----This last week, the Lewiston Morning Tribune blasted Lewiston resident Gary Greenfield for his efforts to deal with the local pornography problem. Greenfield was identified as the ''town bully'' because he is willing to organize a boycott of those establishments which promote the degradation of women.
Aside from the interesting application of ''town bully'' to someone who is trying hard to defend people, a series of questions present themselves to the inquiring mind.
What is Greenfield doing? He is trying to get store owners to discontinue carrying porn, and is willing to apply the economic pressure of a boycott if they do not.
What is the LMT doing? They are opposing Greenfield, and they are doing so on a personal level. Now let's walk through this.
There are two elements to Greenfield's efforts; his opposition to porn, and his willingness to use a boycott as a means of persuasion. Which of these two elements is the reason for the Tribune's opposition?
At first glance, it might look as though they believe boycotts are a bullying tactic, and unfit for use in a democratic society. But this is not true. The Tribune would defend the use of boycotts, provided the target was ideologically suitable .
For example, would the Tribune identify Martin Luther King as a ''bully'' because of his successful use of boycott in the pursuit of his goals? If you begin waiting for the Tribune to come out in opposition of Martin Luther King Day because we shouldn't honor bullies, my hunch is that you will have quite a wait.
But what does this mean? It means that Greenfield is to be opposed, not because he is willing to organize boycotts, but because his target is pornography. If Greenfield were boycotting something else more fashionable, like stores carrying white supremacist stuff, then it would be no problem. But he isn't, so there is.
You see, if a store carries magazines which treat blacks and Jews in a degrading way, Greenfield would be a ''good citizen'' and ''civil rights activist'' if he organized a boycott. But if stores treat women in a degrading way, the Tribune thunders against the town bully.
The only way out of this impasse would be for the Trib to argue that porn honors and respects women. Good luck making that case, guys.
So then, boycotts are all right provided the target is a good one. Porn must not be a good target, even though it is degrading to women. Therefore, those down at the Trib must want this type of material around. They have chosen sides: they want to defend those who degrade women, and attack those who honor women.
For some reason, this attack on Greenfield reminded me of a definition given by Ambrose Bierce of the word '' Luminary : n. One who throws light upon a subject; as an editor by not writing about it.''
