Vol. 7, No. 7
July 1992
Q-Notes wins
GLPA recognition
... page 11
Dick Sargent
speaks
... page14
F^EE
The Carol'mae Moet Compreheneive Gay Leeblan Newepaper'^" Frmted on Kecycied r^per'w
Judge finds CPC grant terms unconstitutional
by David Prybylo
Q-Notes Staff
NEW YORK — Citing the actions of the
review panel for Metrolina AIDS Project,
federal district court Judge Shirley Wohl Kram
ruled on May 11 that the restrictions placed
on AIDS educational materials by the U.S.
Congress are unconstitutional. Congress, led
by Sen. Jesse Helms, had required that all
AIDS educational materials developed or dis
tributed using funds provided by the Centers
for Disease Control (CDC) be reviewed by
local Program Review Panels. The panels,
appointed locally, determined whether or not
materials might be considered offensive by a
majority of persons outside the intended tar
get population, and whether they directly
encouraged or promoted sexual activity.
The Court’s decision was the result of a
suit brought against Health and Human Ser
vices Secretary Louis Sullivan by the na
tional AIDS Project of the ACLU and the
Center for Constitutional Rights in 1988.
Those organizations represented Gay Men’s
Health Crisis (GMHC), the Hetrick Martin
Institute, Horizons Community Services, and
other AIDS service organizations from across
the country. The State of New York also
joined the suit as a plaintiff.
In fuhng the CDC’s grant terms unconsti
tutional, the Courtcalled the regulations “sub
jective” and “imprecise,” and referred to two
separate incidents involving the Program
Review Panel appointed to monitor the grant
activities of Metrolina AIDS Project’s gay
men’s educational program. In her decision.
Judge Kram found that “it is impossible to
explain why in August 1990 (the Metrolina
AIDS Project’s Program Review Panel) re
jected one proposal which depicted two men
draped in a flag and holding condoms, and
another which was a safer-sex brochure that
described a variety of sexual behavior en
gaged in by gay/bisexual men and the risks
associated with each. It is also difficult to
explain why a PRP required the Metrolina
AIDS Project to remove the words ‘fun,’
‘exciting,’ and ‘sexy’ from a brochure, as
well as ^ 1 references to gay men, leaving any
reference to sexual orientation out of the
brochure.”
In August of 1990, the MAPpanel, chaired
by MAP board president Sister Mary Thomas
Burke, was asked to approve the use of a
poster developed by the San Francisco AIDS
Foundation which depicted iwo young men
draped in an American Flag and holding a
condom. The text of the poster was “Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The
panel found the poster offensive and prohib
ited its use. At the same time, the panel was
asked to approve use of a series of wallet
sized brochures developed by the health de
partment in Tucson, Arizona which dealt
separately with the issues of oral sex, anal
sex, S& M, and sex options. Each brochure
had a suggestive photograph intended to cap
ture the reader’s attention, and explained the
risks associated with various types of sexual
activity using non- scientiOc language (i.e;,
“fuck” instead of anal intercourse and “suck”
in place of oral intercourse). Despite letters
of support from the American Red Cross and
the president of the Charlotte Psychiatric
Association, the panel rejected the brochures.
Panel member Linda Berne, a health educator
at UNCC, said during the meeting that the
brochures were useful and should be avail
able to gay men. She voted to reject the
materials, however, suggesting that the gay
community itself fund them.
“It is impossible to explain
why (MAP's PRP) rejected
one proposal which depicted
two men draped in a flag and
holding condoms." -judge Kram
In the spring of 1989, the panel was asked
to approve a brochure developed by the Min
nesota AIDS Project as part of its “Lifeguard”
series. The brochure was only accepted after
changes to the text were made, including the
deletion of the words ‘fun,’ ‘exciting,’ and
‘sexy’ from a paragraph on masturbation.
Also deleted from the brochure were any
references to homosexual sex, “abstinence”
was added to the top of the list of safe activi
ties, and the title, “Play Safe,” deemed too
suggestive, was changed to “Play It Safe.”
Kram also noted that the actions of pro
gram review panels had a further, more in
sidious effect on AIDS education efforts.
AIDS educates^, she noted, “are forced to
censor themselves and concentrate on pro
posals that will pass the ‘offensiveness’ test
with room to spare.”
Continued on page 11
ACLU will investigate
discrimination against MCSP
by David Prybylo
Q-Notes Staff
CHARLOTTE—The American Civil Lib
erties Union of North Carolina (NCCLU)
voted in June to accept the case of Metrolina
Community Service Project (MCSP) and to
sponsor possible legal action against the State
of North Carolina. In May, MCSP had been
threatened by the Alcohol Law Enforcement
(ALE) division with punitive action if they
held an annual fund-raiser involving simu
lated gambling. MCSP and the NCCLU con
tend that the ALE is selectively enforcing
State regulations, thereby discriminating
against gays and lesbians. Casino Nights, they
say, are held routinely across the state to
benefit a variety of organizations, yet no oth
ers have been threatened.
The case was first brought to the Charlotte
chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) on June 9. In previous meetings with
several individual attorneys, the board of
MCSP was encouraged to present their case to
the ACLU for review. During the June 9
meeting, MCSP board president Robert Propst
presented evidence to support MCSP’s charge
of discrimination, including an article from
the June issue of Q-Notes and two articles
from the Charlotte Observer which described
a similar event held by the World 600
Children’s Charity.
In a meeting on June 12, the Charlotte
chapter of the ACLU voted unanimously to
recommend accepting the MCSP action and
passed this recommendation onto the NCCLU
in Raleigh. On June 15, MSCP was notified
that the NCCLU had voted to sponsor the
MSCP case based on the recommendation
from the Charlotte ACLU.
Propst was careful to point out that the
ACLU attorneys have not yet agreed to file a
suit. At its June 22 board meeting, the MCSP
board members met with Jim Gronquist and
Continued on page 21
AND THE
OF
Dialogue with police begins
by Dan Van Mourik
Q-Notes Staff
CHARLOTTE—Over 80 members of the
gay and lesbian community attended a meet
ing with law enforcement representatives on
Wednesday, June 3. The purpose of the
meeting was to begin a dialogue but not
necessarily solve any existing problems be
tween the two groups.
"This is the first outcry I
have personally heard
from the gay and lesbian
community." -Cmdr. Jones
A seven-member panel, representing the
Charlotte Police Department, the Park Rang
ers and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Commu
nity Relations Committee (CRC), had been
assembled for a question/answer session to
better understand gay and lesbian concerns
from both perspectives. Invited, but not rep
resented, were the Mecklenburg County Po
lice Department, the Sheriffs Department
and the District Attorney’s office. Budget
hearings were offered as an explanation for
their absence.
Commander L.R. “Deacon” Jones of the
Charlotte Police Department stated that at
tendance at this meeting was the highest of
any similar meeting ever held. Both First
Tuesday (meeting organizer) and the CRC
hope this was but the first of several such
sessions. “This is the first outcry I have per
sonally heard from the gay and lesbian com
munity,” Jones later stated.
The initial round of questions centered on
entrapment in public parks. “The operational
procedure is to respond to complaints of
activity in the parks,” Sergeant Porter of the
Park Rangers stated several times during the
evening. Response to citizen complaints was
offered by the panel as answer to a variety of
questions.
When asked if homosexuals were targeted
for solicitation more than heterosexuals, Sgt.
Porter stated that their efforts were “directed
at anyone in violation of the law.” When
further pressed, he responded, “We do not
keep statistics on homosexual, heterosexual,
male or female.” He did admit, however, that
there is only one female plain clothes officer
in their department.
Shifting to more general topics, the panel
was asked if there were any programs in
place, or under consideration, to sensitize
officers to homosexuality and bisexuality.
Continued on page 6