April 4, 1995

The Honorable James Exon
United States Senate
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC  20510


re:  Exon Computer Pornography Bill


Dear Senator Exon:

I write to express my great concern regarding a bill authored by you titled 
the "Communication Decency Act of 1995."  In its original form, the bill, 
which is now attached to the telecommunications bill and soon will be 
considered on the floor of the Senate, was a laudable attempt to, as you said, 
protect the Information Superhighway from becoming a red light district.  
In its current form however, the bill would provide protection for the red 
light district of the Information Superhighway from federal and state prosecution.  
I am confident that the pro-family movement in America will uniformly oppose your 
bill and, if necessary, the telecommunications bill to which it is attached, 
unless significant changes are made prior to a vote on the Senate floor.

Let me clarify, as the former Section Chief of the Child Exploitation and 
Obscenity Section, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, that the 
federal dial-a-porn law, in my opinion, currently prohibits commercial 
distribution of obscenity via computers.  Therefore it is unnecessary to change 
that law as your bill would do, unless you are seeking to clarify this point and 
add improvements to the law.  Also, it is my opinion, although this point may not 
be as clear or settled as the first, that federal criminal law, specifically 
Title 18 Sections 1462 and 1465 prohibits distribution of obscenity via computer 
whether or not for commercial purpose.  Further, it is my opinion that a primary 
problem regarding computer pornography is the lack of leadership and enforcement 
on this issue by the Clinton Administration.  While current laws could be 
improved, the Administration could make substantial progress in protecting 
children in particular from both obscenity and child pornography by using 
existing law to prosecute illegal pornographers who use the Internet if it had 
the will to do so.

Here are my primary objections to your bill, in its current form:  it 
provides several defenses against prosecution which have the effect of 
gutting the current dial-a-porn law, making it useless for the prosecution 
of computer obscenity crimes.  Your bill now also contains a state pre-emption 
provision that would prohibit states from providing stronger protection to 
children, should they choose to do so, than the weak provisions now contained 
in your bill.  The scienter or knowledge provision contained in your bill 
would give pornographers protection they don't now have.  The provision titled 
"Scrambling of Cable Channels for Non-subscribers" only codifies current cable 
company practice in most cities and does not provide protection to children who 
may be exposed to pornography transmitted over cable systems.  In your original 
bill you would have required a complete blockage of both the audio and video signal 
for non-subscribers of pornographic channels.  In your current bill, you merely 
require cable companies to block such material upon subscriber request.  There are 
other parts of your bill that are problematic.

Because I know that you are truly intent on providing protection to children from 
exposure to pornography, I hope that you will make significant changes to your 
bill to accomplish this goal.

Most Sincerely,
{sig}
Patrick A. Trueman
Director of Governmental Affairs