Well, we did have the beer summit. I’ll let individual participants identify themselves but there were 8 people there and it was primarily concerned with KK’s and some of the larger issues surrounding that and other businesses of similar type. There was some debate ahead of the summit as to wether we should have the get together: some felt the opportunity had come and gone. It was ultimately decided that discussion would be helpful so we went ahead. Everyone showed up pretty much on time and there was really great discussion and the festivities went on until about midnight. The only ground rule was that you couldn’t beat up people that weren’t present. You were free to identify a comment or stance a given person had made but that was about it. If we do it again, I’d probably also add the time for each person to present an opening comment…
My own take on the outcome of the summit is largely positive. People with very different views came together and had a constructive discourse. That’s what you want from these things. It helps build stronger communities when people can discuss things rationally and the relationships that get built during informal meetings like the summit help temper reactions….I’d be happy to have another but we’ll have to have a little earlier cutoff time. Midnight is too late for me in my advanced age…:)
Thanks to all who participated!
October 31, 2010 at 1:25 pm
“Midnight is too late for me in my advanced age.” Tut tut, Mr. Harrover, this young 21yo doesn’t usually go to bed before 2-3AM.
I hope I’m right in thinking that this “bear summit” accomplished much more then that other “bear summit” which didn’t accomplish anything that I’m aware of. From this post, it sounds like people were able to hear/ consider other sides and really dicuss things instead of just argeeing to disagree without really considering different opinions.
October 31, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Enjoyed the opportunity. It was positive. What I learned:
1. Several assumptions were made — including my own — that were dispelled by face-to-face dialogue. I encourage anyone to visit KK’s and talk to the Skokans before you judge.
2. Just because someone is involved in several different groups (a church, a political party, a specific blog, etc), doesn’t mean they represent those groups in their opinions on this issue.
3. You can talk for three hours about your personal experiences or motivations or faith or emotions around the issue, but it comes down to what is legal and what is not legal, and what the future ordinance will do or not do. The point of contention is the adult DVDs. Period.
4. Money spent on regulating SOBs is cost effective. The national expert hired by the City is here working in the field, not just doing boilerplate from afar.
5. This is a reactive issue that distracts from the 2011 budget talks and the machine & tools tax issue. Stop the distraction and move on.
6. Same type of face-to-face dialogue about next year’s city budget would be a good thing, much like Lynchburg’s community meetings:
http://www.lynchburgva.gov/Index.aspx?page=4078
7. Micro-brewed root beer tastes great.
8. I am even more advanced in age and only lasted until 9:30 pm.
Thanks Andy & all.
October 31, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Great post, Cindy!
I would like to add my thoughts on her points (using her numbers) but I don’t mean this to be direct response to Cindy or her points. Rather these are just my own thoughts inspired by her points …
1. Very true. That is something I’ve noticed researching and writing on the issue for my conflict class. There needs to be more positive communication between the owners and the community and those on both sides of the issue. I second visiting the store and owners before judging the store.
2. Also true but it doesn’t help when people indentify themselves as a member of a group when making comments. I.e. saying you’re the Catholic Cardinal Newman Society and are against the store leads to the perception that Catholics are against the store.
3. Absolutely true. I read a piece yesterday by Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court, entitled God’s Justice and Ours, in which he identities himself as being Roman Catholic and having been raised in Catholic tradition but says he always separates his morals and values from his legal reasoning. To him, judges can never let their morals influence their actions. It all comes down to if something is constitutional or not. It’s similar to what’s happening in Manassas now. The discussion should be if the store’s merchandise is legal (not obscene) or not and not about whether pornography is moral or immoral. I believe people in this conflict should follow (at least the spirit of) Scalia’s words on separating morals from legal reasoning.
4. I disagree. Having grown up in a time when sexual images (in a broad sense meaning words, images, implications, and so forth) are everywhere, I find the proposed ordinance to be laughable for lack of a better word. I mean, played any M-rated video games lately? Taken as a whole, I’ve played or seen games that have female nudity, male nudity, sex shops, sex toys as weapons or gifts to in-game girlfriends, implied sex, strip clubs, the payment of strippers, prostitution, sexually suggestive dialog, bondage acts (including gagging and whipping), and so forth. In one ad for the up-coming Duke Nukem Forever, rating pending, it show’s Duke’s crotch area, from his lower stomach to a little below his hips, fully clothed by a red shirt and blue jeans, with the game’s logo across the stomach and upper hips and the phase “IT’S GOING TO BE BIG!” across what would be his private area with a female hand and arm to the right of those words next to what would be his private area and an ad message on the bottom. Under the ordinance, that sounds like the kind of sexual-themed ad the City would try to regulate if a video game store put it in its window. Will the City really try to regulate the selling of these games or the ads of these games? I hope not sure M-rated by the ESRB means 17+, not 18+, and the Supreme Court is hearing arguments Tuesday on whether states can regulate the sell of such M-rated games to minors. If the Court upholds the findings of the lower courts, it will find that states do not hold such power. That finding by the Court would thus mean the City could not regulate such sells to minors or others based on the content. Could put a great big hole in the City’s proposed ordinance in my opinion witch would even all that money got wasted…
5. Yes it is, though I think it’s here to stay unless the City decides not to pursue an ordinance.
6. I agree in principle. I have reservations based on what the cost would be in holding such meetings and if many people would actually come; however, at the same time, it has been my experience that more people go to the Town Hall Meetings then regular Council Meetings so it could be very benefit in getting citizens involved in the budget.
7. Not sure if I’ve ever tried any but I bet it does.
8. See my comment to Mr. Harrover on that.
Sorry for long post, Mr. Harrover, but citizen input is always welcomed right?
November 1, 2010 at 7:27 am
I’ve just seen this post and don’t have time to comment now. I will comment further later this afternoon. It was great to get together with those that have varying views. Civility is still alive in Manassas.
Andy,
I like the idea of opening comments.
Have a good day, all.
November 1, 2010 at 8:13 am
Interesting point about the video games, Andy B.
November 1, 2010 at 9:40 am
Reference the video games:
Daniel Greenberg had an excellent commentary on the issue and the Supreme Court case in Sunday’s WaPo Opinion section. Dig the WaPo out of the recylce bin if you missed it, or use the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/29/AR2010102907459.html
November 1, 2010 at 9:53 am
hmmmmm…
“God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.”
Just kidding. It’s a great song!
Thanks to the city folks for including the county people who have been very vocal about this issue.
1. Several people have moved their comfort levels a great deal. That isn’t always the easiest to do. Kudos to those who moved the most.
2. Andy and Sarah are great hosts.
3. Manassas and Prince William County cannot be separated in spirit or as a community, even if political boundaries are there.
4. Things are not always as they seem.
5. I lucked out on my hunch.
6. The law always has to over-rule our emotions. If laws are not in keeping with common sense, change the laws.
7. Common ground is always the place to start. Even if we agree on things, how we handle them might differ.
8. Communicating in writing or on the phone is good rather than by ideology. Communicating face to face is far better, even.
9. Old people can stay up hours past those spring chickens.
November 1, 2010 at 12:14 pm
@Andrew:
I wouldn’t confuse what you find laughable in that ordinance or the location and products in these stores with what you see in the safe confines of a computer screen in your home.
The exposure to suggestive material (for lack of a better term) that children and young adults experience these days is not at issue here.
November 1, 2010 at 2:22 pm
I was happy to attend, and thought it a very good use of time. We may disagree on things, but I think we identified much on which we can and do agree. Often our disagreements are based on semantics, and the face to face dialogue allows for a deeper probing of the differences.
While we may not speak for group A) B) or C), if we are part of these groups, and engaged in an issue, we can lead through example. We all have our spheres of influence.
I enjoyed meeting everyone. Manassas has some really “interesting interested people”, who do want the City to be attractive to a wide array of people. The conversation was so enjoyable, that the time flew by.
Andy and Sarah are great hosts, and I’d like to thank them again. I’d also like to thank everyone who participated. I will also agree that an early night, is a better morning.
November 1, 2010 at 3:43 pm
@ Mr. Harrover but open to all
I’m not confusing anything, I’m merely following legal precedent on that distinction. CA Robertson explains it better then I can in his book (page 37):
“…’Obscenity is to be determined by reference to the Miller test,’ the [Second US Circuit] Court [of Appeals] said [in the case of United States v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise (1979)]. ‘The District Court’s method of analysis [in which it made a distinction between whether public and private viewings of the sexual conduct in the materials in question] is not supported by relevant Supreme Court pronouncements,” continued the Court of Appeals. “The Supreme Court has referred only to the ‘works’ or to the ‘portrayals’ of sexual activity, or to the ‘depiction, representation, or description’ of that conduct. There has been no mention of the context in which those works were to be viewed by the owner, nor has there been mention of their intended private use.
“The Court concluded, ‘But the matter in which the sexual conduct is depicted…is not affected by the manner or place in which the materials themselves either are, or are intended to be, used and enjoyed.’ In other words, if one looks at the material itself to determine whether it is prurient or patently offensive in the way it is depicted, not to the context in which is sold. If you look at the material, and the material itself appears obscene, it does not lose its obscene nature just because a community might tolerate its sale within the context of an ‘adults only’ store.”
Therefore, Mr. Harrover, based on this legal precedent, my lack of distinction seems to be the way to look at this issue. The fact the games are sold in public stores makes their content fair game despite the fact the games are generally intended to be used private in the home. Furthermore, there are gaming conventions in which the games, and their sexual content, is indeed shown publicly. If the City wishes to regulate the content of “adult” videos in stores like KK’s, it must regulate the sale of video games which have sexual content. I would not suggest going so since all games are self-regulated and rated by the ESRB and the industry has an incredible record of winning cases brought by those who try to challenge the allowed content in games (look up Jack Thompson for an example) so the ordinance must therefore be revised every from its general nature that tries to regulate everything sexual to one that focuses just on “adult” videos and such.
To your second point, the opinion and experience of youth goes to whether or not the content is obscene by community standards or not and whether the regulation is needed. If the younger people are not bothered by KKs or “adult” stores in general, then the chances of the material being scene by the majority in the community as obscene and the feeling regulation is needed are less. The evolution of attitudes is found in the ways video games and movies (the ESRB and CRSA respectively) are rated and have come to recognize that the coming-of-age generation generally finds things like sexually more acceptable (that is to say less obscene and/or offense) and thus have lessened their regulation of such material. I have also seen arguments on whether or not minors should be allowed into KK’s in the N&M. The issue of if harm would be done by allowing minors into the store should logically be determined by if younger people are espoused and desensitized to such materials in general. If they are, regulation is not needed since the stores would do nothing living has not done previously. If not, then there is argument that the stores would cause harm to the minors so regulation is needed. Also, need I remind you which group is the future and thus the present needs to think about when making decisions?
And if my use of “laughable” is considred bad, I must say the words and phases I use when talking about it privately are far worse…
November 1, 2010 at 3:46 pm
@Andrew – you’re missing the point. I’ll try again if I get time after my meeting tonight.
November 5, 2010 at 6:52 am
As a PWC resident I appreciated being included in the beer summit. We do participate in many city events, spend our money and think of Manassas as our hometown. By Manassas, I mean the City of Manassas and the thousands in the county that have Manassas addresses. We are a community. What ever happened to the term Greater Manassas Area?
I knew most of the people in attendance and knew everyone would end up walking way having learned alot about their “neighbors” and their vision of our city. We all want a desirable place to live, work, and play. I feel we all have a lot more in common than we disagree on. Unfortunately what we disagree on gets the focus. We have many concerned and engaged citizens. If we could “join forces” on the things we agree on, we’d make an impact on our city/county for the better.
The issue of the store I believe caught many by surprise. However, it didn’t escape the local media’s attention. They don’t tend to show our community favorably when “hot issues” come up in PWC/Manassas. I for one am tired of this. Beer Summits with open/honest face to face discussion might prevent some of the negative publicity when these sorts of things come up.
I’d be willing to host a summit. I’d like to see others bring people together in small gatherings to discuss issues. We as a community are faced with a wide variety of issues that effect us all. So, why not discuss them first calmly and then make our “case” to the local government. It’s like Steve said “we all have our spheres of influence”. So, why not put them to good use for the benefit our community?
Andy and Sarah are excellent hosts. Thank you both for allowing us to gather at your home.
I had no problem with the time. I was the “baby” of the bunch. In a couple of years I might feel more like Andy and Steve about the “late hour”. 🙂
November 5, 2010 at 11:43 am
Maybe I am missing something. Where do books and video games fit in to what the City is trying to do?
Books, films and video games can all be considered pornographic and probably would come under the obscenity question. Will all be considered?
November 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm
This will be last post on the matter in the current threads, I’ll wait for a new thread with new info to post anything else, unless anyone offers me a truly compelling argument as to where I’m mistaken on something that has at least the following: 3 relevant Supreme Court decisions, 3 relevant professional journal articles, 1 concurring post by Justice Scalia, 1 concurring post by Steven Colbert, and 1 dissenting post by Jon Stewart. The list was sarcasm of course but my point I think its come down to different personal opinions on here and I neither have the time or will to argue opinions in an online blog comment area since it’s pretty unlikely that I will persuade others or others will persuade me. That’s the problem when it gets down to opinions where one thinks the other is wrong in any given conflict, going back-and-forth like this won’t go anywhere. So here are my hopefully final thoughts:
@Mr. Harrover
I understand the point to regulate purely adult stores and things with purely adult merchandise etc… I had concerns over the broadness of the ordinance, most of which Mr. Crim addressed to my basic stratification. The point I’ve being trying to make is that if the sexual content in one medium ought to be regulated by the City, then sexual content in every medium ought to be regulated by the City since it’s the same content. The cited case spoke to that in how it said the content itself is the issue not where the content is shown. At the Planning Commission, my concern on video games, which I will address more in relation to Moonhower’s post, was raised and Mr. Crim admitted that the games would most likely be considered adult merchandise under the ordinance as written so a pure video game retailer could be a considered an adult business if most of the retailer’s sells such from these games. That would not make sense the highest commercially available video game is rated by the ERSB as M meaning 17+. How could the City regulate a retailer as to not allow anyone under 18 in when a 17 could buy anything in the store? Short answer, the City couldn’t. Final thought on this point: while I understand the point of the ordnance perfectly well, the actual language in the ordinance could apply to much more things then what the intent of the ordinance had in mind.
@Moonhower
Video games come in the situation like I described. If you do not know video games and their content like I do, and I don’t know how much you know on the issue so I write as if I’m explaining to someone with no knowledge. No offence indented if you know all this already. All video games commercially sold must have a rating by the Entrainment System Ratings Board (AKA ESRB, a Google search could tell you anything you want to a know) form E (everyone) to AO (adults only, 18+). Currently there are no AO sold since retailers have said they would refuse to sell them and it is generally considered that a game with that rating would have to a pure murder simulator, a pure rape simulator, a pure sex simulator, or something similar. Most of the games in question are rated M (mature, 17+) and have much more content then just sex and murder with storylines and the like. However, the ERSB content guide includes advisories for “Nudity,” “Sexual Content,” and “Strong Sexual Content” and my comment above to Mr. Harrover speaks to the implications for the City due to the “adult” nature of some the content.
On books, it’s pretty much the same as videos. If books meet the ordinances definitions relating to sexual content, they are adult merchandise. If any store makes a large portion of sells off of such books, video games, and anything else that has sexual content making the items adult merchandise, it would be considered an adult store and subject to regulated regardless of the context of the sexual content. Remember the issue here is not context, rather it is content and how of a given store’s merchandise has such content. Any store selling anything with sexual content is fair game for possible regulation based on how much those items contribute to the businesses.
Last thing I have to write is that that is a good question on whether all will be considered that right into my comments. The City ought not to be selectively enforcing against purely adult stores if the ordinance is to be fair and just, all stores must be checked to see if they would be adult stores. The City needs to watch its step very carefully in going forward down this path….
OK, that‘s all, as Mr. Harrover once said “I’m out.”
November 8, 2010 at 7:49 am
I do not believe the City Council is trying to regulate video games.