Right as we launched headlong into the Christmas holidays, an interesting outbreak of media activism occurred in New Paltz. On December 23 a coalition of groups organized by Steve Greenfield of the New Paltz Green Party called for a boycott of the Independent Media Group's theaters. The boycott call was in response to an ad that was running on WGHQ (920 AM), a Kingston-based Clear Channel station that features the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. The ad ran, in part: "Hollywood has gone insane, and our values are not often reflected on the silver screen. But three locally owned movie theaters in our area are looking out for you. While we can't bring back the Hollywood of John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, or Ronald Reagan, the Lyceum Cinemas in Red Hook, the Roosevelt Cinemas in Hyde Park, and the New Paltz Cinemas all refused to play Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 this year."

A day before the boycott had even been called, Rush Limbaugh caught wind of it and on his nationally syndicated show preemptively railed against "liberal media" and the boycott, exhorting his listeners in the Mid-Hudson region to support Bulay's theaters. Limbaugh also described what he thought a New Paltz boycott would look like: "three or four long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking, FM-type protestors carrying their little placards."

As the rhetoric continued to overheat on both sides of the Bulay boycott, I received a mass e-mail about the boycott from a prominent member of the New Paltz community with the curious cover statement, "Please forward this to those who are concerned about preserving our Constitutional Amendments." [Emphasis added.] It seemed that the Independent Media Group's refusal to screen Fahrenheit 9/11 was mounting to a constitutional crisis, and endangering the Bill of Rights. (Unfortunately, my reading of the constitution left me confused as to which amendment Bulay was targeting with his nostalgia for Ronald Reagan movies, or his Michael Moore hatred.)

Now, as far as the rights issue goes, let me clear this up—it is Bulay's right, protected by the First Amendment, to screen whatever film he wishes at his theaters. (In fairness, the boycott organizers never claimed otherwise, as their leaflets stated.) Indeed, those who patronize the Tinker Street Cinema in Woodstock or Upstate Films in Rhinebeck—both of which screened Fahrenheit 9/11—wouldn't expect those theaters to air the anti-Kerry film Stolen Honor. So why expect Bulay to show a film that bashes Bush and cuts against his own values?

The boycotters claim that it's not just the combination of Bulay's supposed family values (another issue in and of itself, especially for a theater owner who screened the recent remake of the gore fest Dawn of the Dead), and his decision not to screen Fahrenheit 9/11 that informs their protest, but that by spending your money with Bulay, you are underwriting hate speech. "Some portion of every dollar you spend at these movie theaters goes to finance the dissemination and profitability of repugnant and dangerous propaganda." (From a pro-boycott leaflet.)

Whether or not you agree or disagree with their assessment of Rush Limbaugh's show as propaganda—I find it to be bile-spewing drivel that drags the level of civil discourse in this country lower by the minute—the boycott has performed a useful service. As a movie consumer, you are now able to align your money with your political allegiances. If you don't want to support Bulay, Clear Channel, or Rush Limbaugh you can watch movies elsewhere. If you do, then carry on.

But a boycott will take you only as far, as it reduces you to a walking wallet (consume! consume!), choosing from a number of finite choices by a media conglomerate. (And megaplexes like Loews or Hoyts don't care about politics in the small-time, Bulay sense; they screened both Fahrenheit 9/11 and The Passion of the Christ. Megaplex politics is about lobbying for tax breaks.) If you're interested in moving beyond NIMBY boycotts of local businesses, you should think of becoming involved in the media reform movement. Citizen-activists have formed a national grassroots network that is working to change the corporate-friendly bias that currently drives national media policy. There are also opportunities to become involved locally, whether through protesting the renewal of a local broadcaster's license (WGHQ?), demanding greater resources from cable companies for public access TV, or working with a local school board to implement media literacy curricula in schools. To learn more, visit: www.freepress.net.

—Brian K. Mahoney