't an impact study slanted towards the answers you wanted in the first place just the sort of specious balderdash that the Forces of Evil on the Right (trademark pending) have relied on to drive adult businesses OUT of neighborhoods? Though I don't think those forces, or for that matter the tobacco industry or Dow-Corning or the Meese Commission, have ever exactly ANNOUNCED before their own studies were conducted that the results were going to be positive in their own favors.
Glad to see the FSC continue to be the brain trust of the industry. And um, by the way, exactly who's going to get those benefit bucks to do this study? Any questionably-credentialed FSC crony in particular?
Kernes writes: "The problem is, David, that none of the studies done thus far have followed established protocols for doing such studies in terms of comparing apples with apples rather than oranges, or having any real basis for before-and-after comparisons. You really ought to read the paper written by Dr. Daniel Linz which was attached to the First Amendment Lawyers' amicus brief in the Pap's AM v. Erie case. It was an analysis of the 10 studies most commonly relied upon by cities to cover their asses in "considering" the "adverse secondary effects" of adult businesses so they can pass their restrictive zoning ordinances. Linz found that 9 of the 10 studies were bad to really poor science, and the 10th one - Indianapolis - doesn't show any significant adverse effects from adult businesses there, even without comparing the businesses to the typical convenience store, which is and has always been a focus for crime. The US Supreme Court went out of its way to reject Linz's study (or perhaps "meta-study" would be the more proper term, since it analyzes other studies) in the plurality opinion, so more work must be done on the issue.
"Fact is, a well-run adult business has NO adverse secondary effects on the neighboring community, as evidenced by such places as Fairvilla Megastore in Orlando, and while the writer of the fundraising brochure probably exceeded his authority in announcing the funding of a 'positive' study, any scientifically-valid study, scientifically run, would most likely come to that conclusion. Hell, even the non-scientific ones that the cities rely upon nearly came to that conclusion!
As for who you imply is going to get the proceeds of the fundraiser, was there anyone in particular you had in mind? Do you have any idea who or what organization(s) has/have been discussed -- if any?!? Or is that just more horseshit on your part?" Mark Kernes, AVN, FSC
