Free Speech and Pornography: An Interview With Jim Buckley and Al Goldstein

Fucetola: Screw magazine has been in existence for four years, it has been arrested seven times, and it has been found guilty of obscenity six times. We’re told that the ACLU, the defender of free speech, has told the editors of Screw that they give freedom of speech a bad name. I think that’s a good way to begin our conversation today. Just why do you give freedom of speech a bad name?

Buckley: Because we do, that’s the problem. So many people on the left think freedom of speech is meaningful only as some abstract concept. We use, it, we speak it, we abuse people, we quasi-libel movements. We’re antagonistic, we advocate ideas, we’re involved in a very exciting, vibrant, journalistic enterprise which is what Screw is, and therefore we’re so offensive, vulgar, and repugnant to the sensibilities of the left that they would choose to see us disappear just like the right would like us to stop publication.

It’s only been the Liberal Establishment that’s attacked us so far, people like Lindsay. He’s been the Mayor ever since we’ve started, and the only arrests we’ve got have been from him. He’s not the right.

Fucetola: How does an obscenity arrest for a magazine like yours occur? What is it like?

Buckley: Well, normally the arresting officer disguises himself as something or other. The first time he disguised himself as a newspaper boy; the second time he came up as a transvestite. There are many ways that they come up to arrest us.

Goldstein: They came up as a pistol once.

Buckley: As a gun, right. Normally, they try to win the confidence of the arrestee by dressing up as freaks and perverts. But anyway, after they do that, they telephone us and say, “You guys, you’re going to have to come down to the station; you’re under arrest.” That’s how it goes. We don’t get handcuffed, except this last time, this baby-thing in Mineola. Al was handcuffed and I was handcuffed.

Fucetola: What is “this baby-thing” in Mineola,” if you could elaborate?

Buckley: It’s a frame-up, first of all.

Goldstein: Jim loved a six-year old, wanted to marry her.

Buckley: It’s a famous French story. What happened was this nut, and I say “nut” because he was later found to be criminally insane and sent away, was running ads in Screw, with his telephone number and home address, asking for models age eight to fourteen, or something like that. And the ad said, “You must have parents’ consent.” So we looked at it and looked at it and said, “Gee, it sounds legitimate.” We ran it and it turns out to be that it wasn’t legitimate at all. They were taking pictures of kids doing various things with adults. Consequently, we were arrested along with them.

Fucetola: What, exactly, were you arrested for?

Goldstein: On 51 counts, which have since been reduced to 25. So the maximum sentence we can get, instead of 109 years, is 36 years. But, the primary thrust of the indictment is that the ads were for some illegal acts, and therefore we were contributing to illegal acts by running them in Screw. Paradoxically, the same ads appeared in the Village Voice and they never came to arrest the publisher of the Voice. Equally interesting, the concept they’re using to bust us would also result in the New York Times and the Daily News getting busted for running ads for cigarettes, which have been proven to cause cancer.

Buckley: Not just cigarettes, but even things like knives, since someone can rob or mug somebody with a knife or almost anything.

The point is, what they’re doing is really harrassment. There’s no substance to the charge except they’re picking on Screw rather than the Village Voice or the Times or the News because they obviously wish to put us out of business. Around the same time we were arrested, the D.A. of Nassau County, where we got the bust, was named Man of the Month by the Morality in Media Newsletter. I think they got the scoop before the press did.

Goldstein: The Morality in Media Newsletter, for your readers who aren’t aware of it, is under the guidance of Father Hill, a Jesuit priest, who was on the President’s Commission of Obscenity, and who voted with the minority. The vote was 12 to 6, the majority voting that all restraints on pornography should be removed. Father Hill felt that the First Amendment should be removed. This is a man who spends his time looking at porn ten hours a day and feels it will rot everyone’s mind but his own. He’s actually very good proof that looking at porn does rot your mind.

Fucetola: You mentioned the First Amendment. It says, “Congress shall make no laws... abridging the freedom of speech.” What does that mean, as far as you’re concerned?

Goldstein: It means it’s a lie, that’s what it means. As the jailing of Ralphie Ginzburg showed us, the bars seem to be clinking with greater frequency, not only on political activists, whether it be priests who are against the war in Viet Nam, or Angela Davis, or people who feel that erotica has the same right to exist as schematic diagrams on bombing City Hall. Freedom of speech seems to be in disrepute now.

Fucetola: Then being arrested for pornography is really a political crime?

Goldstein: Yeah, there’s a politics of the body. Whether you wish to use your body homosexually or heterosexually.

Buckley: I’m against that, by the way.

Goldstein: ... or by swinging from a chandelier, you’re really dealing with individual rights—versus somebody else presupposing to know what’s best for you. It is very political, and it’s always amazed me that the left is so enamoured with its own rectum that it doesn’t quite see it.

Buckley: We nominated Spiro Agnew as Man of the Year in a special Penis Supplement that we did of Screw. The reason that we nominated him was for a quote which was “I am opposed to censorship in all forms.”

Goldstein: We call Spiro “the Spiral” because of the syphilis we now know is pulsating through his blood.

Buckley: He should sit up. It’s not that he doesn’t have it.

Fucetola: The State has rules about slander, but, okay....

Goldstein: He’s a public character. They have to prove malice.

Fucetola: Right, there’s no malice.

Buckley: We have no malice.

Goldstein: I love Spiro.

Buckley: In fact, we feel sorry for the guy. The fact that he’s a mainliner....

Goldstein: The fact that he’s of the Greek culture is not for us to attack the man.

Buckley: Certainly not our position.

Goldstein: He happens to love three of the Secret Service agents who have been tailing him... tailing him is a good word.

Buckley: I’m told two of them love him too.

Goldstein: Yes, but it’s not a meaningful relationship. Screw is very political. It really is. We constantly abuse people. We see the world in terms of good guys and bad guys, but there are very few good guys left. Ralph Nader’s the last one....

Buckley: And me, besides myself.

Goldstein: You’re a bad guy to me.

Fucetola: What about Ralph Ginzburg?

Goldstein: Ralphie, I can only use obscenities to describe.....

Buckley: He’s a good bad guy.

Goldstein: He’s a charlatan.

Buckley: Or a bad good guy.

Goldstein: He’s been cited by the Federal Trade Commission on his Moneysworth, he’s a total bandit. But he shouldn’t go to jail for obscenities, he should go to jail for thievery.

Buckley: Personally, we do wish he were a better guy so we could really rally behind him. We still opposed it when he went to jail, but we can’t get behind him all the way. We don’t like him.

Block: I hate to inject any levity into this serious conversation, but let me ask you a funny question. The usual attack on free speech is that you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. That’s an excuse they use to abrogate the First Amendment. How would you say that deals with....

Goldstein: I’ve changed it. I’ve always maintained the John Stuart Mill quote, the new freedom is the right to... I almost can’t say it.

Buckley: I know you can’t.

Goldstein: ... the right to describe vaginal area— a word beginning with “c”, dash, dash, “t“—using that word in a room full of feminists. That, to me, is freedom of speech. If there’s a clear and present danger, which with a fire you might prove there is to some degree, that there might be panic, then I would say that in freedom of speech, as in all things, there is some relativity. But sexual freedom, and the right to read what one wishes has in every case proven not to be harmful. The empirical evidence is spotty—but check the President’s Commission on Obscenity, check the Scandinavian experiment; there really is no cause and effect. So the burden, I think, is really on those who want to censor us to prove that there is a clear and present danger, and I mean a danger beyond sexual activity.

Fucetola: Does the First Amendment talk in terms of harm, or anything else?

Buckley: No.

Fucetola: It says absolutely “no laws.” “Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.”

Goldstein: Right, you are what is considered an idealist because you really believe in that.

Fucetola: That document is theoretically the basis of the power of the American government.

Buckley: Actually, the first laws weren’t drawn up by Congress, they were drawn up by the various localities and States. I think one of the things the new Supreme Court is trying to do is give the States the right to choose whether something is obscene or not, because I think even they feel that they don’t really have the right. In fact, Oregon has just gone the way of Denmark as of February 1.

Fucetola: I’m afraid New Jersey went the opposite way back on January 15, and....

Goldstein: Yeah, but it’s OK if you smoke pot now, because Cahill’s son was busted on pot. That was liberal. So we can only hope that Cahill’s son will be caught masturbating with pornography, and then they’re going to liberalize the erotica laws there. Apparently, only self-interest will be operative.

One of the interesting things I find is that the opponents of freedom of speech say the Founding Fathers did not mean what they wrote in the First Amendment, yet when it comes to gun control, the Right to Bear Arms, these self-same yoohoos and yokels say, “Well, there, we really do have the Right to Bear Arms, and carry guns, and to knock off Presidents.”

Buckley: They’re very strict, when it comes to their own means.

Fucetola: It’s very interesting. They’re not so bluenose about knocking off presidents.

Block: You know, the Elastic Clause, you stretch it whichever way you want. Well, we’ve discussed the left-wing attacks on pornography. How about the right wing?

Buckley: Actually, I think the Right has been much more insidious. Since they’re the people in power, they’ve been the people who tap our phones, and make sure we get arrested. But they know the value of publicity and I don’t think they want to attack us publicly, because they’ll only make friends for us.

Goldstein: From the right, we expect it. I think that’s why I’m possibly being heavily antagonistic to the left. From the right, I expect nothing. I really don’t expect William Buckley to rally to my defense, but I do expect WBAI or the Nation or the New Republic, or East Village Other or the Ace to support us. In most cases that support does not come because of very fallacious thinking, such as that we’re sexist. I challenge that right at the outset. Where are we sexists? For example, we have Communists in our building, these old Hadassah ladies, and they feel Screw interferes with the Revolution—homosexuality does too—because they feel that the Masses should be out rallying around various slogans. The left, which says it believes in freedom, and is anti-establishment, is really in the same bag as the Establishment in trying not only to repress us but to jail us.

Fucetola: What about Women’s Lib?

Buckley: Well, we’re all in favor of Women’s Lib. I can’t understand why women are against Screw. We run naked pictures of women, but we run naked pictures of men. I think that Women’s Lib is just basically anti-sexual, not just anti-Screw. When they see anything dealing with the naked body, they go the way of the Weatherman and Weatherwoman, and become very uptight and unliberated about us.

Block: Would you say that this sort of neo-puritanism is widespread? I mean, the whole Women’s Liberation Movement?

Goldstein: Parts of it, not all.

Buckley: Pretty much so, I think.

Goldstein: It depends. For instance, Mary Phillips, one of our editors, came out with a Women’s Lib paper called the New Broadside. She was a Pan Am stewardess who got fired for writing for Screw. Her credentials in the movement are as good, I feel, as anybody else’s, and besides being wife number two of mine, she was also a very competent managing editor of Screw. The New Broadside was a good paper.

Buckley: But she was branded as a sexist by the rest of the movement because of her association with Screw.

Goldstein: True. but then she was still Editor of the NOW Newsletter, even after. If we’re to judge a sexism charge, if it comes from the Red Stockings or the militant quasi-lesbian group, we must ask: “Who speaks for the left?” There’s fragmentation and splintering all over. I would say that any woman who would look at Screw, and most women haven’t who put us down, would be hard put to nail us on a sexist issue.

We were the first publication to use the Ms. surname. We felt that was valid, not to use Miss or Mrs. Our managing editor of the past year is a female. Our advertising manager….

Buckley: She’s been a woman her whole life, as a matter of fact.

Goldstein: No, I think just recently. Our advertising manager is a woman. In other words, we’re not just talking or theorizing. In terms of power at Screw, those reins are run by women, because they happen to be more competent than the men who might have filled the jobs. So I say the sexist charge is crap.

Block: I want to make a comment about the right because I regard myself, and Ralph also, as sort of right-wingers. The libertarian right, that is, as opposed to the Buckley-fascist-Nixon right; as people who really take the things in the First Amendment seriously, and who don’t think that our government believes in it. We, as members of the libertarian right, would want to differentiate ourselves from these other “right-wingers.”

Buckley: Are you a member of the Libertarian Party?

Block: Yes.

Buckley: Because we endorsed it in this issue of Screw; I endorsed it, anyhow.

Fucetola: Oh really? Far out!! I think the thing that sets us apart from the left, and certainly from the authoritarian right, is that we’re very strong on one thing: individual rights and the absolute primacy of the individual and his right to control his own life. That’s where we get the idea of freedom of speech from.

Buckley: I think that’s been the conservative viewpoint all along, but it’s been twisted. In France, if you’re a right-winger, if you’re a conservative in France, you’re for sexual liberation, for sexual freedom. If you’re of the left in France, you’re a Puritan. In the United States, it’s been twisted because of the extremes.

Fucetola: This twisting is because of the right itself in America. The right was isolationist and individualist and anti-imperialist back before the Second World War, but became captured by the Big Business Establishment, by the Liberal Establishment, and just became an adjunct to the Cold War, through the efforts of people like Buckley, and McCarthy, and that crowd.

Block: People think that the right is puritanical and “Bible-toting.” Well, there are certain Bible-toters that I really dig, like John Brown, who was a right-wing Bible-toter if ever there was one. But he didn’t like slavery and he attacked all those government forts in the south which supported slavery. Malcolm X, when asked in his most anti-white days, if there was any white who could join the Black Muslims, said that John Brown could because he really took resistance to slavery seriously.

But let’s get back to the Screw editorial on the Libertarian Party. Why don’t you read it, Ralph?

Goldstein: Read it out loud, you might find it interesting.

Fucetola: This is what it says: “Don’t vote for shit-heads! Just a gentle reminder during this critical year, don’t vote for Nixon. More important shit: there’s a new political party coming out of Denver, Colorado, which you might have read about, but which you probably didn’t read about, since most of us don’t read any more. Its name is the Libertarian Party, and I’m all for it. Some of its stands, which I heartily endorse, are ‘Repeal of all criminal laws in which there is no victim. Full freedom of speech and the press along with repeal of the Federal Communications Act. Opposition to No-knock law,” etc., etc., etc.

Buckley: Yeah, basically we stand with the Libertarian Party in opposition to all forms of government repression of liberty. And that’s, I think, the whole area where Screw is really political. Screw is doing what a lot of people are talking about. Screw is being free. That’s where Screw is really political.

Goldstein: And the result is, of course, we’re not free, we might be going to jail. In other words, it’s the exercise of the freedom which you say you theoretically favor, which causes us to go on trial often, to be handcuffed, to spend $135,000 out of the corporate pockets. We have not been helped by the ACLU even to file an Amicus Curiae brief. We have not been helped by the Playboy Foundation.

Buckley: Nor have we been helped by WBAI.

Goldstein: WBAI! I’m sure the Larry Josephsons and the Bob Fasses [Josephson and Fass are officers of radio station WBAI—Ed.] would be the first to be critical of us. They consider us rip-offs, and we think they’re typical of the type of people on the left who only favor their own inner coterie.

Buckley: Just to make a point. They’ve been able to give Ernest Van den Haag a show on the air, and we feel we should have the same right. We know that if we were to have a show on the air, we would bring 10,000 new subscribers to WBAI, which they say they need very badly. But I read in Gay a year ago that the Program Director is heir to the Bergdoff-Goodman fortune.

Goldstein: The test of a point of view is that it be repugnant and still be represented. In Screw, we’ll run an article by a guy who was a writer for Commonweal saying why Jim and I should get busted.

Fucetola: Do you feel obligated to run that sort of article?

Goldstein: Yes, I really do.

Fucetola: Why

Goldstein: Because nobody else would. Because I think it’s our integrity as newspapermen. Because we consider ourselves journalists, not pornographers.

We really are committed—really, very much so—to the whole concept of an honest press, and when we feel our integrity is a little soft, we admit that in print too, and try to be honest.

Buckley: Just the idea that we can present the other side, knowing that it has so many holes that… hopefully, people will be able to see our side of the story. So we feel we have enough power to run a story opposing us, whereas the other side….

Fucetola: Your reputation depends on your willingness to be real journalists.

Goldstein: Yeah, right. If the anti-establishment fall prey to the same dogma as the establishment, than what’s the difference? This is where the left and the underground have been so self-destructive, so self-defeating. It’s tied up with the polemics of evil. Evil has changed a bit, and I hope that the newspaper Jim works for, Ace, is not going to fall prey to “All cops are pigs,” and “Off the pig,” and “Power to the people.” I’ve been saturated with it. It’s as vitriolic and as boring to me as a Daily News editorial page. Because in Screw we’ve said that, and the left has not found it in its heart to support us. The point is, we think Screw should be better than what exists; therefore, we exercise truth, even to lambaste ourselves and each other. I am personally very proud of the integrity of Screw. We would let anybody who disagrees with us publish; their story would see the light of day, it really would.

Block: It seems obvious to me that it’s very easy to be in favor of speech when you agree with what they are saying.

Goldstein: Absolutely.

Block: The only true test is when you disagree.

Goldstein: We wanted Father Hill to have a weekly column in Screw explaining why we should go to jail, why pornography is bad.

Buckley: People like him wouldn’t. I never understand that. I would be glad to take a column in, say, the National Review or something like that. But they don’t want to take the other side.

Fucetola: You people are involved in civil disobedience in many ways. I’m wondering if you see the connection between change in the society, and being willing to disobey? Not being willing to go to jail, but being willing to disobey?

Buckley: One of the things we’ve never done is disobey, though. I don’t think we’ve gone that far. Since we have to abide by the First….

Fucetola: You’ve been convicted five times.

Buckley: No, I know. Since the Bill of Rights says there are no laws abridging freedom of speech, we’re practicing our right. We’ve never disobeyed any kind of civil law, because there is no civil law which says we can’t print.

Fucetola: You’re saying that all obscenity laws are, in fact, unconstitutional.

Buckley: Right. We’re challenging the constitutionality of the laws that exist; not that we’re breaking them, but that they shouldn’t exist in the first place.

Goldstein: Give you a step further, too, from what Jim says. We also publish Gay, which is a very successful homosexual publication, with a circulation of about 35,000. Now, the people who read Gay theoretically are homosexual, which means they are committing sodomy which is against the law. We very sincerely believe that there should be publications advocating ideas, and also actions, which are, in effect, civil disobedience. We’re very proud of Gay. As an interesting side-comment, we’ve never been busted for Gay, which seems to show the homosexuals have greater freedom than heterosexuals. That seems to be the only conclusion one can draw from it.

Buckley: That’s because they stick together. Once they get into the bathroom….

Goldstein: It’s the shower room. They play “drop the soap.” We also have a new magazine coming out—let me be commercial because, what the hell, we’re not going to get any money for this—it’s called Mobster Times: Crime Does Pay, which is the first magazine which will glorify the criminal. We will be treating people like Rockefeller, Joe Kennedy, and “Big Al” Capone all in the same light. There’s no difference. What’s that thing you did on our friend in Washington?

Buckley: LBJ and George Metesky. We’ve uncovered what seems to be the truth that Lyndon Baines Johnson actually died in Dallas in November, 1963, and that George Metesky, the mad bomber, was plucked from the state mental institution and sworn in as President on Air Force One. And that’s in the first issue of Mobster Times. It’s very revealing.

Fucetola: Would it have made any difference if LBJ had lived?

Goldstein: He might have been softer. No sane person would have done to Vietnam what George Metesky did.

Fucetola: Do sane people rise in politics and become Presidents?

Goldstein: Probably not, but it’s the degree of insanity. I think what we are speaking about—your readers will be the first to know about it—I think it will be a front page story in the New York Times, the fact that all the while we thought it was Johnson, all the time it was Metesky. In fact, the children, and Lady Bird, and

Buckley: They still believe it’s Johnson.

Goldstein: They don’t know. Right. Probably they were all eunuchs.

Block: I’d like to register a little disagreement with you on criminality. It seems to me to be a high insult to someone like Al Capone to link Joe Kennedy or Rockefeller with him because it seems to me there’s a great difference: namely, the question of hypocrisy. Al is a bad guy and that’s it, whereas these white-collar criminal types are sanctified and looked up to, etc. I admit there are certain similarities, but I insist we keep the differences in mind, too.

Buckley: We had the same problem at first, but we decided to glorify them all, so we’re not putting down Joe Kennedy. We’re glorifying Joe Kennedy and John D. Rockefeller, as well as Al Capone. We think they all did marvelous jobs in their respective careers.

Fucetola: What makes a person a criminal?

Buckley: Success. Success makes a person a criminal. You can’t.

Fucetola: Isn’t Screw successful?

Buckley: [Laughs] No, it’s not. When it’s successful, we’ll be—we are considered criminals, you see. So, in a way, that’s true.

Fucetola: What’s your criterion for putting somebody in Mobster Times?

Goldstein: Vantage point, really. It depends. One man’s hero is another man’s criminal.

Fucetola: What’s your vantage point?

Goldstein: I was, of course, very anti-establishment. We would take J. Edgar Hoover, as we have on this issue, and, instead of making him a hero deserving of a television serial, he is listed as the most elusive criminal of the last fifty years.

Fucetola: Do you really mean he’s a criminal or are you just doing a satire?

Buckley: Yeah, I know we have a problem because we glorify the criminal. By calling him a criminal, we glorify him.

Goldstein: There’s a problem there, too. We are, of course, trying to put him down and ridicule him, and that’s where it becomes sort of diffused.

Fucetola: You see, libertarians have a very specific definition of criminality. A person who is an aggressor is a criminal. That’s what being a criminal means, it means being an aggressor. People like LBJ and all the rest of that crowd are, in fact, aggressors, whether they are aggressors because they throw people in jail for obscenity laws, or whether they are aggressors because they rob people and call it taxation. They’re still aggressors. That’s why we would take you seriously. They really are criminals.

Block: And we would make a very big distinction between people who succeed monetarily through criminality, and people who succeed monetarily through honest effort, like selling a product that consumers want.

Buckley: Yeah, we do.

Block: So I certainly wouldn’t consider anyone who’s successful at making large packets of money a criminal.

Goldstein: You have a problem, though. For instance, HFC loans money at 18% a year, 1-1/2% a month, a very high rate—usury, really. Chemical Bank is six or seven per cent....

Buckley: Up to eleven percent, Chemical Bank.

Goldstein: Jim and I interviewed a Shylock, nice, little Italian man. He lends money at some incredibly high rate....

Buckley: Well, it’s twenty per cent, only.

Goldstein: We interviewed him, not from a moral point of view, but explaining to our readers how they too can set up their own business. How their capital can triple in six months. How this is risk capital and is capitalism at its best.

Block: Right on.

Fucetola: That’s why the interest rates are so high.

Goldstein: We want to bring in more small businessmen. Why should banks be franchised to loan money? Let’s bring in an influx of new people.

Fucetola: That would probably drive down the interest rates, in fact.

Goldstein: Exactly.

Buckley: If money were tighter, interest would go to usurious rates. If there weren’t any money around, you’d be paying forty or fifty per cent.

Fucetola: I wish you wouldn’t use strange words. Usury. That’s an old Christian word. It means that God said that above x%, an interest rate is evil.

Block: But interest rates are dependent on supply and demand.

Goldstein: But, you see, that’s a value judgment. How do you define crime? It’s OK for HFC to loan money, but this little Italian friend of ours will get busted for breaking the law.

Here’s another problem. I have certain tools in my house now, for which, if I was busted, I would be arrested for having burglar tools. But no, not really. I’m taking a locksmith course from a mail order place which advertises in Official Detective and I’m learning to be a locksmith. Actually, I’m learning to be a burglar, but I can’t get busted for it. Now, am I a criminal or am I not. It depends on the definition.

Fucetola: Of course, with the government’s definition, you may be a criminal at any moment without knowing about it. Certainly, our definition would be different. You’ve actually got to commit an act of aggression, a very specific act of aggression; this is a more sane way of approaching criminality.

Goldstein: You can learn locksmithing from Mobster Times.

Buckley: Which goes back to the ad thing that we ran. In other words, if Al does commit burglary with those tools, can those people who ran the ads, and those who sell them, be arrested?

Fucetola: Under the legal criteria used to arrest you people in the Baby caper, yes.

Block: That’s so much the worse for that legal criteria. Let’s ask one last question. Whither Screw? What’s the future of Screw magazine?

Buckley: Screw is buying a country.

Goldstein: Jim wants to buy a country, and, you want to tell them about.......

Buckley: The Screw skyscraper.

Goldstein: Yeah, the building.

Buckley: As soon as Life folds, of course, Time is going on its way out as well, it will be replaced by the Screw building, and with Screw flashing on and off over the city of New York.

Goldstein: A phallic shape. When the tip of the phallus grows red, you’ll know it’s going to rain.

Buckley: I just want to mention we’ll also take over the Times Square Building, which is now Allied Chemical, and on New Year’s Eve, it will be an ejaculation through the tip.

Fucetola: Ah, I like that. A climactic way to start the new year?

Goldstein: We also have WBAI now under arrest. We have 14 gun-toting people. If those people want revolution, we’re going to give it to them.

Block: Thank you very much, Al and Jim.

[Al Goldstein and James Buckley are co-editors of Screw magazine, and have just announced that they will be entering the Free Libertarian Party primaries for the mayoralty and city council presidency nominations in 1973. Subscriptions to Screw are available c/o Milky Way Post Office, Box 432-A, Old Chelsea Station, New York, N.Y. 10011. Dollar for a sample issue.—Ed.]