[Copyright 1995 PR Newswire Association, Inc.]

March 28, 1995, Tuesday

MORALITY IN MEDIA CALLS FOR REJECTION OF SENATOR EXON'S
'COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT'

Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, today called for rejection of
Senator Exon's "Communications Decency Act Of 1995," which was reported out of
the Senate Commerce Committee on March 23.  Mr. Peters said:

"A Communications Decency Act of 1995 is needed and, clearly, Congress can
control 'cyberspace' to prohibit obscenity entirely, irrespective of a 
commercial purpose and irrespective of whether 'consenting adults only' 
are involved, and to restrict indecency.

"Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, and is already prohibited
on broadcast, cable and satellite TV and by means of telephone.  Restrictions
on indecency have also been upheld in the broadcast media and by means of 
telephone.

"But Senator Exon's bill has serious constitutional problems and does a
disservice to the American people.  It is a giant step backwards"

Among the bill's defects cited by Mr. Peters are the following:

* It may very well prevent the United States, or any state, from
  prosecuting much non-commercial computer obscenity in that a person
  who makes obscenity available cannot be held responsible if it is the
  recipient who "initiates" the transmission (even if that recipient is
  a child).

* By attempting to ban non-commercial indecent telephone calls and other
  telecommunications transmissions to adults, the bill violates the 1989
  united States Supreme Court Sable case, thus rendering
  unconstitutional any protections for children.

* It reduces the protection of the existing Dial-A-Porn law by among
  other things requiring that commercial violators have actual knowledge
  of the content of obscene or indecent communications -- a condition
  easily evaded -- and providing a new "defense" for some commercial
  providers of obscene telephone communications.

* A provision of the bill aimed at pornography on cable TV speaks to
  programs "unsuitable for children" -- a vague standard suggested to be
  unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in its Erzoznik case, in which
  the Court said: "Speech that is neither obscene to youths or subject
  to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to
  protect the young from ... images a legislative body thinks unsuitable
  for them."

 Mr. Peters added:

"Yet other provisions in this bill send a clear message to America's
telecommunications industry that the new Congress will place little if
any responsibility on it for the obscenity available on its systems,
even in circumstances where it 'knows' that such material is available
and has 'editorial control.'

"On-line services are not common carriers but despite lip service to
that fact in the Exon bill, on-line services are provided with
protections which should only be available, if at all, to common
carriers."

CONTACT: Ed Hynes of Morality in Media, 212-870-3222