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