Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Big Brother is Watching

Jan 25, 2004 4:31AM PST
Texas Church Cards People Who Patronize Adult Stores.
It's 2:30 on a Thursday afternoon, and inside a windowless adult video store in Kennedale Texas, a dozen people are perusing XXX-rated movie titles. Pastor Jim Norwood surmises this because he has photographed the customers' cars in the parking lot, carefully adjusting his digital camera so that each license plate is in focus. Each car owner will soon get a postcard in the mail from Norwood's Oakcrest Family Church. On the front will be a color photo of their vehicle in the video store parking lot. On the back will be a note: "Observed you in the neighborhood. Didn't know if you were aware there is a church in the area ? please stop by next time. We'd love to have you visit." <<

Obviously a Republican, as he doesn;t believe in a right to privacy!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
(NT)I'd agree with that, but there is no law that I know of against prosletyzing or busyboding.
Jan 26, 2004 5:12AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Working my way down this thread, I read a few things that finally made me think
Jan 26, 2004 5:28AM PST

of something I had overlooked.

Regarding the public embarassment angle. Since he sent these pictures as postcards, not letters, it does mean everyone handling them in the post office saw them.

Now I still question whether that is enough to qualify as harassment legally, since everyone in the postoffice knows who gets magazines of all types at home.

And whatever gossip there was about it would be illegal for the post office employees, not that illegality would stop gossip, it never has. But it still wouldn't be much more than someone driving by seeing a person there then telling it at work.

roger

- Collapse -
If you read the entire article ...
Jan 25, 2004 6:30AM PST

... you couldn't possibly make such a statement as this with a straight face:

There's a big difference (IMCO) between this activity and the neighborhood watch -- the latter is intended to prevent damage or even injury to the members of the neighborhood. The activity in this report is simply being a busybody, or trying to impose one's own values on others.

The program is funded by private citizens and local businesses for the betterment of the community. So you want a porn shop opening up in your back yard? If you took steps to shut them down would you be just another busybody, or perhaps concerned about the quality of life for kids (imagine you have a couple) and if nothing else the value of your home.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Considering the moral valuse IS his business...
Jan 25, 2004 6:47AM PST

how can you rationalize that he has no business concerning himself with them?

We are aware of what YOUR opinion is but others, including himself and doubtless the majority of his flock consider it a service and mentioning the near presence of his church in no way is an imposition of his values. What has he done to actually "impose" his values as you state?

Speaking of imposing values care to stop and think for more than a second on the numerous personal and political "values" you attempt to impose on the country?

Recognize your bigotry Dave. Your post and follow up response to Dr. Bill are magnificent examples of it.

- Collapse -
Completely typical Ed distortion.
Jan 26, 2004 4:15PM PST

Go back and re-read it.

The objection is not the the church minister being concerned, the problem is with the church minister acting as a town crier.

Ian

- Collapse -
town crier versus town corrupter.
Jan 27, 2004 2:27AM PST
Go back and re-read it. The objection is not the the church minister being concerned, the problem is with the church minister acting as a town crier.

What makes you think a businessman had more right to put his immoral stamp on a neighborhood area than residents of that neighborhood (including ministers!) have to object to it and to insist on a higher moral standard? Is there some redeeming quality to being a pornographer that gives him have greater rights to impose his business and viewpoints on a neighborhood than the residents who might not want that type of business there?
- Collapse -
Speaking of distortions yours are priceless...
Jan 27, 2004 5:56AM PST

A "town crier" (Ian distortion #1) for starters is paid for by the town--this person (Norwood) isn't nor is he "acting" like one. He is acting on his own. I would advise you to follow your own advice and actually READ the article--you are apparently seeing things that simply are not there Ian (had your vision checked recently?).

Ian distortion #2 is some idea of objection radically different than the lawyer's comments regarding "intimidation" (Swindler - "To me the question is, are they doing it really to communicate their message, or are they trying to blackmail people, in a way, by embarrassing them?") or John Gamboa, a lawyer for one of the businesses that has settled with the city, said Norwood's photo campaign is harmless. "If this man wants to spend money on postcards, fine. As long as he stays within the bounds of the law, he has every right to do it. What he seems to forget is as long as we stay within the bounds of the law, we have every right to be there," he said.

- Collapse -
Balancing the Impositions
Jan 27, 2004 2:18AM PST

As I see it, if the owner of a porno shop thinks he has a right to impose his lack of moral values upon a whole neighborhood, probably one he himself doesn't live in, then how much greater a right of objection exists among those who ARE residents of that neighborhood?

- Collapse -
just as the lawyer stated...
Jan 27, 2004 6:05AM PST
John Gamboa, a lawyer for one of the businesses that has settled with the city, said Norwood's photo campaign is harmless. "If this man wants to spend money on postcards, fine. As long as he stays within the bounds of the law, he has every right to do it. What he seems to forget is as long as we stay within the bounds of the law, we have every right to be there," he said.

The postcards are legal and if their result is decreased business and unprofitability the winner is the community.

As one of the customers said and Norwood agreed:

"What other people do is not his business," said Roger Vallez, 47, as he left the video store. Vallez, who said he was a contract engineer, said he wouldn't welcome nude clubs in his neighborhood, though. "There ought to be a place in the middle of nowhere for these places."
...
Norwood readily agreed. But those who dismiss his invitation to church will perhaps take their business elsewhere, "somewhere they won't be hassled," he said. "There are a lot of other places ? where they can go if they want to persist in this kind of behavior."


(Think he might have been thinking of DaveK's neighborhood in Galveston? Naw, they probably don't want it there either. <bgsound="harpervalley_hypocrit.mid> )
- Collapse -
Sounds like the pastor is keeping watch on exactly what he needs to.
Jan 25, 2004 6:59AM PST

Maybe one of his photos will help capture the next rapist in that neighborhood.

- Collapse -
And which cockeyed theory are you using there?
Jan 25, 2004 11:25AM PST

That all patrons of adult stores are potential rapists, or that all rapists visit adult stores? Edward called DaveK out as a bigot, but look who's showing bigotry now, eh James?

- Collapse -
The Truth
Jan 25, 2004 11:47AM PST

Not every visitor to a porno bookstore becomes a rapist, but most rapist are involved with porno. Such a business has a greater tendency to attract the least desirable characters into an area.

- Collapse -
Re: The Truth
Jan 25, 2004 11:48AM PST

Hi, James.

Not every breathing person is a rapist, either, but every rapist breathes. You stop first!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Apples and Oranges.
Jan 25, 2004 11:54AM PST

So if we can stop just the rapist from breathing we are doing OK? Does that mean if we can stop the potential rapist from porno stores we will do OK? How do you propose to do that? Breathe is a necessity, Porno isn't, so no analogy.

- Collapse -
Re: Apples and Oranges -- Identical logic flaws in both cases; subject irrelevant! (NT)
Jan 26, 2004 2:16AM PST

.

- Collapse -
On the contrary ... there is no flaw in the logic ...
Jan 26, 2004 2:32AM PST

If we stop everybody from breathing then we will in fact significantly reduce the incidence of rape. It would, however, be a suboptimal solution to the problem.

The logic is no worse than what we commonly use in medicine. Are you suggesting that if all of the cases of cholera came from people who drank water from one pump in London then it was unreasonable to break off the handle of the pump? John Snow certainly found that logic compelling.

- Collapse -
I could be tempted to set up a porn shop in your neighborhood ...
Jan 25, 2004 2:43PM PST

to see how complacent you would be when it is in your own back yard.

- Collapse -
What's your point?
Jan 26, 2004 10:13AM PST

What is the probability that any given customer in a porn store is a rapist? I'll wager that it is consideably higher than the probability for the customer of a Walgreen's. So, if you have a higher probability of attracting rapists, or other low lifes, you try to increase the incentive for the store to leave the neighborhood. What's so hard to understand?

- Collapse -
Re:The Truth.... a correction, James
Jan 27, 2004 5:58AM PST

The rapist is not committing a sexual act, but an act of violence.

He may or may not be interested in porn (perhaps that showing violence against females), or in consensual sex, for that matter.

He is not motivated by sexual desire, but by his urge to violate his victim through force, or worse.

You can find some good information at your local rape Crisis Center.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
And another
Jan 27, 2004 6:11AM PST

correction.

Can't speak in such broad generalities angeline as some rapists are indeed more interested in the sex than in any violence.

Look for instance at the Kobe case where there doesn't appear to have been any but there does appear to be a changing of mind after the fact.

Same with many other "date rape" and other (for lack of better terminology) "normal" rapes.

- Collapse -
Re:And another
Jan 27, 2004 7:56AM PST

Not generalization at all, Ed.

They are all rapists.

Rapists break into homes, enter the auotos of the unwary, accost victims in parks, etc,

Date rapes are commtted after "disabling" their victims with drugs or alcohol (passive force), or just by brute force.

Regardless of the circumstance, I still hold that they are rapists because they ENJOY/NEED the force, not the act itself as in a consentual situation. The conquest takes precedent.

A person who commit a sexual assault is, IMO, unlikely to develop a stable relationship, like a person who hits or beats a partner does not.

Sure, there are those who have a change of mind. But I think that most males would not then resort to force.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Re:Re:And another
Jan 27, 2004 10:17AM PST
Date rapes are commtted after "disabling" their victims with drugs or alcohol (passive force), or just by brute force.

Again I must disagree as most do not involve any such thing.

Admittedly some are intoxicated (many perhaps even) but in only an extremely small percentage of those instances was the intoxication NOT by choice. Many of the "rapists" were equally intoxicated and should be considered just as much a "victim" if not more so than the "victim" who hollers rape because it is they who pay the price for what was, at the time, consensual.

No Angeline, all "rapes" are not violent crimes and some should not be crimes at all unless both are charged and found guilty of "contributory negligence" resulting in appearances and words not meaning what they appeared to be and mean.
- Collapse -
:Re:And another
Jan 28, 2004 12:28AM PST

I do not equate situations in which both parties are intoxicated on whatever, and are not in control of their usual inhibitions.

Nor not considering how easy it is to "cry rape", though consensual.

Nor not taking into account that there are those who are giddy when shown attention by a celebrity, or a person in power.

I suspect we will not reach a consensus. I know I will continue to hold that all non-consensual acts committed through force are rape.

As all crimes, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Angeline
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

- Collapse -
Even if violence is the key motivator of rapist
Jan 27, 2004 12:38PM PST

...then wouldn't a porno shop have stuff catering to bondage freaks and such?

- Collapse -
No, it's trying to maintain the quality of a neighborhood.
Jan 26, 2004 9:27AM PST

It's an 'in-your-face' confrontation of those who are thoughtless, or don't care, how their actions affect others. Kind of like the theaters who urge people to turn off their cell phones.

- Collapse -
Re:Big Brother is Watching
Jan 25, 2004 5:14AM PST

In my view, it would be difficult to compare this with a "Big Brother" definition. The patrons of the video store were parked in a public place. Their own neighbors could have spotted their cars and learned something they did not know. While I would need to muse a bit about the methods used by the church clergyman and could find myself skeptical of his real motive, I would have to say that something in me is applauding the notion that a church is actually reaching out to persons it might consider to have souls in trouble. This is what, I believe, people of Christian belief should be doing more of rather than gathering themselves up into mostly social communities. My two cents....

- Collapse -
Big Brother?
Jan 25, 2004 5:28AM PST

Yeah right.

Obviously a Republican, as he doesn;t believe in a right to privacy!

Talk about gratuitous pot shots. I was not aware that we had a right to privacy in a public parking lot.

From your link:
At least once a week, a volunteer traces the license plate numbers to the owners of the cars using an online service that searches an automotive database for a fee. In Texas, license information is a matter of public record. So far, 300 postcards have been mailed, Norwood said.

If you are uncomfortable with license info being a matter of public record, take it up with your state legislature.

The cost of the program, which could reach $15,000 a year, is covered by donations from local businesses and private individuals, Norwood said. Oakcrest Family Church, located in a ragged neighborhood behind the sexually oriented businesses, could not otherwise afford the expense, he said.

This neglected stretch of auto salvage yards, trailers and rickety wood-frame houses seems at first glance to be sliding into despair. But at one house, someone has resolutely planted a 5-foot wooden cross in the middle of a scraggly lawn; at another house, plastic ducks decorate a freshly swept front porch.

The sound of children's laughter filters from a playground nearby. There is life here, but outsiders don't seem to notice, said Gloria Price, who has lived in the area since 1970. "When we were unincorporated, everything just got dumped out here," she said, adding that something should have been done about the adult-oriented places "a long time ago."


Would you like such an establishment near your home?

Before condemning Norwood, perhaps you might read on. Did you get this far before deciding this was a good article to besmirch Christians and Republicans?

Price cooks meals for the underprivileged at the church, where the congregation includes ex-cons, former drug addicts and recovering alcoholics. Norwood describes a personal history that includes charges of public intoxication, assaulting a police officer and weekends serving time in county jails. That was more than 25 years ago when, he says, he owned several auto body shops in the San Francisco area and had unlimited access to pornography through a friend who managed a chain of pornographic bookstores.

Now, when he's not counseling prisoners at the Tarrant County Jail in Fort Worth, the no-nonsense Norwood runs a flower shop steeped in the fragrance of scented candles. "I'm hard-core about being against pornography, because I know firsthand what it can lead to," Norwood said. His postcards list a schedule of church services and the church's "counseling and classes on sexual addictions."


Sounds like a pretty upright guy running a church active in turning a down and out community around. Leave it to you to find the bad in the story Sad

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re: Big Brother?
Jan 25, 2004 6:03AM PST

Hi, Evie.

It wasn't hard to find that focus of the story, since that's what was trumpeted in the AP headline! And I frankly disagree with the SCOTUS about the right to privacy in public places -- and that will become an increasingly important Constitutional issue in the near future. The question is, do governments (or anyone) have the tright to use surveillance cameras on a public street, use face-recongition programs to identify the individual, and then cross-link it to various databases? Absent any probable cause, I consider that sort of observation to be a gross invasion of privacy -- but the logical extension of existing SCOTUS rulings (mainly by THIS conservative-dominated Court) says there's nothing wrong with it. The latest outrage is the "informational roadblock", which they ruled legal 5-4. Apparently my right to get where I want to on a public street is of little or no value to them -- and that's outrageous. This country is rapidly taking on the characteristics of a police state, and it's the "conservatives" who are taking us there.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re:Re: Big Brother?
Jan 25, 2004 6:17AM PST

While the trend can lead to dangerous territory, I wonder how far the other way you feel we should go.

Do I have the right to refuse to show my license to a policeman at a checkpoint just because I haven't broken any laws?

Do police have the right to set up roadblocks trying to catch someone leaving an area a crime was committed? since they can't know for certain the criminal is still in the area, maybe they have no right to circulate descriptions and ask questions at bus stations, airports, train depots, and no right to check id's of people driving out of the area.

You did notice the challege was based on the drunk driving conviction of someone stopped at the checkpoint while they were asking for information? Would it have been ok if the checkpoint was just for checking for drunk drivers? Does that mean if they have a checkpoint for drunk drivers they can't ticket me for my safety inspection for being out of date? or my registration being expired?

You'd be surprised at the number of people that pull up to a driver license check without their seatbelt on, even when they can see the point before they get there.

Slippery slope arguments are valid, the problem is disagreement on where it's too much.

roger

- Collapse -
The only government thing involved here Jay Jerde...
Jan 25, 2004 6:22AM PST

... is that vehicle licenses are a matter of public record in TX -- subject to the TX law and not really something the SCOTUS ought to even involve itself in.

As to the AP headline, well if trumpeted you should think long and hard about AP's credibility in terms of it's "alerts". That wasn't the headline of the LATimes story (at Yahoo) you linked to, and quite frankly the "Card" reference was misleading because it sounded more like some sort of ID checking going on.

Your conservative police state mantra is another one that is unsubstantiated by facts and getting old prematurely.

Evie Happy