An Illustrative Case of Moral Conflict

A localized case of moral conflict that potentially represents larger paradigmatic per­spectives within debates about pornography and public sex is the censorship and later cancellation of Pornotopia in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in October of 2010.

In its first 3 years, the event was held at Guild Cinema, which was zoned as an adult film theater in its early years of own­ership. From the start, Pornotopia elicited controversy. Organizers received a citation from the city of Albuquerque stating that Guild Cinema was no longer zoned for adult films and were asked to cancel Pornotopia in 2007. The American Civil Liberties Union got involved and backed Pornotopia organizers in an appeal of the citation, which kept the venue alive for 2008 and 2009. In 2010, Pornotopia was forced by Albuquerque city officials to change venues, which they specified needed to be outside the metro area (including mostly industrial buildings that are not capable of hosting such an event). As a compromise, Pornotopia organizers decided to host a cen­sored version of the event, titled Pornotopia Censored: Cirque de Sex, at a concert venue in downtown Albuquerque called the Sunshine Theater, which is still within the Albuquerque metro area. The censored show planned to include live burlesque, circus, drag, film clips, music, and sexually suggestive comedy instead of full-length pornographic films.

News media surrounding Pornotopia reveals that its cancellation was indeed a case of moral conflict. In this case, Albuquerque city officials and Pornotopia affiliates occu­pied two different worldviews governed by different moral orders, or philosophical assumptions, about the nature and purpose of the event. On a most basic level, city offi­cials viewed Pornotopia as an issue of zoning, whereas organizers viewed it as an issue of free speech. Each of these worldviews represented distinct attitudes, values, and beliefs about the nature of the event and its impact on various communities.

The organizers and supporters of Pornotopia occupied a worldview that reso­nates with that of pro-pornography/anticen- sorship feminist claims, which are based on appeals to free speech (Hudson, 2006; Rubin, 1995; Strossen, 1995). Such a perspective is often based on three principal assumptions:

(1) not all pornography is created equal, meaning, violence is only present within a certain portion of pornographic videos and, often times, is equivalent to that being rep­resented in mainstream television and film;

(2) women can potentially elicit pleasure from the inclusion of violence and nonnormative sexual practices in pornography; and (3) the regulation of pornography is directly related to the regulation of constitutional rights such as freedom of speech. Organizers and sup­porters of Pornotopia made arguments for the venue that included these three major assump­tions in the following ways: (1) Pornotopia is no worse than the movie Jackass 3D, which was being shown in a theater at the same time and around the corner from where the censored version of the show was scheduled to be held; (2) women can receive pleasure from pornography, in fact, many scientific studies show that women derive just as much pleasure as men do from erotic films; and (3) Pornotopia is artistic expression, which is pro­tected under the first amendment.

The city of Albuquerque occupied a world­view that resonates with that of antipublic sex claims. The antipublic sex perspective is often based on two basic assumptions: (1) sex and sexuality should be kept private, occur­ring between husband and wife in the home, and (2) it is the government’s responsibility to keep institutions such as family (children) and religion (churches) separate and safe from public sex through law and politics such as zoning ordinances (Berlant & Warner, 1998). Albuquerque city officials embody this world­view in two distinct ways: (1) they focus on the publicness of the event and employ a strict definition of pornography that focuses on nudity and sex as occurring in a public venue and (2) they consistently adhere to arguments of zoning enforcement and only offer a city zoning map as resolution to the conflict.

When put into conversation with one another, these two worldviews created a moral conflict. Organizers of Pornotopia define their event as artistic, educational, and beneficial to women and queer communities while focusing on issues of free speech in their arguments for the venue and ignoring issues of publicness. Albuquerque city offi­cials define the event as publicly indecent and detrimental to the heterosexual community while focusing on issues of zoning restric­tions in their arguments against the venue and ignoring issues of free speech. Each of these worldviews is governed by distinct and incommensurate moral orders about the nature of the event and its impact on various communities. Although Pornotopia organiz­ers worked diligently to communicate with city officials regarding the continuation of the venue, the differing philosophical assump­tions of the two sides resulted in a moral con­flict that fueled anger and frustration rather than possibilities for reconciliation.

After the cancellation of Pornotopia, Self Serve owners and Pornotopia supporters posted their reactions to the Self Serve(d) blogspot (2010) stating that “the City’s Planning and Zoning Department, apparently in coordination with other City agencies and departments, has conducted a campaign of bullying and intimidation against all those associated with Pornotopia” (para. 4). They go on to state that the cancellation of the show was a result of legal threats made against Sunshine Theater, the performers of the show, and the organizers and supporters of the event. Overall, attempts to resolve the conflict have only fueled it, and the rejection of one another’s perspectives has led to digres­sion into arguments of vilification. As of now, Pornotopia is cancelled indefinitely.