Contact: Robert Peters, President, Morality in Media, 212-870-3210

NEW YORK, Sept. 11 /Christian Newswire/ -- In this 4,500-word article, MIM President Robert Peters discusses the history of enforcement of federal obscenity laws and why this Presidential Election is important for future enforcement. Mr. Peters also supports his assertion that "what has now become a floodtide of obscenity is one of the most pressing moral problems of our time, primarily because of its effects on marriages and children." Excerpts from the article, published at www.obscenitycrimes.org and www.moralityinmedia.org (Current News pages), follow:

Most people know that the First Amendment does not protect child pornography. Most people may not know that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that obscene material is also unprotected by the First Amendment; and that there are federal and state obscenity laws now on the books which can be enforced against hardcore pornography.
....
In the 1973 Miller v. California case, the Supreme Court corrected some of the definitional problems it created in the 1960s. Federal and state obscenity laws were again enforceable, but by 1973 most prosecutors had stopped enforcing these laws and the so-called "sexual revolution" was also in full swing. As a result, the 1970s and 1980s were in large measure a hey-day for producers and distributors of pornography. But by the early 1980s, a "backlash" was growing, led by religious Americans and feminists.
....
President Reagan responded in various ways. During his first term, he opened the doors of the White House to leaders of organizations opposed to pornography. This sent a message both to federal law enforcement agencies and the public that the President viewed obscenity as a serious social problem... During [his] second term, Attorney General Meese established a Commission on Pornography, which led to the formation of an Obscenity Unit in the Justice Department in 1987. Within two years, the Unit (re-named the Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section) had commercial purveyors of "adult" obscenity on the run, and it kept them on the run until 1993.
....
President George H.W. Bush was also tough on purveyors of obscenity. John Weston, an attorney who represented pornographers, described the crackdown on Los Angeles area pornography companies as "a holocaust."
....
But President Bill Clinton nominated Janet Reno for U.S. Attorney General; and he couldn't have made a better choice, if the goal was to unleash a torrent of obscenity into the mainstream.

Enforcement of obscenity laws was not a priority when Janet Reno served as State Attorney, and it did not become one when she became U.S. Attorney General. By the end of 1994, enforcement of federal laws against commercial distributors of "adult" obscenity had come to a virtual halt.
....
Having criticized the Bush Administration for its failure to get the obscenity law enforcement job done, in fairness it must also be said that this Administration has made some progress. The main problem, as I see it, is that the record of enforcing federal obscenity laws is about five years behind what it should be.
....
I also think that our nation is at a crucial juncture in the war against obscenity. Despite the Bush Administration's failure to enforce obscenity laws vigorously, it has shown that obscenity cases are winnable. What we need now is a President who will build on the progress. The last thing this nation needs is another eight-year "free ride" for hardcore pornographers.
....
How then do we explain John McCain and Barack Obama's failure to state publicly whether they support enforcement of federal obscenity laws, despite repeated requests to do so? Frankly, I find this puzzling, since both candidates profess to be concerned about the family, children and moral values; and both are working to win the women's vote. Neither candidate is timid when it comes to abortion and homosexuality. Why then the silence on pornography?

Can it be that both major party candidates are ignorant of the harm that pornography is causing to marriages, to children, to society's moral fabric, to our national image and to women? Can it be that both candidates are more concerned about offending consumers of hardcore pornography than they are about the harm it is causing? Can it be that neither candidate views the floodtide of obscenity as a serious moral issue meriting his attention?
....
I may be a "voice crying in the wilderness," but I think the American people deserve a truthful answer to the following question, before the November elections: If elected President, will you do all in your constitutional power to ensure that obscenity laws are enforced vigorously?
....
I stated above that the floodtide of obscenity has become "one of the most pressing moral problems of our time, primarily because of its effects on the family and children." I thought it would be helpful before closing if I set forth evidence to support that claim.