A.G. Nominee Promises Review of DOJ Obscenity Enforcement Priorities
Thu, 18 Oct 2007
At yesterday’s Judiciary Committee hearing for A.G. Nominee Michael Mukasey, Sen. Orrin Hatch raised the obscenity enforcement at the Department of Justice directly. He described the current narrow approach by DOJ and called it “misguided.” He urged Judge Mukasey to personally review this policy and consider changing it and also to review the allocation of resources and discretion to prosecute in FBI and USA offices. In response, Judge Mukasey offered that even what we might call “mainstream” obscenity is dangerous and “undermines families.” He said that, within the Supreme Court’s definition of obscenity, we have to do as much as we can. He agreed to review DOJ and FBI policies.
Sen. Hatch deserves thanks for carrying the water on this critical issue. The Bush Administration is not effectively enforcing obscenity laws. Numerous entreaties to the U. S. Department of Justice, Attorney General Ashcroft and Attorney General Gonzales, and to the White House have been ignored. Here is a summary of the major problems:
(1.) In the Bush Administration, the Department of Justice is enforcing obscenity laws only against those who distribute the most extreme hardcore pornography and, for the most part, only against small companies. This, in effect, gives a green light to the major producers and distributors of illegal hardcore pornography. They do not produce or distribute the extreme material, only the small companies’ do. Illegal hardcore pornography has become so pervasive because of this policy of the Administration that it’s now distributed even by mainstream companies such as Marriott and Hilton Hotels, Comcast and Verizon, Movie Gallery and gas station chains. DOJ should be willing to prosecute the broad range of illegal adult pornography rather that just the most extreme material and it should be willing to prosecute all violators of federal obscenity law, including the new, so-called “white collar pornographers.” This is how prosecutions have traditionally been done. When the public complains about hardcore porn flowing into their towns of onto their kid’s computers, they are not complaining about the extreme material because such material has limited distribution. They are complaining about the so-called garden variety of illegal hardcore porn – the kind that has widespread distribution. Yet, DOJ gives them a deaf ear.
(2.) A.G. Ashcroft and A.G. Gonzales only talked tough on obscenity prosecutions but did not follow through and make obscenity prosecutions a priority. Thus, a change of DOJ policy AND strong leadership is needed. U.S. Attorneys need to be directed to bring at least one obscenity case during their term. This is not asking much and certainly will not drain resources.
(3.) The FBI has a policy that comports with DOJ policy and only investigates obscenity crimes that involve extreme material. They say that they have this policy because of a shortage of agents. This explanation is counterintuitive. If the FBI will only devote a few agents to do obscenity cases, it should do cases that have a major impact rather than cases against extreme material that have little distribution and about which few people complain due to lack of exposure to it.