05/11/00 Committee on the Judiciary

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon. My name is Janet M. LaRue. I am senior director of legal studies for the Family Research Council (FRC) in Washington, D.C.[1] You have a copy of my curriculum vitae, which details my professional experience with pornography law. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of H.R. 4147.

First, my own experience from repeated exposure to Playboy magazine as a 17-year-old minor with adult men illustrates the harm from soft-core pornography. One day, after too much alcohol, the men convinced me to disrobe and pose. I am still haunted by the possibility that someone still has those photos. Second, the Supreme Court has recognized the need for government to assist parents to protect their minor children from exposure to pornography. In Ginsberg v. New York,[2] the Court upheld the right of the states to protect minors from material harmful to minors, which is far less explicit than obscenity. The Court called protecting children from exposure to pornography a “transcendent interest” of government. Third, obscenity is not protected by the Constitution. This is a $56 billion world-wide industry that plays on those vulnerable to addiction, including children, in order to attract a new generation of customers. The commercial WWW porn sites flagrantly display scores of free teaser images including bestiality, mutilation, torture, excretory functions, orgies, and other perversions.

Fourth, obscenity is a dangerous and effective tool in the hands of sexual predators who prey on children. Fifth, obscenity is teaching children very damaging lessons about sexual conduct and how to treat other children. “Half the nation’s child molesters are themselves children.” “FBI statistics show the number of 10- to 17-year-olds arrested on rape charges has doubled since 1965.” “Ten years ago, there were 22 treatment programs nationally for juvenile sex offenders. Today there are 755.”[3] Twelve to 17-year-old boys are among the highest consumer group of pornography. Sixth, pornography never shows a 16-year-old girl getting pregnant, a 17-year-old boy acquiring HIV or another sexually transmitted disease, or a girl who means no when she says no to sex – consequences we spend billions of dollars to prevent. Finally, federal child abuse, sexual exploitation of minors, and child stalking statutes define a minor as a person under the age of 18. 18 U.S.C. §1470, which H.R. 4147 would amend, should be no exception. There is no rational or legal justification for providing the same sentence to those who exploit 16- and 17-year-olds as if they are adults. Indeed, there is greater need to send a strong message to pornographers to avoid exposing their toxic waste to the nation’s children. H.R. 4147 will help to do that. Our children and grandchildren— from birth to age 18—deserve no less.

[1] Pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2 (g) (4), neither FRC nor any entity we represent is the recipient of any federal grant, contract, or subcontract in the current or preceding two fiscal years.

[2] 390 U.S. 629 (1968).

[3] Dianna Marder, “When the child molester is a child, too,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 17, 1993, p. A1.

Hearing on H.R. 4147: “Stop Material Unsuitable for Teens” Act

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon. My name is Janet M. LaRue. I am senior director of legal studies for the Family Research Council (FRC) in Washington, D.C.[1] Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of H.R. 4147.

Pornography law has been my area of expertise for many years. I have lectured on the subject in numerous law enforcement conferences across the country, testified before state and local legislatures on pornography bills, and authored numerous appellate briefs that have been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court, federal circuit courts of appeal, and state appellate courts on various pornography law issues. The protection of children, families, and society in general from the serious harms of pornography, and especially obscene materials, is a top priority of FRC and my department, in particular. H.R. 4147 should be enacted into law for several reasons.

First, I want to include my own experience from repeated exposure to Playboy magazine as a 17-year-old minor. While Playboy, as yet, does not meet the definition of obscenity, harm from soft-core pornography certainly illustrates that there is greater harm from the more hard-core material. At age 17, I began my first full-time employment as a secretary for three professional men. It became part of my work assignment to purchase the latest edition of Playboy. My employers would invite several of their professional acquaintances, including a superior court judge, to the office for martinis and Playboy; I was included. Although I was nearly an adult, I was too immature to understand how I was being desensitized and disarmed by viewing pornography month after month in the presence of adult men. One day, after too many martinis, they convinced me that I was prettier than any of the women in the magazine. One of them just happened to have a camera—they convinced me to disrobe and pose. That was a long time ago but I am still haunted by the possibility that someone still has those photos.

Second, more than 32 years ago, the Supreme Court recognized the harm to minors from pornography and the need for government to assist parents to protect their minor children from exposure to pornography. In Ginsberg v. New York,[2] the Court upheld the right of the states to protect minors from pornography, defined as material harmful to minors—also known as variable obscenity, which is less explicit than hard-core obscenity. In fact, the material at issue in Ginsberg was described by the Court as “girlie magazines.” The Court quoted Dr. Gaylin of the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Clinic, on the views of some psychiatrists regarding the impact of pornography on children:

It is in the period of growth [of youth] when these patterns of behavior are laid down, when environmental stimuli of all sorts must be integrated into a workable sense of self, when sensuality is being defined and fears elaborated, when pleasure confronts security and impulse encounters control—it is in this period, undramatically and with time, that legalized pornography may conceivably be damaging.

Dr. Gaylin emphasizes that a child might not be as well prepared as an adult to make an intelligent choice as to the matter he chooses to read: [P]sychiatrists ... made a distinction between the reading of pornography, as unlikely to be per se harmful, and the permitting of the reading of pornography, which was conceived as potentially destructive. The child is protected in his reading of pornography by the knowledge that it is pornographic, i.e. disapproved. It is outside of parental standards and not a part of his identification processes. To openly permit implies parental approval and even suggests seductive encouragement. If this is so of parental approval, it is equally so of societal approval—another potent influence on the developing ego.[3]

The Court called protecting children from exposure to pornography a “transcendent interest” of government because it concerns “the health, safety, welfare and morals of its community by barring the distribution to children of books recognized to be suitable for adults.”[4] The need to protect minor children from hard-core obscenity is even more compelling and beyond serious debate.

Third, as you know, obscenity is not protected by the Constitution because, by definition, it is a patently offensive appeal to a prurient interest in sex and has no serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. It is illegal to display or distribute to any person, including adults. It is the crass commercial exploitation of sex by a worldwide industry now estimated at $56 billion dollars per year,[5] much of which is controlled by organized crime. This is an industry that exploits the lowest part of human nature and plays on those vulnerable to addiction in order to attract a new generation of customers. Minor children are no exception. Anyone who doubts that need only visit the commercial World Wide Web porn sites that flagrantly display scores of free teaser images of their product. These images include bestiality, mutilation, torture, excretory functions, orgies, and other perversions. I have copies of sample materials with me today that are available to the Subcommittee.

In order to stop such unconscionable exploitation of minors by pornographers, Congress passed and the president signed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) into law in 1998. Although the “harmful to minors” section has been temporarily enjoined by a federal district court and is pending appeal in the Third Circuit, the court specifically upheld the section of the Act that prohibits the distribution of obscene matter to minors.

Fourth, obscenity is a dangerous and effective tool in the hands of sexual predators. Pedophiles, whose sexual preference is for children, use the material as part of the seduction process of children. It is used to desensitize children into engaging in sexual conduct and to educate children as to the kind of sexual conduct the pedophile wants.

Fifth, obscenity is teaching children very damaging lessons about sexual conduct and how to treat other children. In 1993, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges reported the following:

· “FBI statistics show the number of 10- to 17-year-olds arrested on rape charges has doubled since 1965.”

· “Ten years ago, there were 22 treatment programs nationally for juvenile sex offenders. Today there are 755.”[6]

It is more than coincidental that both the 1970 and 1986 Attorney General Commissions on Pornography found that 12- to 17-year-old boys are among the highest consumer group of pornography. The dangerous effect of pornography on children was summarized by a judge in Ohio who adjudicated a case of sexual assault on children by minor boys who had viewed pornography. The judge said, “X-rated videos are as harmful to kids as guns.”[7]

Sixth, while we spend billions of dollars to promote “safe sex,” prevent sexual harassment, and prevent teen pregnancy, the pornography industry promotes sexual harassment and promiscuous, unhealthy sexual conduct. Pornography never shows a 16-year-old girl getting pregnant, a
17-year-old boy acquiring HIV or another sexually transmitted disease, or a girl who means no when she says no to sex.

Finally, the federal law, and in particular, the statutes that prohibit child sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of minors, and child stalking define a minor as a person under the age of 18. 18 U.S.C. § 1470, which H.R. 4147 would amend, should be no exception. It must be amended to increase the age from 16 to 18 years of age in order to provide a harsher sentence for those who knowingly transfer obscene matter to a person known to be a minor. There is no rational or legal justification for providing the same sentence to those who exploit 16- and 17-year-olds as that given to those who transfer such matter to adults. Indeed, the need is greater than ever to send a strong message of deterrence to those who traffic in obscene matter to avoid exposing their toxic waste to the nation’s children. H.R. 4147 will help to do that. Our children and grandchildren—from birth to age 18—deserve no less.

Jan LaRue, before joining FRC, fought pornography as senior counsel with the National Law Center for Children and Families in California. Prior to that, she served as special counsel with the Western Center for Law and Religious Freedom, helping defend hundreds of pro-life activists. She has also practiced criminal and juvenile defense.

[1] Pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2 (g) (4), neither FRC nor any entity we represent is the recipient of any federal grant, contract, or subcontract in the current or preceding two fiscal years.

[2] 390 U.S. 629 (1968).

[3]Id. at 642, 643, n. 10.

[4] Id. at 636.

[5] Richard C. Morais, “Porn Goes Public,” Forbes, June 14, 1999.

[6] Dianna Marder, “When the child molester is a child, too,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, January 17, 1993, p. A1.

[7] Richard Lithen, “Judge: ‘X-rated videos as harmful to kids as guns,’” The Clermont Sun, March 4, 1993, p. 1.