7.21.00
Porno for Webphiles

7.20.00
Holy Land Grab!

7.19.00
Madame, You Are a Parallelogram

7.18.00
Oops...I Did It Again

7.18.00
Not So Pacific

7.17.00
FBI Hits Back at Trulock

7.17.00
“Racial Profiling” Meets National Security

7.14.00
D.C. Tries to Sack Little Rome

7.12.00
Bloody Missouri

7.12.00
You Go, Girl

7/21/00 3:15 p.m.
Porno for Webphiles
Stop 'em, Janet Reno!

By Melissa Seckora, NR editorial associate

ith estimates of adult sites on the Internet ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 — sites featuring obscenity of all types, from child nudity to graphic sexual depictions — and with an estimated 200 new porn sites flooding the Web each day, it's quite alarming that the Department of Justice has stopped prosecuting obscenity cases. It's also quite alarming that the Clinton administration has done nothing about stopping an industry, with an estimated yearly gross of $8 billion, that feeds off the destruction of the family and the innocence of children.

In 1957 the Supreme Court held, in the case of Roth v. U.S., that illegal pornography (as opposed to whatever legal pornography should be), or obscenity, was not protected by the First Amendment. And, in 1973, the Court defined obscenity, in the case of Miller v. California, as follows: 1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; 2) the average person would find that the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state (or Federal ) law; and 3) a reasonable person would find that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

I'd like to think most of us are reasonable people who wouldn't have a difficult time differentiating between the sexual abuse of a child and something artistic or literary from which we can learn or add value to our lives. But with the increasingly unregulated proliferation of illegal pornography on the Internet, the Clinton administration is being truly unreasonable. Despite the fact that Congress updated illegal pornography laws in 1996, clarifying that the distribution of obscene material by computer and/or modem was just as unlawful as the use of any other common carrier or interstate facility, there has been a 75% drop in the number of prosecutions for interstate distribution and sale of illegal pornography. According to an Administrative Vice Unit Lieutenant quoted in the Los Angeles Daily News, "Adult obscenity enforcement by the federal government is practically nonexistent since the administration changed."

Why aren't federal obscenity laws being enforced by the DOJ when effective prosecution is the best way to curb the problem of pornography? Why aren't those being sought out and victimized by the Internet porn industry being protected? Maybe it's because many people are finding it hard to say no to the pornographers. While one convicted child molester and killer says that "pornography is a widespread social problem, so prevalent that many people accept it as normal," members of the adult entertainment industry are saying, "How likely is it, would you say, that we are going to enjoy the same benevolent neglect that the industry has enjoyed under Janet Reno?"

Due to the aggressive tactics of the adult-entertainment industry on the Internet, enforced prosecution is a must. Sex addiction and pornographic addiction are becoming a reality in our society, and even more so on the Internet. The Internet, which is extremely easy to access — and to hide one's identity on — is becoming a haven for pornography junkies.

In May, the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on obscene material available via the Internet. Witnesses testified that everyone has access to pornography on the Internet — even children in their schools and libraries. Others testified that nothing is being done to enforce federal obscenity laws. One man, who considered himself a sex addict with Internet pornography, testified in a prepared statement that he "was sought out as a customer through banner ads, spam, and unsolicited e-mail attachments. The Internet was an active part of [his] addiction. The Internet reactivated [his] addiction that was inactive for years."

Aggressive enforcement is necessary to counteract the aggressive tactics of the pornography industry. Next Tuesday, a House vote is expected on the Illegal Pornography Prosecution Act, H.R. 4710, which authorizes $5 million for the prosecution of obscenity, and insists that the DOJ to do its job or be held accountable by Congress. Passing this bill would be a major step in the right direction for American law.

Columns / Current Issue / Goldberg File / Nota Bene
Washington Bulletin / Subscribe / Ad Info / Home