[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 33 (Friday, March 14, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2308-S2309]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT: COMPELLING INTEREST STATEMENT

  Mr. COATS. This coming Wednesday, Mr. President, March 19, the 
Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the 
constitutionality of the Communications Decency Act. This act was 
passed by this Senate in the last Congress by an overwhelmingly 
bipartisan vote of 84-16. The previous Senator talked of cooperation 
between parties, and there certainly was a significant degree of 
cooperation on this issue. We worked on a bipartisan basis, securing 84 
votes for its passage. Eventually, Congress passed the act as part of 
the historic telecommunications reform legislation.
  The Communications Decency Act, passed by Congress by an 
overwhelming, bipartisan margin, and signed by the President, simply 
extends the principle that exists in every other medium of 
communication in our society, a principle which has been repeatedly 
upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
  Stated simply, this principle holds that it is the responsibility of 
the person who provides material deemed pornographic, that it is that 
person's responsibility to restrict access by minors to that material. 
The foundation of the principle is articulated clearly in the case New 
York versus Ferber, and I quote from that case: ``It is evident beyond 
the need for elaboration that the State's interest in `safeguarding the 
physical and psychological well-being of a minor' is compelling.'' Let 
me repeat that judicial decision again, New York versus Ferber. ``It is 
evident beyond the need for elaboration that the State's interest in 
`safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor' is 
compelling.''
  This principle of compelling interest is the basis on which the 
Communications Decency Act was constructed. That is why we believe it 
is constitutional and the Court will hold it so after it hears the 
arguments next Wednesday. There is a long history of court decisions 
which recognize the interest of the State in safeguarding the 
psychological and physical well-being of minors. Mr. President, I have 
a copy of a brief in support of the Communications Decency Act. It was 
filed by a number of organizations: Enough is Enough, the Salvation 
Army, the National Political Congress of Black Women, the National 
Council of Catholic Women, Victims Assistance Legal Organization, 
Childhelp USA, Legal Pad Enterprises, Inc., Focus on the Family, the 
National Coalition for the Preservation of Family, Children and Family, 
Citizens for Family Friendly Libraries, Computer Power Corp., Help Us 
Regain the Children Organization--I am just reading some of these 
here--Mothers Against Sexual Abuse, National Association of 
Evangelicals, One Voice/American Coalition for Abuse Awareness, 
Religious Alliance Against Pornography, Lenore J. Weitzman, Ph.D., and 
so forth, a whole series of groups that have filed this brief. I 
commend these organizations for their leadership. I will be drawing on 
some of their comments in the brief during my remarks.
  Mr. President, it is now beyond question that exposure to pornography 
harms children. A child's sexual development occurs gradually 
throughout childhood. Exposure to pornography, particularly the type of 
hard-core pornography currently available on the Internet, distorts the 
natural sexual development of children. Essentially, pornography shapes 
children's sexual perspective by providing them distorted information 
on sexual activity. The type of information provided by pornography 
does not provide children with a normal sexual perspective.
  As stated in the brief, pornography portrays unhealthy or antisocial 
kinds of sexual activity such as sadomasochism, abuse, and humiliation 
of females, involvement of children, incest, voyeurism, bestiality, 
torture, objectification and is readily available on the Internet.
  The Communications Decency Act is designed, as I said, to employ the 
same restrictions that are currently employed, and have been held 
constitutional, in every other medium of communication.
  Why do we need these protections? Let me quote Ann Burgess, professor 
of nursing at the University of Pennsylvania, when she states that 
children generally do not have a natural sexual

[[Page S2309]]

capacity until the ages of 10 or 12, but pornography unnaturally 
accelerates that development. By short-circuiting the normal 
development process and supplying misinformation about their own 
sexuality, pornography leaves children confused, changed, and damaged.
  Mr. President, this is not what the Congress wants. This is not what 
the American people want. We expressed that in our debate and in our 
vote in the last Congress. Surely we have not come to a point in our 
society where we find it tolerable that any pornographer with a 
computer and a modem can crawl inside our children's minds and distort 
and corrupt their sexual development?
  As if the psychological threat of pornography doesn't present a 
sufficient compelling interest, there is also a significant physical 
threat. As I have stated, pornography develops in children a distorted 
sexual perspective. It encourages irresponsible, dehumanized sexual 
behavior, conduct that presents a genuine physical threat to children. 
In the United States today, about one in four sexually active teenagers 
acquire a sexually transmitted disease every year, resulting in 3 
million sexually transmitted disease cases. Infectious syphilis rates 
have more than doubled among teenagers since the mideighties. One 
million American teenage girls become pregnant each year. A report 
entitled ``Exposure to Pornography, Character and Sexual Deviance,'' 
concluded that as more and more children become exposed not only to 
soft-core pornography, but also to explicit deviant sexual material, 
society's youth will learn an extremely dangerous message: Sex without 
responsibility is acceptable.
  Mr. President, it is clear that early exposure to pornography 
presents a disturbing psychological threat to children and a disturbing 
physical threat. However, there is a darker and even more ominous 
threat, for research has established a direct link between exposure and 
consumption of pornography and sexual assault, rape, and molesting of 
children.
  As stated in a publication called, ``Aggressive Erotica and Violence 
Against Women,'' virtually all lab studies established a causal link 
between violent pornography and the commission of violence. This 
relationship is not seriously debated any longer in the research 
community. What is more, pedophiles will often use pornographic 
material to desensitize children to sexual activity, breaking down 
their resistance in order to sexually exploit them.
  A study by Victor Cline found that child molesters often use 
pornography to seduce their prey, to lower the inhibitions of the 
victim, and as an instruction manual. Further, a W.L. Marshal study 
found that ``87 percent of female child molesters and 77 percent of 
male child molesters studied admitted to regular use of hard-core 
pornography.''
  Mr. President, all you have to do is pick up the telephone and call 
the FBI, ask their child exploitation task force about the volume of 
over-the-Internet attempts to seduce, abuse, and lure children into 
pornography and sexual exploitation.
  I could go on and on, Mr. President, citing these studies, but there 
is really no need to do that. The evidence is clear. The compelling 
interest of the Government in restricting children's access to 
pornography is beyond credible dispute, both morally and legally.
  The Communications Decency Act is a narrowly tailored law, designed 
to protect children from the pornography that is so widely available 
and easily accessed on the Internet. As I have said, it is a simple 
extension of the constitutional restrictions on such material that 
exist today in every other communications medium in our society.
  The Communications Decency Act provides for the prosecution of those 
who utilize an interactive computer device to send indecent material to 
a child or uses an interactive computer device to display indecent 
material in a manner easily accessible to a child.
  In addition, the Communications Decency Act encourages blocking 
software and other technologies by providing good-faith defenses 
designed to protect the good Samaritan attempting to block or screen 
pornographic material.
  However, ultimately, it preserves the constitutionally established 
principle that pornography should be walled off from our children. To 
overturn the Communications Decency Act would represent a fundamental 
shift in paradigm, throwing our children into a hostile sea of 
pornography that threatens their psychological and physical well-being. 
I am confident that the Court will not be so callous with the basic 
well-being of our children.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of organizations 
in support of this brief to the Supreme Court in the case of Janet 
Reno, et al. versus American Civil Liberties Union, et al. be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Brief Amici Curiae of Enough Is Enough, the Salvation Army, 
     National Political Congress of Black Women, Inc., the 
     National Council of Catholic Women, Victims' Assistance Legal 
     Organization, Childhelp USA, Legal Pad Enterprises, Inc., 
     Focus on the Family, the National Coalition for the 
     Protection of Children and Families (and other amici . . . ) 
     in support of appellants.

                          ____________________