By James L. Lambert In August correspondence, Andrew Oosterbaan — leader of the DOJ's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section — acknowledged that “obscenity enforcement is a priority for the Department.” The general tone of Oosterbaan’s letter indicates the Department is attempting to get serious about obscenity enforcement, including adult obscenity. While reluctant to provide any specifics on the cases in progress, Oosterbaan has acknowledged that currently “some of the Department’s biggest cases involve producers and distributors involved in more so-called 'mainstream’ material.'” If this is so, this marks a critical departure from the last Justice Department headed by Janet Reno during the Clinton Administration (1993-2000). Two recent calls to the DOJ concerning this deviation were not returned. Pro-family advocates are hopeful this change in direction signals the beginning of new indictments against elements of an industry that continues to push obscenity and sexually explicit hard-core material into American culture. Over the course of the last nine years, increasingly vile forms of pornography have been foisted on society. Products depicting bestiality, incest, urination, defecation, fisting, and various forms of “rape” are being offered for sale to the public — products that would violate most community standards, if brought to trial. While the DOJ has presented some recent hard-core obscenity indictments, prosecutions to date have only involved more extreme elements of the porn trade. Such is the case with Extreme Associates [PDF], whose owners were indicted in early August for violating federal obscenity laws. In an interview with Adult Video News (June 2003), Los Angeles attorney Jeffery Douglas confided, “because Extreme Associates has positioned itself to be literally at the extreme end of all production, their prosecution was highly likely if not inevitable.” Robert Zicari (a/k/a Rob Black) of Extreme Associates disputes this assumption, rationalizing that the material in question represents only a small portion of his company’s film catalogue. Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice thinks it is amusing when one porn industry insider “tries to define what is or is not extreme to another pornographer.” Sekulow believes that in the next 12 months, the DOJ “will put [the porn industry] on notice” when it sees more obscenity indictments handed down from the Department “now that their DC satellite office is in place.” The satellite office Sekulow refers to is a new technology center, established last fall, where the Criminal Division undertakes Internet obscenity investigations. Sekulow “believes there is more to come” in the upcoming months. Pro-family advocates have different takes on the DOJ's current obscenity case load. The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section presently purports to working investigations “against large-scale, nationwide [pornography] distribution enterprises,” according to Oosterbaan. Bill Johnson of the American Decency Association believes that the wave of Internet porn is “so significant that the Justice Department needs to inform porn operators that they will not tolerate” Internet obscenity anymore. Johnson thinks pastors and local community leaders should not be afraid to tackle the problem, lest America go the way of Europe, where children in countries such as Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, and Denmark are highly sexualized. Sekulow contends that Congress is also serious about tackling criminal obscenity violations. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah will soon be conducting hearings on the progress of Oosterbaan’s unit. Sekulow contends that “hearings are good evidence” that the Senate Judicial committee “takes these matters seriously.” Such hearings should also put pressure on Osterbaan’s group to demonstrate progress in its endeavors. Pro-family advocates are cautious in predicting the outcome of these DOJ battles with the porn industry. Both Marlin Maddoux of USA Radio Network and Paul McGuire of Salem Radio think family activists should support the Department's current efforts to enforce obscenity laws. Maddoux believes the DOJ's move is an “encouraging sign” in light of the tremendous growth in the porn trade “since the [early] days of the Clinton Administration” when virtually no obscenity prosecutions took place. And McGuire believes that while future indictments may only address “the [very] tip of the iceberg, we should show our support for [President George] Bush and [U.S. Attorney General John] Ashcroft” so they can go after smut peddlers. McGuire reiterates that since so little has been done since 1992 regarding obscenity indictments, he is hopeful that “the quality of investigations” will help the DOJ in securing convictions of peddlers of pornography. McGuire also thinks it is important for the Bush Administration to increase the budget so these investigations can be broadened. Gene McConnell, founder of Authentic Relationships International, thinks it goes much deeper than this. “As long as there is a consumer, there will always be a battle” with sexually explicit material, he says. McConnell thinks “the culture must change [and] we must win the hearts and minds of the consumer.” McConnell, a former pastor, should know. He has an amazing story about his own struggles with hard-core porn and how he broke free from its addictive chains. The DOJ's effort to draw a line in the sand does have its detractors. For example, the porn industry has become much more politically sophisticated in the last five years. It has its own advocates who are not afraid to voice their opinions. For example, in an Adult Video News interview, attorney J. Douglas of Santa Monica said he “regard[s] all obscenity prosecutions as being immoral, unconstitutional, and evil.” And Dale Kelly Bankhead, public affairs associate of the San Diego chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, says that “if people are violating the law, they should be brought to justice” – but that she has problems “when it gets to the situation where one person tells another person what is offensive.” Historically the ACLU has defended the position that possession of child pornography should not be deemed illegal. Upcoming developments in the next six to twelve months should indicate how serious the Bush-Ashcroft Justice Department is when it comes to obscenity crime. It goes without saying that pro-family attorneys like Jay Sekulow and attorneys representing the porn industry will be keeping a close eye on the DOJ's actions.
In an effort to send a strong message to the porn industry, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is currently working on 49 cases involving potential violations of federal obscenity statutes.
(This article courtesy of Agape Press.)
