Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: HEARING OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
 
SUBJECT: INDECENT EXPOSURE: OVERSIGHT OF DOJ'S EFFORTS TO PROTECT PORNOGRAPHY'S VICTIMS
 
CHAIRED BY: SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH (R-UT)
 
LOCATION: 226 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.

WITNESSES:
 
PANEL ONE: JOHN MALCOLM, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
 
J. ROBERT FLORES, ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF JUVENILE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
 
LAWRENCE E. MAXWELL, INSPECTOR IN CHARGE, FRAUD AND DANGER MAIL INVESTIGATIONS, UNITED STATES POSTAL INSPECTION SERVICE;
 
MARY BETH BUCHANAN, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PITTSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA;
 
PANEL TWO: BRUCE A. TAYLOR, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF COUNSEL, NATIONAL LAW CENTER FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES;
 
VICTOR CLINE, EMERITUS PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH;
 
STEVE TAKESHITA, OFFICER IN CHARGE, PORNOGRAPHY UNIT, ORGANIZED CRIME AND VICE DIVISION, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT
 
BODY:
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): I'm very happy to have your cooperation so I can appear for a short period of time at this hearing, because I've been very much interested in this, going back to the Farber Act a long time ago in the mid-1980s, I believe it was. But most importantly, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for your interest in this over a long, long period of time as well, probably before my involvement in it, and your continuation through this hearing.

Hardly a week goes by that I don't receive a letter from an Iowan concerned about pornography and its harmful effect on family. My constituents want to know what the government and the Congress are doing about all the smut that invades their home by way of the Internet and cable television, so I want you all to know, particularly you, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate this hearing because it's a partial answer to my constituents concerns.

It seems that since the mid-1990s, Congress has made some valiant attempts to pass constitutional protection for children using the Internet. So far, we have a mixed record. The Supreme Court has overruled one of our bills, the Communication Decency Act, which tried to protect children from indecent material on the Internet. It upheld one, the Children's Internet Protection Act, which requires public libraries and schools to install a filter, Internet filters. And just yesterday, the court agreed to take up another case, the Child Online Protection Act, which if upheld, and I'm optimistic that it will be, will shield children from material that is, according to the law, quote, "harmful to minors" while they surf the Internet. I supported each of these bills and I'm very glad we could get them past.

During the last 10 years, the obscenity and child pornography industry has grown at quantum leaps. It's no coincidence that during the same time, the Department of Justice did preciously little in the area of obscenity prosecution. By all accounts, the Clinton Justice Department brought no more than a handful of obscenity prosecutions and I'm forced to believe that that sort of laxity towards this area of federal criminal law has contributed to the Wild West environment that we have on the Internet.

Unfortunately, some have been critical of the current administration for being slow out of the gate with regard to the enforcement of these obscenity laws. I don't know whether this is the case or not, but I'm very happy that the Department of Justice can be here today to discuss their efforts. It's my understanding that the investigation and prosecution of these crimes is complex and time- consuming and is further complicated when the Internet is used to distribute this obscene material.

In reviewing the testimony, I was particularly glad to hear about the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Protection's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces that are very important, it seems to me, to leverage state and local resources in the effort to protect children from obscenity as well as child pornography. There is substantial evidence that obscenity is not a victimless crime. According to a report of the Child Online Protection Act Commission, obscenity is a tool used by molesters in child molestation and exploitation.

I also agree with Administrator Flores in his assertion that the distribution of obscenity, especially on the Internet, target children with deceptive sound website names so that they may reach their next generation of users. The illegal pornography industry is big, big business and our children are paying the greatest cost of these criminal commercial successes. Because of the harm that obscenity poses for minors, it is critical that the ICACs be given technical assistance and training in how to investigate and prosecute federal obscenity crimes as well as child pornography. By arming state and local investigators and prosecutors, we will be enlisting an army in an effort to protect women and children from this sort of exploitation. So once again I thank you, Mr. Chairman.