obtain the film, but also make those who would be selling or displaying, an accessory to that child abuse? Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yes, sir, Mr. Kildee. I think I would have to agree to that, yes. Mr. KILDEE. OK. Mr. FRIEDMAN. Because you could not have the material unless a child has been abused. Mr. KILDEE. You would have to be stretching things to say that a person selling was not in some way responsible or at least an accessory Mr. FRIEDMAN. Right. Mr. KILDEE [continuing]. To that act of child abuse, right? Mr. FRIEDMAN. Right, because as I say, you cannot have a child abuse film without a child being abused. It is impossible. Mr. KILDEE. OK. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Friedman. Mr. MILLER. You heard the testimony of Mr. Dreyfuss and the exchange on the Harry Reams case. I assume that case would cause you some problems. Mr. FRIEDMAN. Caused us a lot of problems. Mr. MILLER. You think you escape or potentially you and your association-this legislation, because you simply, in fact, prohibit the showing of films which use children in any sense. I assume we are talking about children under 16. Mr. FRIEDMAN. Under 18. Mr. MILLER. Under 18 Mr. FRIEDMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. MILLER [continuing]. Would be your standard. But the web that was created, the net that was created out of the Harry Reams case, in terms of all the people who were named on that lawsuit-what was the response of your association to that? Mr. FRIEDMAN. Well, as a matter of fact, at our last convention in Anaheim last year, Mr. Parish was our guest speaker. The prosecutor from Memphis-this of course Mr. KILDEE. Did you give him an honorarium? Mr. FRIEDMAN. Pardon? Mr. KILDEE. Did you give him an honorarium? Mr. FRIEDMAN. No, he would not accept an honorarium. [Laughter.] We bought him a plane ticket is all, economy. The Memphis thing of course was a catchall case that involved a lot of people that should not have been involved. Based on the Marx case which followed, which again said, if you are going to-going into preMiller behavior, tried by post-Miller standards, perhaps the whole case is going to have to be retried, which we believe. It is very strange. When you take a film like "Deep Throat," "Deep Throat" has been on trial in California maybe 12 times; 9 times found not guilty and 3 times with a hung jury, I believe. And yet in Memphis, it is found guilty. So you have a case of a man shipping a print from California where it is not obscene to a place called Memphis where it is obscene, and you find yourself entangled in a Federal law. And this is strange, since the Miller decision says that each community can make their own deci sions. But which community do you use? The California community or the western Tennessee community? But I think this goes above the problems we have with the interstate transportation, with community standards, et cetera. The use of a child, if we are not even admitting them to see the films-how can we conceivably use them in the production of films? I mean, it-we are trying to establish a standard. We believe that adults have certain privileges that children don't have. Adults are allowed to drink, they are allowed to smoke, they are allowed to gamble. Children aren't. I think sex is one of the privileges of adulthood. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Lee, are you familiar with the Reams case? Mr. MILLER. Mr. Friedman would opt out of that case on the theory that under this law, if it was brought on this law, I am afraid you might have the same problem as Mr. Goldstein Mr. LEE. Yes. Mr. MILLER [continuing]. Had in Kansas City. If you have in fact people who subscribe to your magazine-I assume you do. Mr. LEE. Yes, I do. Mr. MILLER. It is not all newsstand sales? Mr. LEE. We have limited Mr. MILLER. Mr. Goldstein found himself in a conspiracy trial about use of the mails. The Government paid some people to subscribe to his magazine who happened to be postal workers, apparently. And so you are concerned with the enactment rather than just simply testimony that doesn't apply to you because of standards you have set in your industry. Your concern with the enactment of this law has got to be much more severe and Mr. LEE. Mr. Miller, I would welcome a national law, personally, from the standpoint of mentioning distribuiton through the mails and newsstand distribution. We always go across State boundaries. And the latest Supreme Court decision is favoring local jurisdictions to decide for themselves. Mr. MILLER. That is Mr. LEE. This creates a-publisher headaches. Mr. MILLER. The case law is the local jurisdiction Mr. MILLER. Because when the local jurisdiction decided that your magazine was using youth-(reading from Kildee bill) "Any person who causes or willfully permits a child to engage in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act to be punished-" so forth, "-any photograph or film depicting " Mr. LEE. Yes. Mr. MILLER. You combine the Supreme Court with this law, and I think publishers had better find out who Mr. Reems' attorney was. Mr. LEE. No; I think we will quit. Mr. MILLER. You will quit? Mr. LEE. Yes. Mr. MILLER. 13,000, you will quit, right? Mr. LEE. Well, it is a modest living. But let me interject something that was mentioned here about theater and children coming to a theater. Several years ago there was a nudist motion picture made in the nudist parks involving adults and children both. And there was no sexuality, of course, because nudist people do not involve sexuality in their publicity. And the children who appeared in the film were people I know. They were turned away from the box office and could not see themselves on the screen. Now, this is a bit ludicrous, in that department. Now, when it comes to sexually explicit acts, I would say it is-my gentleman here at the right has a tremendous point to make. So let's keep in mind, sexuality is one issue and nudity is a separate issue. If we put them all in one pot, we are going to have headaches. Mr. MILLER. Thank you. Thank you very much for your testimony. The committee will stand in recess. We will assemble in New York City on Tuesday to hear further witnesses. [Whereupon, at 11:33 a.m., the subcommittee hearing was in recess, to reconvene on Tuesday, May 31, 1977.] SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1977 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, New York City, N.Y. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. at Covenant House, 260 West 44th Street, New York, N.Y., Hon. Mario Biaggi presiding. Members present: Representatives Biaggi, Weiss and Kildee. Staff present: Jack G. Duncan, counsel and Joan Godley, staff assistant. Mr. BIAGGI. The subcommittee is called to order. As chairman of this morning's hearing of the House Select Education Subcommittee, I welcome my colleague, our distinguished witnesses and guests. This promises to be a sobering day, for we will be discussing a shocking and deplorable subject the use of children in pornography. There is a highly sophisticated and organized child pornography industry operating in this Nation. It has already captured an estimated 300,000 children nationally as victims. It has produced more than 264 different publications sold nationally depicting pornographic activities involving children as young as 3 years old. The industry is both national and international in scope. Large quantities of pornographic materials are imported each year, primarily from Europe. Hundreds of children from Mexico are smuggled into this Nation each year to engage in child pornography. Who are the victims of child pornography? They vary in age and circumstance. Some come from broken homes-some are victims of child abuse and neglect, some are even foster children recruited from homes for pornography. While the particulars about each victim may vary-they do share some things in common. As victims, they endure sexual abuse and exploitation. They become helpless victims of extortion-many are induced into pornography through drugs-subsequently forming an addiction. Some eventually turn to serious crime. In reality, we are talking about children being transformed into merchandise in a massive sex for sale operation. We know that some of the victims of child pornography come from the ranks of the 1 million runaway children of this Nation. Our hearing this morning is being conducted in a facility which assists the thousands of nomadic children of New York City. We will receive testimony from Father Bruce Ritter discussing the relationship of runaway children to pornography. |