Morality in Media today called for MTV and Viacom to halt distribution of its new show “Skins” to avoid the exploitation of children and because the show may violate U.S. child pornography and obscenity laws.

Morality in Media lauds The Parents Television Council for initiating a call for an investigation of MTV/Viacom by the U.S. Department of Justice if “Skins” is broadcast in the U.S.

“Given the allegations of sexually explicit conduct by minors that have been made in news reports and by the show’s distributors, MTV and Viacom, some material may constitute child pornography under U.S. law if certain conditions are met,” said Patrick A. Trueman Morality in Media CEO. Trueman is a former Chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, in Washington, D.C.

“U. S. child pornography laws prohibit any visual depiction involving children under the age of 18 engaged in ‘sexually explicit conduct,’ which is defined under those laws as ‘actual or simulated’ sexual intercourse, including ‘genital-genital, oral-genital’ sex and a variety of other sexual acts,” ” noted Trueman.

Trueman noted that according to news reports, the British episodes of “Skins” do depict sexually explicit conduct with minors involved.

“Attorney General Eric Holder should investigate MTV and Viacom now to satisfy himself that the American episodes of the show comport with U.S. child pornography laws,” he added.

Trueman also noted that Viacom and MTV could also violate U.S. obscenity laws, which prohibit the distribution of obscene pornography, depending on how sexual conduct is depicted.

Who Is Responsible And What Needs To Be Done To Adequately Monitor Illinois Day Care Centers?

In Part I of this IFI series, we brought attention to a report from the Illinois Auditor General, William Holland, which revealed some stunning information regarding the licensing of day care centers in Illinois. Part I: Sex Offenders Reside In Homes Which Are Licensed Day Care Centers In Illinois

In June of 2010, Holland revealed that 90 licensed day care centers in Illinois had the same addresses as those who are listed on the registry of sex offenders. It has also been reported at least one of the registered sex offenders received payment from the state of Illinois’ Deptartment of Human Services (DHS) in 2008. DHS has the responsibility of licensing child care facilities.

Of course, the data released by Holland’s audit should have been plastered across the front page of every newspaper in Illinois and the lead story on every television news broadcast in the state. Legislators should have held press conferences, attended by outraged parents and child advocates. But this did not happen and, if not for a few scattered stories in the media, many of us would not be aware of a travesty which has been taking place in the state of Illinois…for who knows how long?

Some say that the DHS is not totally at fault regarding this glaring lack of oversight regarding the protection of the over 170,000 children who are enrolled in day care centers across Illinois which provide services for low income families. To this point, according to state law, the Dept. of Human Services was not allowed to cross reference the addresses of private homes which are licensed to offer day care services with the addresses of registered sex offenders which is issued and maintained by the Illinois State Police.

But clearly the system broke down along the way and the buck has to stop somewhere. The Auditor General’s report indicates taxpayer money, totaling $634 million, was paid by DHS in 2008. These funds — which were allocated to facilities which have nearly 200,000 children in their charge — may have been used to have unsuspecting parents lead their children to the door steps of sexual deviants. While not every individual who is on the statewide sex offender registry is a pedophile, no parent would intentionally place their child in an environment that housed a sexual predator.

A series of questions must be asked and answered regarding this situation:

* Why was the Dept. of Human Services barred from cross-checking addresses of registered sex offenders with the addresses of licensed day care facilities?

NOTE: The number of identified day care centers where sex offenders live may be much higher than 90, due to the fact that the audit only counted cases where addresses matched exactly, down to whether street names were spelled out in their entirety or when abbreviations only were used.

* Is it possible privacy issues regarding the rights of convicted sex offenders took precedent over the safety of children?

* Sex offenders cannot live within a prescribed distance of a school. Yet in the above circumstances, sex offenders actually dwelled in homes where young children were being cared for. Why?

* What responsibility lies with the individuals who were issued licenses as day care providers? How many of those who were responsible for the administration of these private home day care facilities knew they had a registered sex offender in their homes?

NOTE: According to the Auditor General’s report, many of those on the sex offender registry were related to the day care center licensees.

* Clearly the law was broken. What steps will be taken by law enforcement, including the Illinois State Police and the Illinois Attorney General’s office, to address this issue?

* I have to wonder why the Sex Offender Management Board (SOMB) isn’t taking the heat for this failure of oversight. 20 ILCS 4026 creates the SOMB and they are charged with the duty of monitoring sex offenders. The SOMB includes seven appointees by the Governor, seven appointees by the Attorney General, and eight others. How much tax money is this agency receiving and for what? Why isn’t the SOMB responsible for cross-checking and making sure that state licensed and funded day cares, schools, activity centers, after school programs, etc. are free of convicted sex predators. Obviously, they failed miserably here. Moreover, as our chief law official, why isn’t the Attorney General accountable for this?

Many of the questions above only address the tip of a dirty iceberg where 90 percent of the damage that may have been experienced by children lies underneath the surface of a bureaucracy whose primary goal may now be to pass the buck regarding who is at fault in a situation that can only be called an obscenity, at best.

On October 1st, 2010, a new law will go into effect which will allow DHS to run checks of addresses of sex offenders against the addresses of day care centers in private homes. However, in the meantime, what is being done to adequately safeguard children, many of whom may have been exposed to sexual predation of its most vehement form?

Many experts in the field of mental health and criminology agree sex offenders, especially pedophiles, cannot be rehabilitated. It is perhaps the most untreatable addiction that has infected the human condition. Subsequently, the only resolution to this problem is far closer scrutiny by state agencies and monitoring those on the sex offender registry. The Illinois State Police, the Dept. of Human Services, the office of the Illinois Attorney General and the Sex Offender Management Board, among other governmental bodies, must do a better job of sharing information, in order to protect the most vulnerable in our society.

What the Holland audit reveals is disturbing, to say the least. State lawmakers and law-enforcement officials have an obligation to work together to create a functional and manageable system regarding the licensing and provision of day care services.

The Illinois Family Institute will continue follow this story closely and work to see that this failure never happens again. Protecting innocent children and their parents from potential situations where they can be hurt and abused is the proper role of government

The nation’s leading group of pediatricians has issued a policy statement warning its members, parents and the media of the messages American teens and children are getting about sex from television, the Internet and other media outlets.

The statement was included in an article entitled “Sexuality, Contraception, and the Media” which was published in the September print issue of The Journal of Pediatrics.

“The media represents arguably the leading sex educator in America today,” said Dr. Victor Strasburger, the lead author of the paper. “Seventy percent of teen shows contain sexual content and less than 10-percent of that content involves what anyone would classify as being responsible content. There’s no mention of contracting an STD or the need to wait to have sex until later.”

The statement also contains recommendations including encouraging pediatricians to ask how much entertainment screen time per day the child engages in and whether the child has a TV or Internet connection in his or her bedroom. The authors would also like media outlets to refrain from running ads for erectile dysfunction drugs until after 10pm.

Click HERE to read more.

by Morality in Media Inc.

On July 24, a column entitled “The trouble with outlawing porn” appeared in the New York Post. Authored byJacob Sullum, the column was prompted by two recent federal court decisions, one of which invalidated the FCC’s broadcast indecency law enforcement policy, and the other of which dismissed obscenity charges against a commercial distributor of hardcore pornography. Supportive of both decisions, Sullum said the cases “show that prohibiting vaguely defined categories of speech undermine the rule of law as well as freedom of expression.”

Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media Inc., commented:

I wouldn’t dispute Mr. Sullum’s observation that the FCC’s current guidelines for enforcing the broadcast indecency law are “muddled.” He might have added that the guidelines have become muddled in good part because of court decisions. But do broadcasters really need additional guidance to determine which indecent words they can air in the presence of children and how often?

Furthermore, as recently retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens observed in the 1978 FCC v. Pacifica case, “A requirement that indecent language be avoided will have its primary effect on the form, rather than the content, of serious communication. There are few, if any, thoughts that cannot be expressed by the use of less offensive language.” In other words, from a First Amendment perspective little would be lost even by a rule that prohibited ANY indecent language in broadcasting.

Nor would I dispute Mr. Sullum’s assertion that the Supreme Court’s obscenity test includes “subjective” elements that can make it difficult to know in advance how a jury will rule.

But as the Supreme Court observed in a 1973 obscenity case, Miller v. California, “If the inability to define regulated materials with ultimate, god-like precision altogether removes the power of the States or the Congress to regulate, then ‘hard core’ pornography may be exposed without limit to the juvenile, the passerby, and the consenting adult alike…”

I would add that if no speech can be regulated unless it is defined with “god-like” precision, then hardcore adult pornography like that involved in the recently dismissed obscenity case could also be aired on broadcast and cable TV during the family hour. According to court papers, the pornographic material at issue in that case depicted “numerous scenes of urination, use of enemas and violent bondage. In a number of scenes, participants ingested urine and excretion from the enemas.”

“A ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 2nd Circuit today declaring unconstitutional the Federal Communications Commission’s indecency policy seems foolish on it face,” said Patrick A. Trueman, former chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section in Washington, D.C. “How is the American public to understand that federal judges don’t know that use of the “F-word” is indecent during prime-time television?” This ruling only increases the public’s belief that government is out of touch with the public and out of step with the U.S. Constitution, Trueman added.

The court found that FCC policy was, “unconstitutionally vague” and creates a “chilling effect” on broadcasters. Trueman said, “There is nothing vague about federal indecency law which has been in effect for decades and has always been though to prohibit the “F-word on primetime television. Trueman predicted that there will be no chilling effect on broadcasters if the U.S. Supreme Court upholds this bad ruling. “Broadcasters will have a green light to pump indecent language and perhaps much more into the homes of families at will.”

“Rock singer Bono has no more right to shout, “f***ing brilliant” in the homes of unsuspecting American families than we would have in his,” Trueman said. “He made himself an uninvited guest of those families that believed honorees at the Grammys would respect the norms of civilized discourse on broadcast television. Similarly, the indecent comments of singer/actress Cher and actress Nicole Richie are out of place in the homes of those families who thought that network television represented a safe haven for family viewing.

Trueman represented the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family in filing a “friend of the court” brief in this case; Fox Television Stations v. Federal Communications Commission. He is currently heading up the War on Illegal Pornography, a national coalition effort to get federal laws against illegal adult pornography enforced. His websites include Porn Harms and a YouTube.com site.

“What this says to parents is that you don’t have a reasonable expectation of not being assaulted from your television or radio.” ~David E. Smith, as quoted in an article in the Chicago Sun-Times.

The opinion in Fox Television Stations v. Federal Communications Commission may be found HERE.

From Morality In Media

NEW YORK (July 7, 2010) – On June 28, the Supreme Court held once again that the Second Amendment protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms. The Court also said, however, that this is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” In other words, some regulation of guns is permissible. Earlier this year, the Court also agreed to review a lower court decision that invalidated a law intended to restrict children’s access to certain violent video games, including some that depict deadly gun violence.

Robert Peters, President of Morality In Media, had the following comments:

I must say that I have mixed emotions about guns.

On the one hand, I grew up in a community where many citizens owned guns and where guns were frequently used to hunt wildlife but never to unlawfully shoot human beings. I therefore take issue with those who would blame the increase in gun violence on availability of guns. Guns don’t commit crimes; people do; and if we want to understand why, according Uniform Crime Reports statistics, the “Murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate” rose from 5.1 in 1960 (when I was in grade school) to 10.2 in 1980, we must look beyond mere availability of guns.

On the other hand, I have lived since 1971 in New York City, where hunting rabbits and squirrels is indeed rare, but where all too many residents, young and old, get shot each year without legal justification. In good conscience, therefore, I must support reasonable regulation of guns.

I support reasonable regulation even though I agree with two recent Supreme Court decisions holding that the Second Amendment protects the right of the American people to keep and bear arms, regardless of a connection to state militias.

In both decisions, the Court pointed out that the Second Amendment does not confer “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Were it otherwise, citizens known to have terrorist sympathies could board planes with automatic weapons and violent criminals could have guns while serving time in prison for using guns to commit crimes.

Similarly, in a 1957 obscenity case, Justice Brennan opined: “it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.” Were it otherwise, libel, perjury, contempt of court, military insubordination, treason, threats, extortion, harassment, fraud, false advertising, inciting a riot, obscenity and child pornography, among other things, would enjoy First Amendment protection.

The Court will soon decide whether a California law that would restrict a child’s access to certain violent video games is constitutional. If the Court strikes down the law, it could decide the case narrowly, leaving the door open for the state to revise the law so as to be constitutional. Or the Court could set the bar so high that no law would withstand the Court’s “strict scrutiny,” in effect holding that no matter what the nature of the non-sexual violence or how it is depicted, no regulation is permitted.

If the decision is of the latter nature, the Court will do the nation a great disservice and prove again that our cherished Constitution is what five or more Supreme Court Justices say it is and little more. While the latter notion appeals to “progressives,” it ought to deeply concern the rest of us.

I would add that the First Amendment was not intended to confer upon adults a right to peddle sexual or violent expression that is harmful to children, without any legal obligation to restrict children’s access to it. Nor does it require of legislative bodies “god-like” precision or knowledge.

I would also add that while reasonable persons could disagree about whether the 2nd Amendment was intended to confer a general right upon citizens to keep and bear arms, the Court’s decisions should not be based on Justices’ personal views about whether gun ownership is now a wise thing. If the American people think the 2nd Amendment is outdated or that the current level of mayhem requires curtailment, they can amend the Constitution. That right belongs to the people, not to the Supreme Court.

On June 28, the Supreme Court held once again that the Second Amendment protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms. The Court also said, however, that this is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” In other words, some regulation of guns is permissible. Earlier this year, the Court also agreed to review a lower court decision that invalidated a law intended to restrict children’s access to certain violent video games, including some that depict deadly gun violence.

Robert Peters, President of Morality In Media, had the following comments:

I must say that I have mixed emotions about guns.

On the one hand, I grew up in a community where many citizens owned guns and where guns were frequently used to hunt wildlife but never to unlawfully shoot human beings. I therefore take issue with those who would blame the increase in gun violence on availability of guns. Guns don’t commit crimes; people do; and if we want to understand why, according Uniform Crime Reports statistics, the “Murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate” rose from 5.1 in 1960 (when I was in grade school) to 10.2 in 1980, we must look beyond mere availability of guns.

On the other hand, I have lived since 1971 in New York City, where hunting rabbits and squirrels is indeed rare, but where all too many residents, young and old, get shot each year without legal justification. In good conscience, therefore, I must support reasonable regulation of guns.

I support reasonable regulation even though I agree with two recent Supreme Court decisions holding that the Second Amendment protects the right of the American people to keep and bear arms, regardless of a connection to state militias.

In both decisions, the Court pointed out that the Second Amendment does not confer “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Were it otherwise, citizens known to have terrorist sympathies could board planes with automatic weapons and violent criminals could have guns while serving time in prison for using guns to commit crimes.

Similarly, in a 1957 obscenity case, Justice Brennan opined: “it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance.” Were it otherwise, libel, perjury, contempt of court, military insubordination, treason, threats, extortion, harassment, fraud, false advertising, inciting a riot, obscenity and child pornography, among other things, would enjoy First Amendment protection.

The Court will soon decide whether a California law that would restrict a child’s access to certain violent video games is constitutional. If the Court strikes down the law, it could decide the case narrowly, leaving the door open for the state to revise the law so as to be constitutional. Or the Court could set the bar so high that no law would withstand the Court’s “strict scrutiny,” in effect holding that no matter what the nature of the non-sexual violence or how it is depicted, no regulation is permitted.

If the decision is of the latter nature, the Court will do the nation a great disservice and prove again that our cherished Constitution is what five or more Supreme Court Justices say it is and little more. While the latter notion appeals to “progressives,” it ought to deeply concern the rest of us.

I would add that the First Amendment was not intended to confer upon adults a right to peddle sexual or violent expression that is harmful to children, without any legal obligation to restrict children’s access to it. Nor does it require of legislative bodies “god-like” precision or knowledge.

I would also add that while reasonable persons could disagree about whether the 2nd Amendment was intended to confer a general right upon citizens to keep and bear arms, the Court’s decisions should not be based on Justices’ personal views about whether gun ownership is now a wise thing. If the American people think the 2nd Amendment is outdated or that the current level of mayhem requires curtailment, they can amend the Constitution. That right belongs to the people, not to the Supreme Court.

From Morality in the Media

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held that the State of Washington may release the names of individuals who signed a petition to put a referendum on the state ballot for the purpose of challenging a state “domestic partnership” law. When supporters of the gay rights law asked the State to turn over the names of those who signed the petition, opponents of the law sued to prevent release because there is a “reasonable probability” that petition signers “will be subjected to threats, harassment, and reprisals.”

Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media, had the following comments:

In June 2004, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower federal court decision which had upheld a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act , a law that would have required websites that commercially distribute pornography to take reasonable steps to keep kids away from the smut.

In so doing, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court’s finding that “blocking or filtering technology may be at least as successful as COPA would be in restricting minors’ access to harmful material online without imposing the burden on constitutionally protected speech that COPA imposes on adult users…” Specifically, the trial court found (in the words of the appellate court) that requiring adults to “identify themselves as a precondition to accessing disfavored speech” would “likely…deter many adults from accessing that speech.”

Five Supreme Court Justices went along with this nonsense despite the fact that COPA contained privacy protection requirements to prevent disclosure of information obtained for the purpose of verifying the age of those viewing or purchasing the smut.

This is not to say that online privacy isn’t important, regardless of the nature of the speech, but so is the protection of children from exposure to hardcore pornographic content that depicts, among other things, degradation of and violence against women.

And despite what some Justices may still want to believe, parental use of filters alone will not protect children from exposure to online pornography, if for no other reason than that today’s children have access to the Internet from devices that parents can’t control.

As for yesterday’s Court decision regarding political speech, I would agree that there are valid reasons for requiring disclosure. But those who have followed the gay rights movement for any length of time also know that the threat of hurtful retaliatory conduct is real.

The chief executive officer of Apple Computers is winning praise for speaking out publicly against online pornography. Steve Jobs says that he wants to keep his company’s iPhones and Apple’s new iPad product porn-free.

Apple has tightly controlled applications for the iPhone. The company’s license agreement for applications states that they may reject apps “if they contain content of any kind that…may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory.”

Mr. Jobs has recently shared his thoughts in e-mail exchanges with Apple customers. He told one user: “We do believe we have the moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone. Folks who want porn can buy it [somewhere else].”

Jobs responded to another customer who had complained about limits on freedom of expression with this exchange: “It’s not about freedom. It’s about Apple trying to to do the right thing for its users. You might care more about porn when you have kids.”

The editor of an information technology newssite says that Jobs is setting a new standard for electronic communication. “Clearly opposed to pornography, Jobs surely realizes he can’t make it go away completely,” says Sam Diaz, senior editor of ZDNET. “But he doesn’t have to contribute to the spreading of it–especially in a place where children often shop using a technology that many parents still don’t understand well enough to police.”

It is important to note that neither the iPad nor iPhone offer complete freedom from pornography. It is still possible to access porn via a web browser. But most pornographic videos cannot be accessed, since they require Adobe Flash products, which Apple refuses to support.

by Morality in Media, Inc.

Decency laws which could help reduce sexual child abuse are not being enforced.

According to a recent article in the New York Times (“Charges called ‘new low’ for Gambinos“), the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan described the operation of a sex trafficking network as “a new low” for the Gambino family. The article also said the females “used as prostitutes were all under 20 years old, and one was 15.” According to an article in yesterday’s NY Daily News (“Teen sex a new mob low”), girls were recruited from “strip bars to work as prostitutes.”

Morality in Media, Inc. president Robert Peters had these comments.

“Prior to the mid 1980s, most pornography businesses were controlled by organized crime [see, e.g., “Video revolution left organized crime behind,” LA Herald Examiner, 5/4/88 (“For years, it’s been alleged that the leading New York Mafia families control most of the nation’s pornography through their ties with adult bookstores, peep shows and prostitution.”)].

“Prior to the enactment of a federal law in 1978 that prohibited child pornography and a 1982 Supreme Court decision that upheld child pornography laws, child pornography was openly sold in pornography businesses. Roger Young, Special Agent, FBI retired, describes those years:

It was my own experience from working obscenity cases for over 23 years as a Special Agent of the FBI (1975 – 2001), as well as my understanding from other sources, that prior to the enactment in 1978 of a federal law prohibiting child pornography, child pornography was commercially produced and distributed by major ‘adult pornography’ commercial entities and was openly sold in ‘adult bookstores’ throughout our nation…

“It should therefore come as no surprise that the ‘mob’ is now engaged in sexual trafficking of teens.
“It is noteworthy that Harold Fahringer, the attorney who represented the proprietor of a pornography business in the 1982 Supreme Court case mentioned above, is presently representing pornography businesses in a court case challenging a New York City law that would zone these businesses.

“What should come as a surprise is that there are federal obscenity laws on the books which can be enforced against the proliferation of hardcore adult pornography on the Internet and elsewhere but which are not being enforced. Vigorous enforcement of obscenity laws would reduce the availability of hardcore adult pornography, which would help curb sexual exploitation of children for the reason that availability of this material contributes to sexual child abuse in various ways, including:

* Perpetrators use hardcore adult pornography to groom their child victims.
* For many individuals, what begins as an attraction to hardcore adult pornography leads to viewing child pornography, which contributes to the demand for child pornography.
* Men who become addicted to hardcore adult pornography act out their porn fueled fantasies with prostitutes, including child prostitutes.
* Addiction to hardcore adult pornography destroys marriages, and children raised in one-parent households are more likely to be sexually exploited.

“Vigorous enforcement of obscenity laws would also reduce children’s exposure to hardcore adult pornography. Exposure to this material can interfere with children’s psychological and moral development and lead to sexual misconduct, including sexual abuse of other children.

“If protecting children from harm is important, then we must act not just against adults who sexually exploit children but also against persons who produce and distribute hardcore adult pornography.

“While the Bush administration was in large measure a disappointment when it came to enforcement of obscenity laws, it did prove that these laws can be successfully enforced against major commercial distributors of hardcore adult pornography. To date, the Obama administration has not announced any new obscenity indictments involving commercial distribution of hardcore adult pornography.”

By Morality in Media, Inc.

Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah to be commended for asking U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, ‘How is this administration enforcing federal law prohibiting…obscenity?’

NEW YORK (4/15/10) – During a hearing yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah asked Attorney General Eric Holder the following questions: “How is this administration enforcing federal law prohibiting…obscenity?…Will you allow the director of [the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force] to enforce federal obscenity laws without restricting him to the most extreme obscene material?” In response, the Attorney General answered that he will “certainly enforce the law.”

Morality in Media, Inc. President Robert Peters had the following comments.

“Senator Orrin Hatch is to be commended for asking Attorney General Eric Holder about the new administration’s policies regarding enforcement of federal obscenity laws.

“In recent decades Congress has to its credit enacted many amendments to strengthen federal obscenity laws. For example, Congress acted in 1988 to prohibit distribution of obscene matter on cable/satellite TV and in 1996 to prohibit distribution of obscene matter on the Internet. But when it comes to enforcement of federal obscenity laws, Congress has for the most part been ‘asleep at the switch.’

“Because of the doctrine of separation of powers and the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, Congress cannot dictate what the Justice Department, FBI and U.S. Attorneys do.

“But that doesn’t mean Congress is helpless.

“In the first place, the Senate must confirm, among others, the Attorney General, FBI Director, and all 93 U.S. Attorneys. In the second place, Congress has oversight responsibility for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI and U.S. Attorneys. In the third place, Congress appropriates funds for the Department, and that gives Congress a say in what those agencies do or don’t do. Related to the latter power, Congress can specify what a particular appropriation is to be used for-for example, for the investigation and enforcement of federal obscenity laws.

“While the Justice Department, FBI and U.S. Attorney offices are to be commended for their efforts to curb sexual exploitation of children on the Internet, for the most part these agencies have turned a blind eye towards the explosion of hardcore adult pornography on the Internet and elsewhere. While the latter does not depict actual children, it does depict sex with persons who look like children, as well as sex with teens, family members, multiple partners, and prostitutes. It also depicts sex with animals, excretory activities, and sexual violence against women, including rape and torture.

“Part of the problem with the Justice Department and FBI’s see-little-evil in hardcore adult pornography policy is that the proliferation of this material contributes to sexual exploitation of children crimes. Children of all ages are also being exposed to this material which can interfere with their psychological and moral development and lead to sexual misconduct.

“If protecting children from harm is of utmost importance, then we must act not just against adults who sexually abuse children and who possess or distribute child pornography, but also against adults who produce and distribute hardcore adult pornography, especially on the Internet.

“Another part of the problem is that hardcore adult pornography doesn’t just harm children. Among other things, addiction to this material contributes to the breakup of marriages, to sexual violence against women, to on-the-job sexual harassment, to a loss of worker productivity, and to the demand for women trafficked into prostitution. Our nation’s reputation as the ‘porn capital of the world’ is also making the war against religiously based terrorism more difficult.

“In the 1973 Miller v California case, the Supreme Court held that obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment and that obscenity laws can constitutionally be enforced against hardcore adult pornography. In recent years the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts have also rejected various constitutional challenges to federal Internet obscenity laws.

“While the Bush administration was in large measure a disappointment when it came to enforcement of federal obscenity laws, it did prove that these laws can be effectively enforced against large-scale commercial distributors of hardcore adult pornography when there is a will to do so.

“What the Obama administration should do now is build on its predecessor’s progress. The last thing our nation needs is a repeat of the ‘free ride” for commercial purveyors of obscene materials that former President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno provided during the 1990s.

“Senator Hatch is also to be commended for challenging the Justice Department (and FBI) policy to enforce federal obscenity laws only against the ‘most extreme obscene material.’ For one thing, all hardcore adult pornography is addictive, which leads to a variety of harms. For another, this material is readily available to children on the Internet, free of charge and without proof of age; and right now the only laws that can be enforced against hardcore adult pornography online are obscenity laws.”

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers — also known as ICANN, (the governing board that controls the Internet) — is ONCE AGAIN considering establishing a red light district on the Internet through an .XXX domain for pornography. This matter has been considered twice before but stopped because of overwhelming opposition in this country and abroad. An .XXX domain will increase the amount of porn on the internet and make it more available to adults and children.

It is critical that you tell ICANN, “Do not create the .XXX domain.” We need to get an overwhelming number of comments to ICANN opposing this.

Take ACTION: Send an email to the ICANN Board of Directors.

Background

IFI’s good friend, Patrick Trueman, who formerly served as the chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division, Washington, D.C, has worked for the past 25 years to stop the widespread devastation that pornography is causing to children and adults. He is very concerned about the establishment of an .XXX domain and says it would increase the spread of pornography on the Internet and cause even more harm to children and families.

Moreover, Trueman says:

There is no evidence that the public wants or needs this domain. In fact, each time this idea has been proposed it has been overwhelmingly opposed by the public and governments throughout the world. There is also absolutely no evidence that any good would come of it. Instead it appears that the company proposing it is merely seeking enrichment at the expense of the public. Pornography addiction is skyrocketing among adult males and is even affecting many women and children in the same way. Countless marriages are breaking up because of pornography use and sexual promiscuity is more widespread than ever before because of pornography. Pornography is destroying lives and relationships and ICANN should not be using its authority to promote more of it.

The .XXX domain must be given final approval by ICANN before it can be established. You can weigh in by clicking HERE. IFI urges you to send your comments today but also to forward this alert to family, friends, church groups and others. We need to educate our neighbors about this false solution to the problem of Internet porn and get .XXX stopped.

By Stacy McDonald –Your Sacred Calling

Two years ago, I blogged about the fact that Sam’s Club was displaying the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, featuring a topless woman, in full view of families. You can read the post HERE.

Unfortunately, Sports Illustrated is still about the business of degrading women, harming families, and disgracing society. This year on the cover another topless model is featured. The American Decency Association has this to say about the 2010 issue:

Starting with the topless woman on the cover, SI gets to the real purpose of the issue – the pornographic exhibition of women for the pleasure of men. Page after page reveals erotically posed young women sometimes topless, sometimes – at the most – in barely there bikinis. Each lust-producing display reinforces the message to ogling men and boys that women are nothing more than sexual objects to be used. And wives and young girls, whose husbands or fathers bring home this issue, are given the message that to be loved they must degrade themselves and that their worth is dependent upon their body and bust size.

As young girls starve themselves; as women undergo all sorts of painful surgeries to compete with the “new normal;” and as the decency of our culture erodes into moral debauchery; companies like Sports Illustrated cash in on the humiliation and exploitation of women.

And it gets worse. The sexual exploitation of children continues to increase in our society. Instead of petticoats and playgrounds, our little girls are taught to “flaunt their stuff” in mini dresses and black fish net stockings. Read Childhood Innocence under Fire.

It is crucial that we wake up and take action! It will continue to get worse until the church gets active. Glorifying God has a little to do with saying He is great, and a lot to do with proving that He is. Pray, speak out, write letters, write blog posts, spread the word on Facebook; grab these companies by their perverted pocketbooks and say, “No! We will not stand by while you strip our daughters of their dignity!”

Don’t be fooled into thinking this will not affect you. If we are silent, it is to the shame and detriment of us and our children. Pass it on.

Check back later to find out how else you can help.

Here is the SAMPLE LETTER you can send to your local grocery stores, Sam’s Clubs, Walmarts etc. Please take the time to write and demand that these stores stop helping Sports Illustrated degrade us and our daughters!

Stacy is the wife of Pastor James McDonald of Providence Church and Family Reformation Ministries. She is the mother of ten precious blessings, and the grandma of one treasured cuddle bug, so far!

Stacy is also the author of Raising Maidens of Virtue and co-author of the popular new book, Passionate Housewives Desperate for God.

by Pornharms.com

The devastating harm from pornography is becoming more evident with each passing day. Now a website has been launched to provide ready access to credible, peer-reviewed research documenting that harm. “Pornography Harms is a one-stop location for sound research, news articles and opinion pieces demonstrating the harm from pornography,” said Patrick Trueman, creator of the site. The site will be of great help to researchers at all academic levels and the press and concerned public.

Trueman, the former chief of the U.S. Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, expressed strong concern for the direction of America due to the prominence of pornography in the daily lives of our citizens. “Since the advent of the internet, pornography has flooded homes, businesses, public libraries, and even schools. The results have been devastating to the social and family fabric of America,” Trueman said.

Trueman observed that, for nearly two decades, a large segment of America’s children have had ready access to internet pornography. In the latest trend called, “sexting”, children are producing and distributing cell phone child pornography. This phenomenon may well be an outgrowth of the viewing of internet pornography over long periods of time by children resulting in diminishment of their natural inhibitions against such activity. “Pornography, in other words, is altering minds, destroying taboos, and reordering society,” Trueman said.

Addiction to pornography, Trueman noted, is now common among men, women, and even many children, bringing life-long consequences. Pornography use is a significant factor in divorce; a contributing cause of the spread of prostitution and the sexual trafficking of adults and children.

Trueman credited a multi-disciplinary group of professionals and concerned citizens from around the country for the research work on Pornography Harms.

“Pornography is a neglected pandemic and it will remain so until knowledge of its destructive forces is widely understood and disseminated. The Pornography Harms website is dedicated to this task of education.” Trueman said.

Apple has begun to allow the sale of pornography applications for its very popular iPhone through its iTunes online store. Some of these applications are free to children and adults. There are also links to more explicit pornography available right on iTunes as well. The applications, both free and paid, are very popular. Unfortunately, one of the most popular FREE app is one called “Tasty Pasties 18+ Amateurs.” Apple provides samples of the pornography right on iTunes for all to see.

Take ACTION: Please let your voice be heard. Click HERE to fill out a brief form. For “feedback type” on form, click on “Enhancement Request.”

If you prefer to call, Apple Public Relations can be reached at (408) 974-2042 (press “0” and ask for “customer relations.”)

People have begun to complain about these applications, and have experienced some success. One of the most egregious apps was removed last week by Apple, but some still remain.