[Senate Hearing 109-606]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-606
PROTECTING CHILDREN ON THE INTERNET
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 19, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-054 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
Kenneth R. Nahigian, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on January 19, 2006................................. 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 7
Statement of Senator Burns....................................... 5
Statement of Senator Inouye...................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Statement of Senator Lautenberg.................................. 5
Statement of Senator Bill Nelson................................. 6
Statement of Senator Pryor....................................... 6
Statement of Senator Stevens..................................... 1
Witnesses
Burrus, Jr., James H., Deputy Assistant Director, Criminal
Investigative Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation........ 8
Prepared statement........................................... 10
FBI Publication, entitled A Parent's Guide to Internet Safety 22
Cambria, Jr., Paul J., General Counsel, Adult Freedom Foundation. 48
Prepared statement........................................... 50
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L., U.S. Senator from Arkansas............. 2
Lordan, Tim, Executive Director, Internet Education Foundation
(IEF).......................................................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Parsky, Laura H., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, Department of Justice................................ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Platt, Tatiana S., Chief Trust Officer/Senior Vice President,
Integrity Assurance, America Online, Inc....................... 36
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Weaver, III, James B., Professor, Communication and Psychology,
Department of Communication, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University............................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Appendix
Cambria, Jr., Paul J., General Counsel, Adult Freedom Foundation,
supplementary information...................................... 65
Sunlove, Kat, Legislative Affairs Director, Free Speech
Coalition, prepared statement.................................. 66
PROTECTING CHILDREN ON THE INTERNET
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m. in room
SD-562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. Good afternoon. We are finding that the
Internet is increasingly a place where Americans turn to get
information, do research, and exchange ideas. And increasingly,
our children are looking to the Internet for their information.
Given the increasingly important role of the Internet in
education and commerce, it differs from other media, like TV
and cable, in that parents cannot just foreclose the Internet
from their children altogether and expect them to be prepared
to do their homework and succeed in life. Even more so than TV
and cable, the Internet contains material inappropriate for
children. As the Internet continues to evolve and new offerings
like peer-to-peer evolve, we must determine what we can do to
protect children as they continue to use computers and the
Internet for their education. Particularly, as different
domains, which are similar to zones, develop, we must ask if
we're doing enough to create safe kid zones similar to family
tiers.
Now, we will work within the confines of the First
Amendment, but we must do what we can to shield children from
inappropriate and pornographic content, no matter where it
comes from. We need to understand whether filtering
technologies available to parents are effective. We also want
to examine the Children's Online Protection Act, which is now
under court review. Even today, the Administration has
announced new efforts to uphold that law.
Do you have any opening statements you wish to make?
Senator Inouye. Just a short one.
The Chairman. Senator Inouye.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, for years this committee has
wrestled with the issue of pornography and the measures to
protect children from it. However, in many ways, technology has
made an already difficult task even more difficult. As you
pointed out, Mr. Chairman, the growth of the Internet as a
communication medium allows salacious material to be
distributed far more easily to children, and it also provides
those who would see the Internet to prey upon children an
anonymity, which often is used to evade detection.
In light of these harms, I think it is entirely appropriate
that we review what steps can be taken to assist parents in
protecting their children from inappropriate material.
I'd just like to point out that Internet sites containing
pornography have grown. The number of child-pornography
websites is estimated to be 100,000 today, and that number is
growing and increasing every day. And I hope to have my
statement put in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
Today, we continue the discussion on broadcast decency. We have
seen some important developments since our November 29th Forum, but we
still have work to do. We all appreciate the efforts that Jack Valenti
and Kyle McSlarrow have undertaken to address how best to protect our
families from viewing indecent and violent materials on TV.
We have a difficult task ahead of us, but one that must succeed in
many areas--indecency, violent content and sanctions.
The Kaiser Family Foundation's most recent study, released in
November, provided further evidence that racy TV programming remains
increasingly prolific. The networks have little incentive to reverse
this trend, as it continues to attract viewers and market share.
At a minimum, we hope to provide parents with the information and
tools to control the flood of materials they can view at home. We also
have a number of legislative proposals before the Committee that would
raise fines and impose other remedies.
While indecent content continues to receive the lion's share of
attention, violent content is an equal concern. Violent content has
proven to have a strong, negative, anti-social effect on young viewers,
so it is essential that we address TV violence as well. Senator
Rockefeller's and Senator Hutchison's legislation wisely emphasizes
this issue, and I am an enthusiastic co-sponsor of their bill. I hope
that the Committee will consider their proposal in the near future.
I thank our witnesses for their continued participation in this
effort.
The Chairman. Yes, sir.
In deference to Senator Lincoln, who I understand has
another engagement, I would ask the other Senators to withhold
and we'll listen to Senator Lincoln.
STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE L. LINCOLN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And a special
thanks to both of you gentlemen, who I have tremendous respect
for. Not only do you tackle the popular issues, but you also
tackle the difficult issues. And this issue happens to be both
difficult, as well as popular, in many, many American
households. So, I want to thank you all for allowing me to
participate in this hearing today, and for moving forward in
the research we need to make of what we can do to make
America's families safe again.
As a mother of two young boys, this issue hits home for me,
as well as being a Senator and representing the people of
Arkansas. And, as Senator Pryor, on this committee, knows, it's
an issue that weighs very heavily on the minds of parents
across our great State of Arkansas. And that's why I commend
all of the distinguished Members of this committee for bringing
these panelists here together for an open discussion about how
we can keep our children safe online. It is such an important
issue, and it is one that I hope we can work to address in this
Congress.
Let me begin by saying that, without a doubt, I know in my
heart, and I'm sure you agree, that parents are truly the front
line of defense. Parents must closely monitor their children's
activities, online and elsewhere. They must educate them about
the potential dangers, whether it's sexual predators or
inappropriate material on adult websites. But I have to
emphasize, they cannot do it alone. Parents in today's world
cannot do that alone.
When I was growing up, I would go downtown on Saturdays
with my grandfather to his office. We'd go to the neighborhood
drugstore, and oftentimes he would walk off to have a cup of
coffee with some of the other guys from downtown, and I'd mill
around the drugstore. If I would in any way come close to
buying or doing something that my parents wouldn't have
approved of, if I had gone to look at inappropriate material in
that drugstore on Main Street, you could be sure that at least
a dozen people in that drugstore would have called my parents,
let them know exactly what I was up to, popped my hand, drug me
out on the street, called my grandfather and said, ``This is
not right.''
That's not the world we live in today. Main Street then,
and Main Street today are very different. The place that we
least expect danger for our children happens to be in our own
family rooms, where their access to the Main Street of today
occurs on the Internet. Today, it can be difficult for parents
to know what their kids are up to, even when they are in the
private confines of their own home. The Internet is literally
transforming the experience of growing up in America today, in
a way that is much different from the way that parents of today
grew up, the way that many of us grew up.
Unfortunately, despite filtering and blocking technologies,
children are accessing more and more sexually explicit material
at home, on their family computer. They're being targeted by
industries, using names that are familiar and comfortable to
children, so that when they plug those names in, those
comfortable names that they know, or names that they may be
using at a young age for research, like whitehouse.com or Elmo,
they come up with sexually explicit material. There's no one
there to pop them on the hand or drag them away, as there was
in the drugstore for me, unless that parent is looking over
their shoulder at all times.
With the spread of wireless handheld devices, the Internet
can also bring inappropriate materials to places like the
school bus or the mall, where parents can't always be there to
provide the necessary supervision. It is this aspect of the
Internet that has eroded the capacity of parents to control
what their children are exposed to and at what age they are
exposed to it.
According to the Third Way report released last summer, the
largest group of consumers of Internet pornography are youth,
ages 12 to 17. Perhaps most shocking, the average age at which
children are first exposed to pornography on the Internet today
is 11 years old. Gentleman, my twin boys are 9\1/2\, and it
scares me to death.
Now, I would be remiss not to acknowledge the exemplary
efforts of many Internet service providers and other companies
who have developed and improved the content-filtering
technology available to parents. And I have no doubt that
without their efforts the statistics would be much higher than
they are today. But there is more that we can do. And we
should.
Last year, I introduced legislation, along with several of
my colleagues, that would apply the same age-verification
requirements to pornographic sales over the Internet that are
already applied to these same sales on Main Street. The
technology is available, yet too few adult websites are taking
the extra step to create another obstacle, another barrier,
that can keep minors from accessing or stumbling upon
inappropriate online material. By requiring adult sites to use
age-verification software, my legislation is a commonsense
approach to help responsible vendors keep children from viewing
material online that is already illegal for them to purchase on
Main Street. My bill would also provide the necessary resources
to help law enforcement and others combat sexual predators and
criminal activity that exists online.
We know that billions of dollars are made each year on the
Internet catering to the pornographic desires of pedophiles,
who, in turn, are using the anonymity of the Internet to
approach and solicit our children. The Wall Street Journal
published an article earlier this week describing the extremely
profitable business distributing child pornography online has
become. Subscribers are willing to pay up to $75 a month to
access these illegal sites. We must boost the budgets of law
enforcement so that they have the tools to crack down on this
criminal activity.
We also need to invest in research and development, to
encourage the creation of new and better blocking and filtering
technologies for parents.
But, in my view, Mr. Chairman, these are not costs that
should fall on the backs of ordinary taxpayers and their
families, the working families of this country. These are costs
that have arisen as a direct result of the rise of the online
pornography industry, now an estimated $12-billion-profit
industry--more than the three major networks combined. It is on
those who profit from this business that the burden of paying
for the associated costs should fall. This is why my bill
creates a new Internet Safety and Child Protection Trust Fund
financed by a 25 percent excise tax on Internet pornography
transactions. This excise tax could generate up to $3 billion
in annual revenue to finance tougher law enforcement, better
blocking and filtering technologies, and greater educational
efforts to keep children safe online. We already spend almost a
half a billion dollars annually of taxpayers' dollars to combat
the repercussions of what comes from Internet pornography.
I recognize that my legislation is not a silver bullet, but
I believe it is a necessary step, an important step, forward in
the effort to protect our children in this Internet age. The
Internet does not have to be just a source of bad material. It
is also a source of very important materials. It opens the
world of knowledge and exposure to many, many interesting
things of history and technology to our children. But it must
be used properly. And when our children are using that
Internet, we have the responsibility, not just as parents, but
also as legislators, to give parents the greatest tools
possible to make sure that our children are safe in this new
Main Street that we have created.
I thank you all for letting me testify here today, and I
look forward to working with you to address the issue that so
many of our American families face.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Burns?
Senator Burns. Am I supposed to ask a question?
The Chairman. Unless--do you have an opening statement?
Senator Burns. I don't have an opening statement. I thought
Senator Lincoln had a great opening statement. And that suits
me just fine, but I will iterate one thing.
The Chairman. Other people do have a statement, Senator.
Senator Burns. Oh. Well, OK, then I'm going to make my
statement, then.
The Chairman. That's fine.
STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Burns. I would have to agree with Senator Lincoln
on one thing. Main Street hasn't changed. It's just in her home
now. Where do you keep the computer in your house?
Senator Lincoln. We have one computer that has Internet
access, and it is in the family room, in the most visible room
and visible spot. And my children know that they are not
allowed to go on the Internet unless one of us are with them.
Senator Burns. Thank you. Mine's in the kitchen.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg?
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Chairman, thanks to our colleague,
Senator Lincoln, for bringing the subject up so vividly. We
appreciate it. Because this morning we learned about indecency
on TV, and it's a serious problem that threatens our families,
but pornography on the Internet is even more insidious, because
you can find it so easily, and monitoring it, supervising it,
in the family, even in your own house, is a very difficult
problem.
So, we find pornography distasteful, but we also realize
that maybe it's going to be impossible to eliminate it entirely
from our society, but we've got to work at it. That doesn't
mean we have to sit by while our children are exposed to an
explosion of pornography on the Internet. And, make no mistake,
an explosion is exactly what we're talking about.
I just showed our colleague from Arkansas what--some of the
things that we're talking about. Five years, between 1998 and
2003, the number of pornography-related Internet sites
increased from 14 million to 260 million. You know, that's--the
comprehension of that is almost impossible, the vast pervasion
that it's made in our society. There's almost one pornographic
website for every person in the country. Within all of those
websites out there, they're bound to turn up when children use
Internet search engines to look for information related to
their homework or other innocent topics. But one glimpse of
something like that is an arresting moment. The kid says,
``Hey, what's going on there?'' It's terrible. Obviously,
children shouldn't be exposed to that kind of image. But child
pornography is illegal, because it turns innocent children into
victims. And the pornographic sites on the Internet include an
estimated 100,000 items that feature child pornography.
In 2001, the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children's cyber-tip line received 21,600 reports of child
pornography. In 2004, it went from 21,600, in 2001, to 106,000
reports over a 4-year period.
Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriate reason for us to take
action on Internet pornography, and I applaud the efforts of
the Department of Justice to date. There have been notable
successes in busting major child-pornography businesses,
including an international case brought in the District of New
Jersey. But we've obviously got to do more. These statistics
are alarming, and our work is just beginning. But, thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for initiating this activity today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Nelson?
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON,
U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I want to find out why
the filtering technologies are not working. And I also want to
alert the Committee that online porn is being enhanced by spam
and by spyware--spyware, insidiously entering into the computer
and suddenly taking over your computer. And you can imagine, on
a child's computer, what that could mean as a way of entry for
pornography right into the child's computer.
On spam, obviously the unwanted messages that we all get in
the e-mail--I'll give you example. My Tampa office, that is
within the secure confines of the Federal courthouse in
downtown Tampa, over one night, you come in the next morning,
25 unwanted e-mails, of which five to a U.S. Senate office, are
pornography. This is the kind of insidious evil that is
creeping in, and especially that is victimizing our children.
And I want to know, why are the filtering technologies not
working now?
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator. They're coming
right into this building, as a matter of fact. I got a lot of
them this morning.
Senator Pryor?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my
colleague for her leadership on this, and thank you for
continuing this conversation. I think it's very important and
there are a lot of issues. Senator Nelson mentioned some.
Senator Lautenberg mentioned some. We've all talked about these
in some ways before.
But I remember, back when I was in the Attorney General's
office in Arkansas, we worked hard to try to educate parents
about things--ways to protect their children online. And I want
to tell you, since those days, there's been an avalanche of new
developments and new technologies and new websites. And I just
hope that the Congress will do something about this and make
the Internet a safer place.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Allen?
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding a
hearing this afternoon. This morning, we were concerned about
our children, as far as television is concerned; this
afternoon, over the Internet. And I look at the Internet, as
many of you all heard me say, it's the greatest invention since
the Gutenberg press for the dissemination of information and
ideas. But, just like anything else, whether it's mail,
television, or telephone lines, they can be used in the wrong
way.
And, as far as kids are concerned, parental controls are
very important. And, just like Senator Lincoln, we have young
children. We try to monitor, we have filters. Our filters
actually, the ones we've put on, in the last year or so, have
worked. But the things that Senator Nelson was talking about,
that used to happen to our computers, not just to the kids but
Susan and our computer, just ruins the whole computer, beyond
the offensive content on it.
I look forward to this hearing, to hear from AOL--and
Senator Nelson had questions and so forth--and what AOL is
doing. I think a lot of the providers are recognizing that
consumers are demanding this. What is happening with this,
whether it's spyware, whether it is spam, or whether it is--
and, of course, they mix together on the pornography issue--
further ruining the enjoyment and use of the Internet. And so,
I think there's an interest on the part of the Internet
industry, or the Internet service providers, to help out in
this regard.
I've been supportive also of the Internet Content Rating
Association, encouraging content providers to label their
websites and filters, as far as libraries are concerned. They
end up with a lot of litigation on that from time to time, but
it makes a great deal of sense. In our Commonwealth of
Virginia, our State legislature, with the new attorney general,
Bob McDonald, is putting forward several bills that have to do
with requiring software filters at libraries that block
Internet access to child pornography and other obscene and
harmful material, requiring officers at schools to avoid
dangerous and inappropriate material on the Internet, and
educating. And then there's, and this is going to be a
controversial one, prohibit the facilitating of payment for
accessing child pornography over the Internet. Under no
circumstance is child pornography legal. There may be, for
adults, certain things that are legal. Child pornography, under
any circumstance, is illegal. And no one should be involved in
allowing that to profit.
And so, that's something that's happening in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. I think we're going to get called on
to act here responsibly, because this is not just a State
issue, this is an international issue. And we do have law
enforcement all around the country and States, even Bedford
County, Virginia, and others, working on such matters. But we
need to work as best as we can to allow the free flow of
information, access to information, but also empower
individuals to stop this pornography that is unwanted, and
particularly unwanted to the eyes of young people.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to learning from
our witnesses.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much. Thank you, Senator
Lincoln.
We'll call our first panel, which is James Burrus, Jr.,
Deputy Assistant Director of the Criminal Investigative
Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Laura
Parsky, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,
the Department of Justice.
I might state, while they're being seated, we did pass the
Child Online Protection Act of 1998. It has been challenged in
court. And I'm sure that the people from the Department of
Justice are going to comment about that. I hope they will. But
in the case of Ashcroft versus ACLU, the Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit affirmed a district-court decision that
enforcement of the section concerning distribution of
pornography on the Web should be enjoined because the statute
violates the First Amendment. This is available to anyone that
wants to look at it.
Also, today there is a story in The Mercury News, in
California, about the Administration's request to seek the
databases from the search engines on the Web to determine how
much pornography is being transmitted to children now.
But, Mr. Burrus, you're first, please.
STATEMENT OF JAMES H. BURRUS, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION
Mr. Burrus. Good afternoon, Chairman Stevens.
The Chairman. You might want to turn your mike on and pull
up just a little.
Mr. Burrus. Test. OK.
Good afternoon, Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye,
and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear and provide testimony about the FBI and its work on
Internet-based obscenity and child pornography.
The FBI is taking an aggressive course of action in the
area of obscenity. The FBI formed an Adult Obscenity Squad,
which is located in the Washington, D.C., field office. Agents
assigned to the squad have both the legal expertise and
Internet training to conduct these investigations. The squad
works closely with the Department of Justice Obscenity
Prosecution Task Force to determine, initially, if allegations
meet the legal definition of obscenity, prior to conducting
investigations. Since 2001, the FBI has opened 79 Interstate
Transportation of Obscene Material cases. Of these cases, 52
have been opened since the beginning of 2004, the start of the
initiative.
The exact volume of pornographic material available on the
Internet is very difficult to determine. A Google search of the
word ``pornography'' results in approximately 19 million hits.
A Google search of the word ``obscenity'' results in over three
million hits. And an online search of domain names with the
word ``porn'' or ``sex'' with the dot-com, dot-net, or dot-org
background shows more than 200,000 titles.
The Internet is a new tool for all types of commerce,
including obscenity and child pornography. In the past,
sexually explicit material was available only through direct
purchase or by mail. Direct purchase required the purchaser to
actually go to a merchant, a face-to-face transaction. Mail
purchase was more discreet, but it required a purchaser to use
a credit card, and the product was then mailed to an address of
a person ordering the product. While this eliminated the need
to conduct a face-to-face transaction, an actual videotape or
DVD had to be purchased.
Technological advances have eliminated the need for an
individual to purchase or obtain an actual DVD or videotape. A
person seeking such materials can now go online, order nearly
any media, and have that product downloaded instantly onto the
purchaser's computer. The purchaser can create their own DVD
using the downloaded material. Additionally, live-feed
capabilities of the Internet allow viewing of live sex acts
online with interactive direction. Sexually explicit materials
can be downloaded directly onto pocket-sized portable devices,
such as cell phones and digital music players. More than ever,
sexually explicit materials are cheap, and distribution
channels widespread. With that comes a proliferation of obscene
material and child pornography.
The FBI's lead role in the fight against child pornography
is well known. By teaming up with other law enforcement
agencies, the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children, and the public, we have successfully established
``Innocent Images'' task forces throughout the country and
arrested thousands of predators who would use the Internet to
entice children into exploitive sexual situations.
As an example, in January of 2002, the FBI led an
investigation which resulted in the rescue of a 13-year-old
girl who had been taken to Northern Virginia from Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, by an individual she met on the Internet. The
girl was transported across State lines, held in a residence,
where she was repeatedly sexually assaulted. When the girl was
rescued, she was restrained to a bedpost with a dog collar and
a chain. The subject was identified after bragging on an
Internet chat room and sending photographs of the victim, who
he identified as his ``sex slave.'' The subject was prosecuted
in U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, and sentenced to 17 years in prison.
In the past year, we've increased the number of ``Innocent
Images'' task forces from 28 to 32. Since the inception of the
initiative in 1996, we've seen a 2,000-percent increase in the
number of cases, and a similarly significant number of arrests.
Across the country, more than 250 agents are working on child-
pornography cases day and night with our State and local
partners. We have established working groups outside our
borders, with countries around the world, to combat the sexual
exploitation of children.
To demonstrate the importance of our international
partnerships, let me quickly discuss an investigation which
recently resulted in a North Carolina man being sentenced to
100 years in Federal prison. In late 2003, a detective, working
in Denmark, was conducting an undercover online investigation
when he came across extremely disturbing and violent images of
a young girl being molested and abused by an adult male. The
Danish detective posted the images on an Internet site
maintained by Interpol, where a detective in Toronto, Canada,
recognized something familiar in the images and contacted the
FBI's Innocent Images Unit. An agent assigned to the Innocent
Images Unit was able to identify several numbers on a youth-
organization uniform worn by the victims in one of the images.
This identification was made in spite of efforts by the subject
to blur the numbers and other identifiers in the photographs.
Through the numbers on the uniform, the victim was identified
as a member of a youth organization in Charlotte, North
Carolina. The adult male in the photographs was identified as
her father. A search warrant was executed at the family's
residence, and over 400 photographs of what has been described
as some of the most violent and disturbing images ever
documented by the FBI were recovered. It was also determined
that the subject had been molesting his 8-week-old nephew and
devised a plot to kill his wife if she ever discovered the
abuse.
The FBI and the Department of Justice are committed to
curbing the production and distribution of obscene materials
and child pornography. We look forward to working with this
committee to accomplish this goal.
I would be happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burrus follows:]
Prepared Statement of James H. Burrus, Jr., Deputy Assistant Director,
Criminal Investigative Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Good afternoon Chairman Stevens, Ranking Member Inouye and Members
of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear and provide
testimony about the FBI and its work on Internet-based obscenity and
child pornography.
The FBI is taking an aggressive course of action in the area of
obscenity. The FBI formed an Adult Obscenity Squad which is located in
the Washington, D.C., Field Office. Agents assigned to the squad have
both the legal expertise and internet training to conduct these
investigations. The squad works closely with the Department of
Justice's Obscenity Prosecution Task Force to initially determine if
allegations meet the legal definition of obscenity prior to conducting
investigations. Since 2001, the FBI has opened 79 Interstate
Transportation of Obscene Material (ITOM) cases. Of these cases, 52
were opened since the beginning of FY 2004, the start of the
initiative.
The exact volume of pornographic material available through the
Internet is difficult to determine. A ``Google'' search of the word
``pornography'' results in approximately 19,000,000 hits. A ``Google''
search of the word ``obscenity'' results in over 3,000,000 hits. An
online search for domain names with the words ``porn'' or ``sex'' with
the com/net/org shows more than 200,000 titles.
The Internet is a new tool for all types of commerce, including
obscenity and child pornography. In the past, sexually explicit
material was available through direct purchase or the mail. Direct
purchase required the purchaser to actually go to a merchant--a face-
to-face transaction. Mail purchase was more discreet. It required a
purchaser to use a credit card and the product was then mailed to the
address of the person ordering the product. While this eliminated the
need to conduct a face-to-face transaction, an actual videotape or DVD
had to be purchased.
Technological advances have eliminated the need for an individual
to purchase or obtain an actual DVD or videotape. A person seeking such
materials can now go online, order nearly any media and have that
product downloaded instantly onto the purchaser's computer. The
purchaser can create their own DVD using the downloaded material.
Additionally, the live feed capabilities of the Internet allow viewing
of live sex acts online with interactive direction. Sexually explicit
materials can be downloaded directly onto pocket-size portable devices
such as cell phones and digital music players. More than ever, sexually
explicit materials are cheap, and distribution channels widespread.
With that comes the proliferation of obscene material and child
pornography.
The FBI's lead role in the fight against child pornography is well
known. By teaming up with other law enforcement agencies, the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and the public, we
have successfully established ``Innocent Images'' task forces
throughout the country and arrested thousands of predators who would
use the Internet to entice children into exploitive sexual situations.
As an example, in January of 2002, the FBI led an investigation
which resulted in the rescue of a thirteen year old girl who had been
taken to Northern Virginia from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania by an
individual she met on the Internet. The girl was transported across
state lines and held in a residence where she was repeatedly sexually
assaulted. When the girl was rescued, she was restrained to a bed post
with a dog collar and a chain. The subject was identified after
bragging in an Internet chat room and sending photographs of the victim
whom he identified as his ``sex slave''. The subject was prosecuted in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania and sentenced to seventeen years in prison.
In the past year, we have increased the number of these task forces
from 28 to 32. Since the inception of the ``Innocent Images''
initiative in 1996, we have seen a 2,000-percent increase in the number
of cases and a similarly significant increase in the number of arrests.
Across the country more than 240 Agents are working child pornography
cases day and night with our state and local partners. We have trained
these partners in digital evidence collection so they have the tools to
fight this crime problem. And it is a big problem.
We have also established working groups outside our borders, with
countries around the world to combat the sexual exploitation of
children. To demonstrate the importance of our international
partnerships, let me discuss an investigation which recently resulted
in a North Carolina man being sentenced to one hundred years in Federal
prison. In late 2003, a detective in Denmark was conducting an
undercover, online investigation when he came upon extremely disturbing
and violent images of a young girl being molested and abused by an
adult male. The Danish detective posted the images on an Internet site
maintained by Interpol where a detective in Toronto, Canada, recognized
something familiar in the images and contacted the FBI's Innocent
Images Unit. An FBI Agent assigned to the Innocent Images Unit was able
to identify several numbers on a youth organization uniform worn by the
victim in one of the images. This identification was made despite
efforts made by the subject to blur the numbers and other potential
identifiers in the photographs. Through the numbers on the uniform, the
victim was identified as a member of a youth organization in the
Charlotte, North Carolina area. The adult male in the photographs was
identified as her father. A search warrant was executed at the family's
residence and over 400 photographs, as what has been described as some
of the most violent and disturbing images ever documented by the FBI,
were recovered. It was also determined that the subject had been
molesting his eight-week-old nephew and had devised a plot to kill his
wife if she ever discovered the abuse.
The FBI and the Department of Justice are committed to curbing the
production and distribution of obscene materials and child pornography.
We look forward to working with this committee to accomplish this
worthwhile goal. I would be happy to answer any questions.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Ms. Parsky?
STATEMENT OF LAURA H. PARSKY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ms. Parsky. Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and distinguished
Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify
before you today about the Department of Justice's efforts to
protect children on the Internet.
While we recognize that the Internet is an amazing medium
for the dissemination of ideas and information, and can deeply
enrich our lives, we also know that it can be exploited for
criminal activity and can cause grave harm, including by
facilitating child pornography and obscenity crimes, as well as
by making sexually explicit material available to children. The
Department of Justice is unequivocally committed to protecting
children and society as a whole by enforcing Federal laws in
these areas.
Let me first address child pornography. Federal law
prohibits all aspects of the child pornography trade, including
its production, receipt, transportation, distribution,
advertising, and possession. Unfortunately, the very term we
commonly use to describe these awful images, ``child
pornography,'' does not adequately convey the horrors these
images depict. A more accurate term would be ``images of child
sexual abuse,'' because the production of these images involves
the sexual abuse of a child. Very regrettably, in the past
several years the children abused in these images have been
younger and younger, and the abuse has been increasingly more
severe.
As if that were not enough, the sexual abuse depicted in
these images is increasingly exacerbated by pedophiles who
disseminate them over the Internet. The images are then passed
endlessly from offender to offender, and may whet the appetite
of another pedophile to inflict similar abuse on yet another
child. We are absolutely committed to stopping this cycle of
abuse.
Child pornographers employ the ever-evolving technology of
the Internet to commit their deviant crimes. In order to ensure
our ability to combat them in this changing technological
environment, the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice
created the High-Tech Investigative Unit, HTIU, within the
Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, known as CEOS, in
August of 2002. The HTIU consists of computer forensic
specialists who team with expert prosecutors to enable us to
prosecute the most complex and advanced offenses against
children committed online.
Offenders distribute child pornography over the Internet in
a variety of ways, including online groups or communities, file
servers, Internet Relay Chat, e-mail, peer-to-peer networks,
and websites. We investigate and prosecute offenses involving
each and every one of these technologies.
Further, the Department of Justice works continuously to
identify the vulnerabilities of the child pornography industry
and to attack them at every angle, both domestically and
overseas. We are focusing our efforts on all offenders involved
in these crimes, from the customer to the website operator to
the facilitators, including those who provide credit card
processing and subscription services.
A concrete reflection of our intensified efforts is the
fact that CEOS already has generated a more than 445 percent
increase in its caseload handled in the past 4 years, including
child pornography cases and investigations. In addition to
increasing the sheer number of investigations and prosecutions
brought by these attorneys, the quality and import of the cases
has increased substantially, with a focus on the producers and
commercial distributors of the material. Similarly, the 94 U.S.
Attorneys Offices have also greatly increased their efforts.
For example, total Federal prosecutions of child pornography
cases rose from 352 cases in 1997 to 1,486 cases in 2004, a
more than 422 percent increase, while total Federal
prosecutions of enticement and sexual abuse cases more than
doubled in this same time frame.
The other major component of the Department's enforcement
efforts against sexually explicit material on the Internet is
our obscenity enforcement program. Federal law prohibits a
variety of activities related to obscene material on the
Internet. Underlying all Federal obscenity statutes is the
obscenity test set forth in the Supreme Court's opinion in
Miller v. California, in which community standards play an
important role. To ensure we properly apply this test, we team
with prosecutors from the local United States Attorneys'
Offices who know the standards of their own communities.
Much as it has transformed child pornography offenses, the
Internet has also transformed obscenity offenses. Over the last
several years, online obscenity offenses have substantially
increased, if not exploded. In response to this explosive
increase, and as part of the Administration's firm commitment
to enforce the Nation's obscenity laws, over the past 5 years,
the Department of Justice has revived and significantly
enhanced its obscenity enforcement program. Specifically, there
have been 47 obscenity convictions of persons or entities
Department-wide since 2001, and we currently have obscenity
indictments pending against 12 persons or entities. CEOS has
led the Department's efforts in this area, prosecuting high-
impact obscenity offenders and businesses using Internet
websites to distribute obscenity.
In order to further enhance our obscenity enforcement
efforts, just last year the Department of Justice established
the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force within the Criminal
Division. The Task Force focuses exclusively on obscenity
prosecution, supplementing the ongoing work being done in CEOS
and in United States Attorneys' Offices across the country.
In these brief comments, I hope to have given you a sense
of the Department of Justice's efforts to protect children, as
well as society at large, by enforcing Federal statutes
concerning sexually explicit material available on the
Internet.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank you and the Committee for the
opportunity to speak to you today, and I'd be happy to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Parsky follows:]
Prepared Statement of Laura H. Parsky, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye, and distinguished Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today about
the Department of Justice's enforcement efforts against sexually
explicit material available on the Internet. From a criminal law
perspective, our jurisdiction is predominantly focused on child
pornography and obscene material. While we recognize that the Internet
is an amazing medium for the dissemination of ideas and information and
can deeply enrich our lives, we also know that it can be exploited for
criminal activity and can cause grave harm, including by facilitating
child pornography and obscenity crimes, as well as making sexually
explicit material available to children. Accordingly, the Department of
Justice is unequivocally committed to enforcing Federal laws in these
areas.
Child Pornography
Let me first address child pornography, which the Supreme Court has
ruled carries no First Amendment protection. See New York v. Ferber,
458 U.S. 747 (1982). Federal law, codified at Chapter 110 of Title 18,
United States Code, prohibits all aspects of the child pornography
trade, including its production, receipt, transportation, distribution,
advertising, and possession.
Unfortunately, the very term we commonly use to describe these
awful images--child pornography--does not adequately convey the horrors
these images depict. A more accurate term would be ``images of child
sexual abuse,'' because the production of these images involves the
sexual abuse of a child. These images are thus permanent visual records
of child sexual abuse. In the past several years, the children we have
seen in these images have been younger and younger, and, very
regrettably, the abuse depicted has been increasingly more severe and
is often sadistic.
As if the images themselves were not harmful enough, the sexual
abuse inherent in child pornography is increasingly exacerbated by
pedophiles who choose to disseminate these images to millions of people
over the Internet with a few clicks of a computer mouse. Once on the
Internet, the images are passed endlessly from offender to offender,
and perhaps used to whet the appetite of another pedophile to act out
the deviant fantasies of the image on yet another child, thereby
continuing the cycle of abuse. The Department of Justice is absolutely
committed to obliterating this intolerable evil.
Because child pornographers continue to find ways to employ the
ever-evolving technology of the Internet and computers to commit their
deviant crimes, we in law enforcement must respond to these
technological advances in order to effectively to combat these crimes.
In order to ensure our ability to do so, the Criminal Division created
the High-Tech Investigative Unit (HTIU) within the Child Exploitation
and Obscenity Section (CEOS) in August 2002. The HTIU consists of
computer forensic specialists who team with expert prosecutors to
ensure the Department of Justice's capacity and capability to prosecute
the most complex and advanced offenses against children committed
online. HTIU computer forensic specialists render expert forensic
assistance and testimony in districts across the country in the most
complex child pornography prosecutions conducted by the Department.
Additionally, the HTIU currently receives and reviews hundreds of tips
per month from citizens and non-governmental organizations, such as the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and initiates
investigations from these tips.
Child pornography is distributed over the Internet in a variety of
ways, including: online groups or communities, file servers, Internet
Relay Chat, e-mail, peer-to-peer networks, and websites. The Department
of Justice investigates and prosecutes offenses involving each of these
technologies. Sophisticated investigative techniques, often involving
undercover operations, are required to hold these offenders accountable
for their crimes. For example, an investigation of a commercial child
pornography website requires us not only to determine where the servers
hosting the website are located and who are the persons responsible for
operating the website, but also to follow the path of the financial
transactions offenders use to purchase the child pornography, whether
by credit card or other means. Such cases require detailed information
about all aspects of the transaction in order to determine the identity
and location of the offenders. Additionally, many of these cases
require coordination with law enforcement from other countries. It is
essential that these complex cases be handled by law enforcement agents
and prosecutors with the necessary specialized expertise.
The Department of Justice works continuously to identify the
vulnerabilities of the child pornography industry and to attack them at
every angle, both domestically and overseas. We are focusing our
efforts on everyone, from the customer, to the website operator, to the
facilitators--including those who provide credit card processing and
subscription services. A concrete reflection of our intensified efforts
is the fact that CEOS already has generated a more than 445-percent
increase in its caseload, including child pornography cases and
investigations, handled in the past four years. In addition to
increasing the sheer number of investigations and prosecutions brought
by these attorneys, the quality and import of the cases has increased
substantially, with a focus on the producers and commercial
distributors of the material.
The 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices are critical to the efforts to
enforce Federal laws prohibiting crimes against children, prosecuting
large numbers of cases. Total Federal prosecutions of child pornography
cases rose from 352 cases in 1997 to 1,486 cases in 2004, a more than
422 percent increase. Federal prosecutions of enticement and sexual
abuse cases more than doubled in this same time frame, jumping from 230
in 1997 to 518 in 2004. In Fiscal Year 2005, U.S. Attorneys' Offices
initiated 1,447 cases pursuant to child exploitation and child
pornography statutes. The number of Federal investigations of crimes
against children continues to increase at an exponential rate. Arrests
made under the FBI's Innocent Images national initiative to target
child pornography and child enticement jumped 1,015 percent between
1996 and 2003 nationally, suggesting that the number of Federal
prosecutions of these offenders is likely to continue to rise
significantly.
Moreover, CEOS enhances Federal law enforcement's fight against
child pornography by disseminating its specialized expertise to the
field. CEOS conducts advanced training seminars on the investigation
and prosecution of child exploitation cases attended by Assistant
United States Attorneys and Federal law enforcement agents from all
over the country. CEOS also provides critical expert assistance to the
field in a variety of other ways. CEOS attorneys are on call to answer
questions from prosecutors in the field about how best to investigate
or prosecute their cases. CEOS also keeps field agents and prosecutors
abreast of current legal and technological developments through such
mechanisms as its quarterly newsletter. Most importantly, CEOS' expert
resources are widely employed by the United States Attorneys' Offices
to resolve the most difficult issues presented in child exploitation
cases and to ensure a successful prosecution.
CEOS is currently coordinating 16 multi-district operations
involving child pornography offenders. These investigations of national
impact have the potential for maximum deterrent effect on offenders.
Nearly each one of the 16 investigations involves hundreds or
thousands, and in a few cases tens of thousands, of offenders. The
coordination of these operations is complex, but the results can be
tremendous. By way of example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) is currently investigating the distribution of child pornography
on various Yahoo! Groups, which are ``member-only'' online bulletin
boards. The most recent report from the FBI indicates that the
investigation has yielded 180 search warrants, 75 arrests, 130
indictments, and over 60 convictions.
The Department of Justice is also working to identify and rescue
victims depicted in images of child pornography. One method for
achieving this goal is already underway. The FBI Endangered Child Alert
Program (ECAP) was launched on February 21, 2004, by the FBI's Innocent
Images Unit, and is conducted in partnership with CEOS. The purpose of
ECAP is proactively to identify unknown offenders depicted in images of
child pornography engaging in the sexual exploitation of children.
Since ECAP's inception, seven of these ``John Doe'' subjects have been
profiled by America's Most Wanted, and with the assistance of tips from
viewers, six have been identified. More importantly, 35 victims (so
far) in Indiana, Montana, Texas, Colorado, and Canada have been
identified as a result of this initiative. All of the victims had been
sexually abused over a period of years, some since infancy. CEOS will
continue to ensure that this program is utilized to its maximum
potential.
The Department recently has had substantial success in destroying
several major child pornography operations. Two examples are United
States v. Mariscal (S.D. Fla.) and Regpay/Operation Falcon (D.N.J.). In
Mariscal, Angel Mariscal received a 100-year prison sentence on
September 30, 2004 in the Southern District of Florida, after being
convicted on seven charges including conspiracy to produce,
importation, distribution, advertising, and possession with intent to
sell child pornography. Mariscal traveled repeatedly over a seven-year
period to Cuba and Ecuador, where he produced and manufactured child
pornography, including videotapes of Mariscal sexually abusing minors,
some under the age of 12. As a result of Mariscal's arrest, his
customers across the country were targeted in Operation Lost Innocence,
which was coordinated by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and CEOS.
To date, Lost Innocence has resulted in 107 searches, 55 arrests/
indictments, and 44 convictions.
United States v. Zalatarou (D.N.J.) (Regpay), which led to
Operation Falcon, is an example of how one child pornography
investigation can lead to the apprehension of many other offenders.
Regpay was a Belarus-based company that provided credit card processing
services to hundreds of commercial child pornography websites. Regpay
contracted with a Florida company, Connections USA, to access a
merchant bank in the United States. In February 2005, several Regpay
defendants pled guilty to various conspiracy, child pornography, and
money laundering offenses in the District of New Jersey. Connections
USA and several of its employees also pled guilty in connection with
this case. The Regpay investigation spawned the U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement's Operation Falcon, an international child
pornography trafficking investigation that so far has resulted in 448
open investigations, 130 search warrants in the U.S., 191 domestic and
approximately 767 foreign arrests (in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Hong
Kong, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Sweden,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), and 47 domestic indictments,
generating 14 convictions.
Obscenity
The other major component of the Department's enforcement efforts
against sexually explicit material on the Internet is our obscenity
enforcement program. Federal law, codified at Chapter 71 of Title 18,
United States Code, prohibits a variety of activities related to
obscene material. Provisions which particularly apply to the Internet
are those which prohibit transporting obscene material in interstate or
foreign commerce using an interactive computer service, transporting
obscene material in such a manner for sale or distribution, or
knowingly transferring obscene material to a person under the age of 16
using any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce. The
Department of Justice also enforces the Truth in Domain Names statute,
Section 2252B of Title 18, which prohibits using a misleading domain
name to cause persons to view obscene material or to cause minors to
view material harmful to them.
Underlying all Federal obscenity statutes is the obscenity test set
forth in the Supreme Court's opinion in Miller v. California, 413 U.S.
15 (1973). Under Miller, obscene material does not enjoy First
Amendment protection. Accordingly, the complexities in obscenity law
arise not in determining whether traffic in obscene material can
constitutionally be prohibited, but rather in determining what is
obscene. Miller provides a three-part test used to make this
determination. The first part is that the average person, applying
contemporary community standards, would find that the material, taken
as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. The second part is that
the material depicts or describes hard-core sexual conduct in a
patently offensive way. The third part is that the material, taken as a
whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value. If any of these three parts is not met, the material cannot be
considered obscene under Miller.
Given the Miller test, in pursuing obscenity prosecutions we
proceed on the premise that all hard-core pornography is potentially
obscene and judge each potential prosecution individually on its own
merits. Since community standards play a key role in applying the
Miller test, in our approach we take care to consider the views of the
local community as we make these prosecution decisions. Typically,
Criminal Division prosecutors ensure that they take local community
views into account by teaming with prosecutors from the United States
Attorney's Office on these cases. As local Federal prosecutors are
familiar with the standards of their own communities, this team
approach ensures that we properly apply the Miller test when evaluating
potential obscenity cases for possible prosecution.
Despite recent challenges to the constitutionality of the obscenity
statutes, these statutes continue to be constitutionally sound. In its
recent opinion in United States v. Extreme Associates, 431 F.3d 150 (3d
Cir. 2005), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality
of these statutes by rejecting a defense claim that Federal obscenity
statutes violate the due process clause of the Sixth Amendment. In its
ruling, the Third Circuit rejected the defense's argument that the
Supreme Court's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003),
created a substantive due process right to protect commercial
distribution of obscene material, stating that ``Congress may prevent
interstate commerce and the channels thereof from being used to spread
evil of a physical, moral or economic nature.'' We believe the Third
Circuit's opinion will make it unlikely that other obscenity defendants
will be able successfully to attack the constitutionality of Federal
obscenity statutes.
Like so many other commodities, the distribution of obscenity has
significantly migrated to the Internet. The obscenity industry has a
widespread presence on the Internet, and over the last several years,
online obscenity offenses have substantially increased, if not
exploded. The Internet has encouraged growth on both the supply and
demand sides of the obscenity market. It has greatly eased offenders'
task of offering and distributing obscene material, while it has also
made it much easier for those who want to view such material to obtain
it. Moreover, offenders extensively use ``spam'' and other such
invasive means to advertise their material. Perhaps because obscenity
is now so widespread, there is a trend among offenders to differentiate
themselves from other suppliers by offering more and more extreme
material. Obscenity offenders essentially are now competing to offer
the most egregious material in hopes of selling material to consumers
who seek the most shocking items. This is an alarming trend that we are
working hard to curtail.
Another significant effect of the migration of obscenity to the
Internet, and perhaps the most disturbing, is the endangerment of
children. This is especially true when spam is used to market obscene
material. To give you a sense of the problem, from September 1, 2002,
through December 11, 2005, the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children reported 2,317 tips of unsolicited obscene material
sent to a child. Every one of these tips alleged that a child was
actually exposed to unsolicited obscene material via the Internet.
In response to the explosive increase in obscenity offenses and as
part of this Administration's firm commitment to enforce the Nation's
obscenity laws, over the past five years the Department of Justice has
revived and significantly enhanced its obscenity enforcement program.
Specifically, there have been 47 obscenity convictions of persons or
entities Department-wide since 2001, and we currently have obscenity
indictments pending against 12 persons or entities. CEOS has led the
Department's efforts in this area, prosecuting high-impact obscenity
offenders and businesses using Internet websites to distribute
obscenity with the inherent capacity to afford widespread access to the
public. As explained above, given the importance of community standards
under the Miller test, CEOS has pursued these cases working in
conjunction with U.S. Attorneys' Offices.
Moreover, in order to further enhance our obscenity enforcement
efforts, just last year the Department of Justice established the
Obscenity Prosecution Task Force within the Criminal Division. The Task
Force focuses exclusively on obscenity prosecution, thereby
supplementing the ongoing obscenity work being done in CEOS and in U.S.
Attorneys' Offices around the country. The Task Force is positioned to
draw upon the specialized expertise of Criminal Division attorneys in
the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section, the Asset Forfeiture and
Money Laundering Section, and the Computer Crime and Intellectual
Property Section, whose skills and expertise are often pertinent to
obscenity prosecutions. The Task Force is working with U.S. Attorneys'
Offices across the country to develop effective obscenity prosecutions
and has partnered with a Postal Inspector, assigned full-time to work
with the Task Force, and a team of agents from the FBI devoted solely
to making cases against national-scale obscenity distributors.
Two major cases in recent years that provide excellent insight into
the Department's commitment to obscenity enforcement are United States
v. Coil (W.D. Tex.) and United States v. Wedelstedt (N.D. Tex.). In
Coil, CEOS partnered with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western
District of Texas in the investigation and prosecution of a major
supplier of adult-oriented materials. Seven individuals were charged in
a multi-count indictment with fraud, tax, obscenity, and conspiracy
offenses related to the operations of adult-oriented businesses in
three states. All seven defendants have pled guilty, and significant
criminal penalties were imposed. The lead defendant, John Kenneth Coil,
agreed to forfeit all his enterprise properties within the state of
Texas, amounting to over 40 pieces of realty and 20 stores throughout
the state. He was sentenced to 63 months imprisonment to be followed by
three years of supervised release, a $5,000 fine, and forfeiture of an
estimated $8.1 million in property.
In the Wedelstedt case, being prosecuted by CEOS and the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas in substantial
cooperation with the Tax Division, the Criminal Division's Asset
Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section and Organized Crime and
Racketeering Section, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, seven individuals and a company
were indicted on March 11, 2005 for numerous crimes including
racketeering, conspiracy, obscenity, and tax offenses. The indictment
addressed the criminal activities of Edward J. Wedelstedt and his
wholly-owned, multi-million dollar corporation, called Goalie
Entertainment Holdings, Inc., related to the operation throughout the
country of adult pornography bookstores with video arcades where
customers could pay to view clips of obscene videos or DVDs. Several
convictions have already resulted from this indictment, including that
of lead defendant Wedelstedt, who pled guilty on November 4, 2005, to
transporting obscene matters for sale or distribution (in violation of
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1465) and engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the United
States by frustrating, impeding, or hindering the Internal Revenue
Service (in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 371). Wedelstedt's plea
subjects him to a 13-month prison sentence to be followed by one year
of supervised release. Wedelstedt will also face forfeiture of
businesses and property located in Texas. Further, Wedelstedt has
already forfeited $1.25 million to the United States government in
connection with this investigation. Wedelstedt is scheduled to be
sentenced on February 9, 2006.
Additional Legislative Tools That Would Assist Our Efforts in These
Areas
In closing, I'd like to note that the Department of Justice has
developed several legislative proposals for Congressional action to
improve prosecutors' ability to crack down on obscenity and sexual
exploitation of children. Several of these proposals were included in
Title VIII of H.R. 3132, which passed the House of Representatives last
fall. Our proposals would establish the nexus to interstate commerce in
child pornography cases, broaden the obscenity statutes to cover the
production of obscenity, and enhance our ability to attack the
financial assets of purveyors of such material. The proposals would
also strengthen the Federal Government's ability to prevent children
from being used in pornography by enhancing the current statutory
scheme of identity checks and recordkeeping in Section 2257 of Title
18, United States Code. Additionally, one of our proposals not
contained in H.R. 3132 would allow us to use administrative subpoenas
in obscenity investigations, as is authorized for child pornography
cases. The enactment of these provisions would significantly assist our
enforcement efforts in these critical areas. We are also grateful to
Senators Hatch and Brownback for recently introducing S. 2140, which
includes several of the reforms contained in the House-passed bill to
strengthen the age-related recordkeeping requirements imposed on
producers of sexually explicit material, thereby bolstering
prosecutors' ability to pursue cases involving the exploitation of
minors by this industry.
Conclusion
In these brief comments, I hope to have given you a sense of the
Department of Justice's efforts to enforce Federal criminal laws
concerning sexually explicit material available on the Internet. We
consider this a critically important task and will continue to do our
utmost to protect children as well as society at large by enforcing
these statutes.
Mr. Chairman, I again thank you and the Committee for the
opportunity to speak to you today, and I would be pleased to answer any
questions the Committee might have.
Senator Bill Nelson. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I
did not point out that Ms. Parsky comes from a long line in a
family of public servants. Her father was the Deputy Secretary
of the Treasury under President Reagan, a personal friend of
mine that I went to law school with.
The Chairman. All of your statement will be printed in the
record. I notice you shortened it quite a bit, and I thank you
for that, Ms. Parsky, but we'll print it in full.
Mr. Burrus, do you need any more tools, legislatively or
financially, to carry out the work that we want you to do to
protect children on the Internet?
Mr. Burrus. No, sir. I think we're doing as best we can. We
always enjoy additional resources, and, with that, we could
expand our mission, but we have a variety of priorities within
the Department of Justice, within the FBI, and we're able to
work within those and within the President's budget.
The Chairman. Have you been personally involved in any of
these cases?
Mr. Burrus. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Have you found that the laws that we have
currently on the books now give you enough authority to really
pursue any use of pornography, and directing it toward
children, or sexual abuse of children?
Mr. Burrus. The laws that we've found so far, especially as
it relates to possession, distribution, manufacturing of child
pornography, as law enforcement officers, we'd always like to
see stronger penalties, but obviously we're able to work with
the laws that we have. I think they're well defined, and we've
been able to, we've been wildly successful in both our
investigations and our prosecutions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Parsky, how about your part of the Department? I'm a
former U.S. Attorney. I don't know how many others are around
here. But do you believe the U.S. Attorneys' Offices are
equipped to handle the prosecutions you mentioned?
Ms. Parsky. Well, I think that the U.S. Attorneys' Offices
have risen to the occasion. This--as has been recognized by all
the Senators here today, this is an immense problem, and it's
been growing incredibly quickly. The one thing I would point
out is that the Administration did submit several legislative
proposals to the Hill, and most of them are currently included
in H.R. 3132, which passed the House in September of last year.
Some of the provisions that we had put forward would assist us
in prosecuting child pornography, child exploitation, and
obscenity crimes. Some of those provisions are strengthening
the Congressional findings that establish the nexus between
child pornography and interstate commerce, strengthening the
recordkeeping provisions of 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 to make
clear that the type of content that's covered mirrors that of
the child pornography statutes, and making clear that the
producers who are covered by the statute include not only those
who are directly involved in the filming or production of child
pornography, but also those who publish it, and also
strengthening the enforceability of that statute. In addition,
our proposals included some forfeiture provisions and to
criminalize the production with the intent to distribute or
sell obscenity.
The Chairman. Are those Judiciary Committee bills you're
talking about?
Ms. Parsky. I believe so.
The Chairman. Yes.
Well, thank you very much, and thank you for what you do.
Senator Inouye?
Senator Inouye. Thank you.
I've been advised that many of the purveyors of child
pornography are from outside the United States. Do you have
sufficient tools to combat them?
Mr. Burrus. Yes, sir. We are working, in our Innocent
Images, offsite in Calverton, with 15 countries overseas. One
of the things that we're trying to do is to provide them with
the training necessary to combat this within their own
countries. We impart to them the fact that it's their children
that are being exploited, it's their money that corrupts the
citizens of their country. And they've been receptive to that.
We would like to see that grow internationally. And this
clearly has to be an international effort. But we think our
effort is growing and that we have the tools, at this point, to
do what we need to.
Ms. Parsky. If I may add to that, there is one treaty
that's currently pending for ratification that would provide
additional tools that would be extremely useful in child
pornography cases and obscenity cases, and that's the Council
of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime. This is a treaty that the
Administration transmitted to Congress, I believe, in 2003. And
what it does is, it provides--for all the other countries that
we might go to, to seek electronic evidence--it provides for
their procedural laws to be up to speed with United States laws
so that we can expeditiously get the evidence we need when our
path leads us abroad.
Senator Inouye. Is there such a thing as a profile of a
child pornographer?
Mr. Burrus. Unfortunately, no. What we find is that those
interested in child pornography range all the way, in all ages,
all professions, all demographics, black, white, African-
American, Asian. That's the unfortunate thing about it. There
is no profile that we can really use.
What we do know about them, though, is that they frequently
are very technically savvy, they exchange images very easily,
they are very aware of the latest technologies and the latest
tools. What we find, Senator, is that many times when we begin
to monitor particular chat rooms, they will migrate to other
chat rooms where the children are, and that's a particularly
disturbing trend. But we're following it, and you can bet we
will do our best with that.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes, sir.
Senator Burns?
Senator Burns. I might remind the Committee there's a
couple of organizations out there that are peer groups like i-
SAFE and SafeSchools and this type of thing that use corporate
dollars in their work, and most of the work is done in middle
schools, seventh grade through ninth grade. And I've been
involved in those organizations. And, Mr. Burrus, I've sat in
the Billings office and watched your people work those chat
rooms, and catching--and they've been fairly successful in
Montana, I want to tell you. But it takes special training, and
it takes a special person to sit there and just chat, and they
know all, I was surprised, they know all the lingo. But they
catch them. And I would suggest my colleagues here on this
committee, when you go home, you should contact your local
office and sit up there and see the equipment. And, really, the
equipment--they've kind of glued it together. It looks like
sort of a Sadie Hawkins kind of an affair. But, nonetheless,
they're very good, and I want to congratulate you on that,
because they have worked. I know the people that were working
in Billings caught a guy in Missoula, one in Bozeman, It's kind
of tricky, and you've got to be very careful, and stay within
the law, but, nonetheless, they do a great job.
We think that prevention is a lot better than just a
prosecution. Education, working with peer groups and kids of
that age in middle school. We find out that, now we're forming
these groups, if they hear about it, they talk to their friend,
they warn them, and that's the way school principals have
picked up on this, and it's very, very successful. And I know
the problem that's out there, because I sat there one night,
from 8 o'clock at night until midnight. But I just want to
congratulate you on that, because the training of those men and
women, by the way, is very, very good.
As far as us passing laws, I would agree with Senator
Lincoln that the Internet is just a great big old town out
there, and there are places to go, and there are places not to
go. The worst thing you can do is to give a child, a teenager,
a computer and let them put it in their own room where they've
got some privacy. Always keep them in your kitchen, and usually
some of those problems go away.
But we have worked on the Internet a long time. It's not
always legislation, but public awareness. More than anything
else, it's public awareness and knowing that they have people
to come to if they need help or get caught in a bad trap,
coming to know where to go and what to do.
So, thank you, both of you, for your testimony. But I just
wanted to thank Mr. Burrus and his fine organization for doing
a great job up there. And I know this is a labor of love,
because most of them have teenage children, and they understand
what's out there. And they work long hours. And so, I just
appreciate what you've done and the dedication of your
Department.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Pryor?
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask the two witnesses this. In terms of minors being
exposed to pornography on the Internet, there is software
available, apparently, that--people who sell wine and liquors,
et cetera, on the Internet have age-verification software. I
don't know exactly how it works, but would that be any
deterrent whatsoever to young people who are on the Internet
who might be looking for pornography?
Mr. Burrus. I think perhaps those who operate the portals
would be better left to answer that, because of the technical,
how does it work, how do you get around it, are there are
exceptions for it? I think it would be, certainly, something
worthwhile to explore.
Ms. Parsky. I guess my response to that would be that, you
know, we're looking for the entire community to help in this
effort, because it is such a vast problem, and it really takes
everyone--parents, private sector, public sector--to all be
working together against this. But, again, the devil's in the
details with a lot of those types of programs, as to how they
really work and whether they're effective.
Senator Pryor. Yes, I agree with you. And I know that ICANN
has come out with this concept of putting all adult websites
with the ending triple-X. Are you all familiar with that
proposal?--instead of dot-com, dot-whatever, it would be dot-
xxx. And I think, on the one hand, that that would be good, in
the sense that you could require all adult sites to use that, I
would think. And it might--there might be more transparency
there. And for the parents out there who are trying to monitor
this, that would be a clear warning sign of things to avoid.
But, also, it might be easier for minors to locate pornographic
websites. Do you all have any thoughts on the triple-X suffix,
if that has any bearing on this?
Ms. Parsky. I think, again, without--I mean, you know,
we'd--we're always happy to look at specific proposals, but, in
any type of proposal like that, there are issues of
practicality and how would it really be implemented and whether
it would be effective.
Senator Pryor. And, you know, again, back--going back to
the attorney-general days, I know that we've tried very hard to
educate young people--teenagers, et cetera--about smoking and
drug use and things like that. My impression is, right now,
there's not been--maybe I'm wrong about this; maybe someone can
correct me--but there's not been a very strong effort in the
public-relations world to educate young people about--or
families, for that matter--about the pitfalls of pornography,
and the dangers of pornography, and child predators, et cetera,
on the Internet. I know, again, back in the Attorney General's
Office in Arkansas, we did some of that. We had very limited
resources, but we did try to do some of that. We work with our
State police very closely to try to help in various ways. I'm
sure other States have done some of that. But do you think that
having a good, broad-based, well-funded public-relations
campaign--education campaign might be helpful in this, or would
that have any effect?
Mr. Burrus. Senator, if I might, first of all, I've brought
along some brochures today that the FBI makes thousands of
presentations every year to community groups, to school groups.
I was the special agent in charge in Salt Lake City, and had
the pleasure of serving Senator Burns' district, and we make
these presentations all the time. If I might, Mr. Chairman,
I'll leave copies of this that perhaps could be entered into
the record.
[The information previously referred to follows:]
FBI Publications
A Parent's Guide to Internet Safety
Dear Parent:
Our children are our Nation's most valuable asset. They represent
the bright future of our country and hold our hopes for a better
Nation. Our children are also the most vulnerable members of society.
Protecting our children against the fear of crime and from becoming
victims of crime must be a national priority.
Unfortunately the same advances in computer and telecommunication
technology that allow our children to reach out to new sources of
knowledge and cultural experiences are also leaving them vulnerable to
exploitation and harm by computer-sex offenders.
I hope that this pamphlet helps you to begin to understand the
complexities of on-line child exploitation. For further information,
please contact your local FBI office or the National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children at 1-800-843-5678.
Louis J. Freeh,
Former Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Introduction
While on-line computer exploration opens a world of possibilities
for children, expanding their horizons and exposing them to different
cultures and ways of life, they can be exposed to dangers as they hit
the road exploring the information highway. There are individuals who
attempt to sexually exploit children through the use of on-line
services and the Internet. Some of these individuals gradually seduce
their targets through the use of attention, affection, kindness, and
even gifts. These individuals are often willing to devote considerable
amounts of time, money, and energy in this process. They listen to and
empathize with the problems of children. They will be aware of the
latest music, hobbies, and interests of children. These individuals
attempt to gradually lower children's inhibitions by slowly introducing
sexual context and content into their conversations.
There are other individuals, however, who immediately engage in
sexually explicit conversation with children. Some offenders primarily
collect and trade child-pornographic images, while others seek face-to-
face meetings with children via on-line contacts. It is important for
parents to understand that children can be indirectly victimized
through conversation, i.e., ``chat,'' as well as the transfer of
sexually explicit information and material. Computer-sex offenders may
also be evaluating children they come in contact with on-line for
future face-to-face contact and direct victimization. Parents and
children should remember that a computer-sex offender can be any age or
sex, the person does not have to fit the caricature of a dirty,
unkempt, older man wearing a raincoat to be someone who could harm a
child.
Children, especially adolescents, are sometimes interested in and
curious about sexuality and sexually explicit material. They may be
moving away from the total control of parents and seeking to establish
new relationships outside their family. Because they may be curious,
children/adolescents sometimes use their on-line access to actively
seek out such materials and individuals. Sex offenders targeting
children will use and exploit these characteristics and needs. Some
adolescent children may also be attracted to and lured by on-line
offenders closer to their age who, although not technically child
molesters, may be dangerous. Nevertheless, they have been seduced and
manipulated by a clever offender and do not fully understand or
recognize the potential danger of these contacts.
This guide was prepared from actual investigations involving child
victims, as well as investigations where law enforcement officers posed
as children. Further information on protecting your child on-line may
be found in the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's
Child Safety on the Information Highway and Teen Safety on the
Information Highway pamphlets.
What Are Signs That Your Child Might Be At Risk On-line?
Your Child Spends Large Amounts of Time On-line, Especially at Night
Most children that fall victim to computer-sex offenders spend
large amounts of time on-line, particularly in chat rooms. They may go
on-line after dinner and on the weekends. They may be latchkey kids
whose parents have told them to stay at home after school. They go on-
line to chat with friends, make new friends, pass time, and sometimes
look for sexually explicit information. While much of the knowledge and
experience gained may be valuable, parents should consider monitoring
the amount of time spent on-line.
Children on-line are at the greatest risk during the evening hours.
While offenders are on-line around the clock, most work during the day
and spend their evenings on-line trying to locate and lure children or
seeking pornography.
You Find Pornography on Your Child's Computer
Pornography is often used in the sexual victimization of children.
Sex offenders often supply their potential victims with pornography as
a means of opening sexual discussions and for seduction. Child
pornography may be used to show the child victim that sex between
children and adults is ``normal.'' Parents should be conscious of the
fact that a child may hide the pornographic files on diskettes from
them. This may be especially true if the computer is used by other
family members.
Your Child Receives Phone Calls From Men You Don't Know or Is Making
Calls, Sometimes Long Distance, to Numbers You Don't Recognize
While talking to a child victim on-line is a thrill for a computer-
sex offender, it can be very cumbersome. Most want to talk to the
children on the telephone. They often engage in ``phone sex'' with the
children and often seek to set up an actual meeting for real sex.
While a child may be hesitant to give out his/her home phone
number, the computer-sex offenders will give out theirs. With Caller
ID, they can readily find out the child's phone number. Some computer-
sex offenders have even obtained toll-free 800 numbers, so that their
potential victims can call them without their parents finding out.
Others will tell the child to call collect. Both of these methods
result in the computer-sex offender being able to find out the child's
phone number.
Your Child Receives Mail, Gifts, or Packages From Someone You Don't
Know
As part of the seduction process, it is common for offenders to
send letters, photographs, and all manner of gifts to their potential
victims. Computer-sex offenders have even sent plane tickets in order
for the child to travel across the country to meet them.
Your Child Turns the Computer Monitor Off or Quickly Changes the Screen
on the Monitor When You Come Into the Room
A child looking at pornographic images or having sexually explicit
conversations does not want you to see it on the screen.
Your Child Becomes Withdrawn From the Family
Computer-sex offenders will work very hard at driving a wedge
between a child and their family or at exploiting their relationship.
They will accentuate any minor problems at home that the child might
have. Children may also become withdrawn after sexual victimization.
Your Child Is Using an On-line Account Belonging to Someone Else
Even if you don't subscribe to an on-line service or Internet
service, your child may meet an offender while on-line at a friend's
house or the library. Most computers come preloaded with on-line and/or
Internet software. Computer-sex offenders will sometimes provide
potential victims with a computer account for communications with them.
What Should You Do If You Suspect Your Child Is Communicating With A
Sexual Predator On-line?
Consider talking openly with your child about your
suspicions. Tell them about the dangers of computer-sex
offenders.
Review what is on your child's computer. If you don't know
how, ask a friend, coworker, relative, or other knowledgeable
person. Pornography or any kind of sexual communication can be
a warning sign.
Use the Caller ID service to determine who is calling your
child. Most telephone companies that offer Caller ID also offer
a service that allows you to block your number from appearing
on someone else's Caller ID. Telephone companies also offer an
additional service feature that rejects incoming calls that you
block. This rejection feature prevents computer-sex offenders
or anyone else from calling your home anonymously.
Devices can be purchased that show telephone numbers that
have been dialed from your home phone. Additionally, the last
number called from your home phone can be retrieved provided
that the telephone is equipped with a redial feature. You will
also need a telephone pager to complete this retrieval.
This is done using a numeric-display pager and another phone
that is on the same line as the first phone with the redial
feature. Using the two phones and the pager, a call is placed
from the second phone to the pager. When the paging terminal
beeps for you to enter a telephone number, you press the redial
button on the first (or suspect) phone. The last number called
from that phone will then be displayed on the pager.
Monitor your child's access to all types of live electronic
communications (i.e., chat rooms, instant messages, Internet
Relay Chat, etc.), and monitor your child's e-mail. Computer-
sex offenders almost always meet potential victims via chat
rooms. After meeting a child on-line, they will continue to
communicate electronically often via e-mail.
Should any of the following situations arise in your household, via
the Internet or on-line service, you should immediately contact your
local or state law enforcement agency, the FBI, and the National Center
for Missing and Exploited Children:
1. Your child or anyone in the household has received child
pornography;
2. Your child has been sexually solicited by someone who knows
that your child is under 18 years of age;
3. Your child has received sexually explicit images from
someone that knows your child is under the age of 18.
If one of these scenarios occurs, keep the computer turned off in
order to preserve any evidence for future law enforcement use. Unless
directed to do so by the law enforcement agency, you should not attempt
to copy any of the images and/or text found on the computer.
What Can You Do to Minimize the Chances of an On-line Exploiter
Victimizing Your Child?
Communicate, and talk to your child about sexual
victimization and potential on-line danger.
Spend time with your children on-line. Have them teach you
about their favorite on-line destinations.
Keep the computer in a common room in the house, not in your
child's bedroom. It is much more difficult for a computer-sex
offender to communicate with a child when the computer screen
is visible to a parent or another member of the household.
Utilize parental controls provided by your service provider
and/or blocking software. While electronic chat can be a great
place for children to make new friends and discuss various
topics of interest, it is also prowled by computer-sex
offenders. Use of chat rooms, in particular, should be heavily
monitored. While parents should utilize these mechanisms, they
should not totally rely on them.
Always maintain access to your child's on-line account and
randomly check his/her e-mail. Be aware that your child could
be contacted through the U.S. Mail. Be up front with your child
about your access and reasons why.
Teach your child the responsible use of the resources on-
line. There is much more to the on-line experience than chat
rooms.
Find out what computer safeguards are utilized by your
child's school, the public library, and at the homes of your
child's friends. These are all places, outside your normal
supervision, where your child could encounter an on-line
predator.
Understand, even if your child was a willing participant in
any form of sexual exploitation, that he/she is not at fault
and is the victim. The offender always bears the complete
responsibility for his or her actions.
Instruct your children:
-- to never arrange a face-to-face meeting with someone they
met on-line;
-- to never upload (post) pictures of themselves onto the
Internet or on-line service to people they do not personally
know;
-- to never give out identifying information such as their
name, home address, school name, or telephone number;
-- to never download pictures from an unknown source, as there
is a good chance there could be sexually explicit images;
-- to never respond to messages or bulletin board postings that
are suggestive, obscene, belligerent, or harassing;
-- that whatever they are told on-line may or may not be true.
Frequently Asked Questions
My Child Has Received an E-mail Advertising for a Pornographic Website,
What Should I Do?
Generally, advertising for an adult, pornographic website that is
sent to an e-mail address does not violate Federal law or the current
laws of most states. In some states it may be a violation of law if the
sender knows the recipient is under the age of 18. Such advertising can
be reported to your service provider and, if known, the service
provider of the originator. It can also be reported to your State and
Federal legislators, so they can be made aware of the extent of the
problem.
Is Any Service Safer Than the Others?
Sex offenders have contacted children via most of the major on-line
services and the Internet. The most important factors in keeping your
child safe on-line are the utilization of appropriate blocking software
and/or parental controls, along with open, honest discussions with your
child, monitoring his/her on-line activity, and following the tips in
this pamphlet.
Should I Just Forbid my Child From Going On-line?
There are dangers in every part of our society. By educating your
children to these dangers and taking appropriate steps to protect them,
they can benefit from the wealth of information now available on-line.
Helpful Definitions:
Internet--An immense, global network that connects computers via
telephone lines and/or fiber networks to storehouses of electronic
information. With only a computer, a modem, a telephone line and a
service provider, people from all over the world can communicate and
share information with little more than a few keystrokes.
Bulletin Board Systems (BBSs)--Electronic networks of computers
that are connected by a central computer setup and operated by a system
administrator or operator and are distinguishable from the Internet by
their ``dial-up'' accessibility. BBS users link their individual
computers to the central BBS computer by a modem which allows them to
post messages, read messages left by others, trade information, or hold
direct conversations. Access to a BBS can, and often is, privileged and
limited to those users who have access privileges granted by the
systems operator.
Commercial On-line Service (COS)--Examples of COSs are America
Online, Prodigy, CompuServe and Microsoft Network, which provide access
to their service for a fee. COSs generally offer limited access to the
Internet as part of their total service package.
Internet Service Provider (ISP)--Examples of ISPs are Erols,
Concentric and Netcom. These services offer direct, full access to the
Internet at a flat, monthly rate and often provide electronic-mail
service for their customers. ISPs often provide space on their servers
for their customers to maintain World Wide Web (WWW) sites. Not all
ISPs are commercial enterprises. Educational, governmental and
nonprofit organizations also provide Internet access to their members.
Public Chat Rooms--Created, maintained, listed and monitored by the
COS and other public domain systems such as Internet Relay Chat. A
number of customers can be in the public chat rooms at any given time,
which are monitored for illegal activity and even appropriate language
by systems operators (SYSOP). Some public chat rooms are monitored more
frequently than others, depending on the COS and the type of chat room.
Violators can be reported to the administrators of the system (at
America Online they are referred to as terms of service [TOS]) which
can revoke user privileges. The public chat rooms usually cover a broad
range of topics such as entertainment, sports, game rooms, children
only, etc.
Electronic Mail (E-Mail)--A function of BBSs, COSs and ISPs which
provides for the transmission of messages and files between computers
over a communications network similar to mailing a letter via the
Postal Service. E-mail is stored on a server, where it will remain
until the addressee retrieves it. Anonymity can be maintained by the
sender by predetermining what the receiver will see as the ``from''
address. Another way to conceal one's identity is to use an ``anonymous
remailer,'' which is a service that allows the user to send an e-mail
message repackaged under the remailer's own header, stripping off the
originator's name completely.
Chat--Real-time text conversation between users in a chat room with
no expectation of privacy. All chat conversation is accessible by all
individuals in the chat room while the conversation is taking place.
Instant Messages--Private, real-time text conversation between two
users in a chat room.
Internet Relay Chat (IRC)--Real-time text conversation similar to
public and/or private chat rooms on COS.
Usenet (Newsgroups)--Like a giant, cork bulletin board where users
post messages and information. Each posting is like an open letter and
is capable of having attachments, such as graphic image files (GIFs).
Anyone accessing the newsgroup can read the postings, take copies of
posted items, or post responses. Each newsgroup can hold thousands of
postings. Currently, there are over 29,000 public newsgroups and that
number is growing daily. Newsgroups are both public and/or private.
There is no listing of private newsgroups. A user of private newsgroups
has to be invited into the newsgroup and be provided with the
newsgroup's address.
This document can be found at http://www.fbi.gov/publications/
pguide/pguidee.htm.
Mr. Burrus. But what it is, is it's a parents' guide to
Internet safety. And we do thousands of these every year. We
have them not only in English, but we have them in Spanish.
That's for the parents. We also team up with the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Boys Club and Girls
Club, and produce a brochure specifically for children. We are
always available to do this type of presentations. We enjoy
doing them. Because, in addition to the enforcement side, which
you are very well aware of, we think that prevention is the
key, the very things that this committee has already talked
about, making sure that the computer is in a public place, and
making sure you know what your children are doing online are
all very important things to do and use, and I will leave these
with the Committee, Chairman, with your permission, for
inclusion in the record.
Senator Pryor. Yes, thank you for doing that. I like that,
and I'm glad you do that. And, like I said, I think there are
States that do it in various ways, maybe school districts and
cities, and who knows what. But--and all that's great, but my
sense is that there's not one unified effort on that, that--
where there's one place to go to, or one unified effort, with
everybody sort of rowing in the same direction. But that's--you
know, we can work on that, work through that. We're glad to
have your help.
And the last thing, Mr. Chairman, is, I just wanted to--
since we have these two law-enforcement witnesses here--to know
what the major obstacles are in prosecuting Internet
pornography.
Ms. Parsky. Well, the bill that I mentioned before, H.R.
3132, includes several proposals from the Administration that
were meant to address some of the obstacles. One of the
obstacles we've encountered is a few circuits are finding that,
for purposes of establishing a nexus to interstate commerce and
child pornography cases, that the fact that the materials
traveled in interstate commerce is not sufficient. And certain
courts have required prosecutors to show that, in fact, the
image itself that's the basis of the prosecution traveled. And
that can be very difficult, in a number of cases. So, one of
the proposals is to clearly establish Congressional findings
that show that intrastate possession of child pornography has a
nexus to the interstate demand and supply for that commodity.
Senator Pryor. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Inouye?
Senator Inouye. On the Google case, could you advise us as
to what your reaction is to Google's position that your attempt
is an invasion of their privacy?
Ms. Parsky. I'm afraid that, because that's a pending
matter--it's litigation that's being actively pursued by the
Civil Division of the Department of Justice--that I am not in a
position to be able to comment on that.
The Chairman. Ms. Parsky, I note that you didn't read the
part that I think you deserve credit for. Would you mind
reading the provisions of your statement from page 6, the last
paragraph, through the bottom of page 7?
Ms. Parsky. Certainly.
The Chairman. We have----
Ms. Parsky. These are the two cases that I had cited as
examples of our child pornography----
The Chairman. It starts----
Ms. Parsky.--prosecutions?
The Chairman.--``The Department has recently has
substantial success.''
Ms. Parsky. Yes.
The Chairman. Yes.
Ms. Parsky. The Department recently has had substantial
success in destroying several major child pornography
operations. Two examples are United States v. Mariscal, which
was out of the Southern District of Florida, and Regpay, or
Operational Falcon, from the District of New Jersey.
In Mariscal, Angel Mariscal received a 100-year prison
sentence on September 30, 2004, in the Southern District of
Florida, after being convicted on seven charges, including
conspiracy to produce, importation, distribution, advertising,
and possession with intent to sell child pornography. Mariscal
traveled repeatedly over a 7-year period to Cuba and Ecuador,
where he produced and manufactured child pornography, including
videotapes of Mariscal sexually abusing minors, some under the
age of 12. As a result of Mariscal's arrest, his customers
across the country were targeted in Operation Lost Innocence,
which was coordinated by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and
CEOS. Today, Lost Innocence has resulted in 107 searches, 55
arrests or indictments, and 44 convictions.
United States v. Zalatarou, which was the Regpay case and
led to Operation Falcon, is an example of how one child
pornography investigation can lead to the apprehension of many
other offenders. Regpay was a Belarus-based company that
provided credit card processing services to hundreds of
commercial child pornography websites. Regpay contracted with a
Florida company, Connections USA, to access a merchant bank in
the United States. In February 2005, several Regpay defendants
pled guilty to various conspiracy, child pornography, and money
laundering offenses in the District of New Jersey. Connections
USA and several of its employees also pled guilty in connection
with this case. The Regpay investigation spawned the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Operation Falcon, an
international child pornography trafficking investigation that,
so far, has resulted in 448 open investigations, 130 search
warrants in the U.S., 191 domestic and approximately 767
foreign arrests in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Hong King,
Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Sweden,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, and 47 domestic
indictments generating 14 convictions.
The Chairman. Well, I wanted you to read that, because I
think it shows the worldwide intensity of this pornographic
problem, and we do congratulate you and the Department and the
FBI for what you're doing. We want to try to make sure you've
got all of the tools you need to continue to do it. So, thank
you very much.
Ms. Parsky. Thank you.
The Chairman. Our next witnesses are Dr. James Weaver,
Professor of Communication and Psychology, Department of
Communication, Virginia Tech, in Blacksburg, Virginia; Tim
Lordan, Executive Director of the Internet Education
Foundation, Washington, D.C.; Tatiana Platt, Chief Trust
Officer and Senior Vice President of America Online; and Paul
Cambria, General Counsel of Adult Freedom Foundation, from
Buffalo, New York. You've waited patiently.
Dr. Weaver, we'll proceed in the order I read, if you
would, please, we'd like to have your comments.
STATEMENT OF JAMES B. WEAVER, III, PROFESSOR,
COMMUNICATION AND PSYCHOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION,
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Weaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing me with
the opportunity to share some thoughts on one of the most
complicated challenges of our time: how to reconcile the
conflicting interests of promoting free speech, free thought,
and free enterprise without abdicating our larger societal role
to ensure that parents have the freedom and resources necessary
to raise and socialize their children as they see fit.
In my written testimony, I've attempted to provide you with
a comprehensive analysis and interpretation of the current
state of knowledge concerning pornography, the Internet, and
children. There are several important points that I would like
to briefly discuss with you today. Foremost among these, we
must accept the fact that no single solution for protecting
children from Internet pornography, whether it's technical,
legal, economic, or educational, will be sufficient. That point
was clearly expressed by the National Academies' National
Research Council report, Youth, Pornography, and the Internet,
that was commissioned by Congress. But it warrants repeating.
We must, in other words, work to envision multifaceted and
innovative approaches to the problem at hand.
At the same time, however, we need to acknowledge that
almost 4 decades of study into the question of pornography's
place within our society by both the legislative and executive
branches of our Government has, for the most part, failed to
adequately prepare most American families to deal with the
rapid and expansive evolution of the pornography industry in
the digital age.
As you've already heard, today pornography is big business.
Last year, it's estimated that the sale and rental of DVDs and
videocassettes generated about $4.3 billion in revenue. On the
Internet, about $2.5 billion were collected. Plus, mainstream
media organizations, such as cable, satellite, and broadband
services, and almost all of our top-50 U.S. hotel chains, are
earning huge profits distributing pornography. Unfortunately,
this profiteering by mainstream companies is helping to
legitimize pornography as normal, commonplace, and mainstream
for millions of Americans.
We must acknowledge that the content of pornography today
really leaves nothing to the imagination. And these are not
images where affection and emotional intimacy are well
integrated. Women in pornography are not valued for their
intellect or strength, they're not valued for their talents as
doctors, teachers, musicians, entrepreneurs, political leaders,
mothers, or scientists. No, the unequivocal message of
pornography is that women are valued only as objects for male
sexual gratification. This is a redundant and unchallenged
stereotype projected onto our society by pornography. This, I
think, is particularly problematic, especially for young
people. As the values and standards of pornography and the sex
industry become mainstreamed, it is these distorted images and
ideals that our teens draw from as they come to understand what
it means to be men and women and how they should treat
themselves and each other. Socially acceptable and socially
desirable behaviors have become redefined, particularly in the
realm of sexuality. As I detailed in my written comments, there
are many facets of contemporary teen culture that now reflect
these changes.
Many of the social and psychological consequences of
exposure to pornography have been unambiguously demonstrated in
over 20 years of extensive social-science research. The
findings are surprisingly consistent and clear, and establish
that consumption of pornography is a significant contributing
factor in the creation of perceptions, dispositions, and
behaviors that reflect sexual callousness, the erosion of
family values, and diminished sexual satisfaction.
It is against this backdrop that we must now grapple with
the question of how we, individually and as a national family,
can best respond to pornography, in general, and to pornography
on the Internet, in particular. I've proposed three courses of
action that I think we should consider.
One, you've already heard a great deal about today. It
basically is this question. How desirable is it for our society
that many of our children and adults are relying on pornography
as their primary sex educator? The promotion of social and
educational strategies that teach children to make wise choices
about using the Internet and to take control of their online
experiences has pretty much been largely ignored. And this is a
trend that we need to correct. We need to empower both parents
and children through a well-designed, extensive media literacy
campaign on how to use the Internet.
Now, as a personal observation, one thing that I've found
really interesting, as I talk to college seniors about
pornography, they typically get quite angry. But the reaction
is not about issues of freedom of expression or freedom of
choice. Instead, many of these college seniors, our first
generation, our first Net/Internet generation, become really
disturbed when they realize that no one forewarned them about
the potential adverse consequences of pornography before they
inadvertently immersed themselves into such content.
A second, and perhaps more immediate, concern is to explore
this question. Does the use of sexually explicit images as a
marketing ploy for commercial transactions on the Internet
represent commercial speech; thus, mitigating the degree of
constitutional protection typically accorded pornography? In my
own research and the work of others, it is clear that many
Internet pornography vendors attempt to lure customers to their
websites with free content. More importantly, this marketing
strategy typically involves no attempt at age verification,
often features ``gonzo pornography'' that depicts sex between
multiple partners, involves physically abusive behaviors,
avoids safe-sex practices, and frequently includes content that
appears inconsistent with current child pornography laws.
Further, many of these sampler websites offer, for free, the
serialization of full-length films, providing the viewer with
several 1- or 2-minute segments each week; thus encouraging the
consumer to develop the habit of returning for more frequent
free content, but also always offering the opportunity for the
consumer to view the complete film for a fee. As we contemplate
the potential impact of Internet pornography on children, these
marketing practices that exploit free-speech ideals emerge as
particularly reprehensible.
And finally, we must recognize that our society is on the
verge of an era when anyone anywhere with a cell phone will be
able to watch sexually explicit videos. One can only wonder
what mechanisms are now being developed to provide some
protection to children as these new wireless telecommunication
technologies become available.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify. I
appreciate all that this committee and other Members of
Congress are doing to find responsible solutions for this
complicated challenge.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Weaver follows:]
Prepared Statement of James B. Weaver, III, Professor, Communication
and Psychology, Department of Communication, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University
Pornography: Understanding Some Consequences for Children and Youth
The issue of pornography has undergone a dramatic change over the
past four decades, one that shifts the definition, increases the
complexity, and requires a new level of discussion. With the advent of
the digital age, the pornography marketplace has rapidly transitioned
from one tailored to a subculture of connoisseurs, with access
typically restricted to adult bookstores and movie theaters, into a
mass market offering prolific content availability and diversity. \1\
Cable television, the Internet, DVDs, and other new technologies
have made sexually explicit media content widely available,
particularly to children and youth. And the content of pornography has
become increasingly abusive, coercive, degrading, and violent.
Contemporary pornography is, at best, a distant cousin of the artistic
portraits of human female nudes common 20 years ago. Instead, the
pornography industry today is dominated by sexually explicit videos
that commonly portray the domination and humiliation of women for the
purpose of arousal. \2\
The Pornography Industry
And today pornography is big business. One recent forecast projects
2005 revenues for the adult entertainment industry of $12.6 billion \3\
with nearly $4.3 billion, or 34 percent, generated by the sale or
rental of DVDs and videocassettes and another 20 percent, or $2.5
billion, collected through Internet marketing. \4\ By channeling
sexually explicit content into millions of homes and hotel rooms,
pornography producers and corporate America profit together. Direct TV,
which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation--the parent company
of the Fox TV networks--earns over $20 million per month from
pornography. AT&T generates similar income distributing pornography via
its broadband Internet services. All of the top 50 U.S. hotel chains,
with the exception of Omni Hotels, offer pornography to their guests
with sales accounting for nearly 70 percent of their in-room profits;
as much as 10 percent of the annual profits of these hotel chains are
derived from guests viewing pornography. \5\ In short, the production
and distribution of pornography has rapidly evolved from a ``cottage
industry'' to a stable and well-refined mass-production enterprise.
``Pornography is Just Good, Clean Entertainment, Right?''
Perhaps most troubling, however, is how the marriage of pornography
producers and corporate America is perceived by the general public.
Basically, the profiteering from sexually explicit media content by
mainstream companies has helped to legitimize pornography as ``normal''
and ``commonplace'' for millions of Americans. \6\ While, at the same
time, most voices that might speak out about the potentially harmful
effects of viewing the distorted images typical of contemporary
pornography have become taciturn and muted. Basically, in a culture
where we put warning labels on everything from hair-dryers to coffee-
cups to music CDs to theatrical release movies, essentially no one
provides consumers with any warnings or information about pornography.
The consequence of this is reflected in a question posed to me recently
by a student who asked: ``That means pornography is just good, clean
entertainment, right?''
Pornography Distorts Our Perceived Reality About Sex
Pornography today leaves nothing to the imagination. In hundreds of
thousands of movies streamed over the Internet, or piped into homes and
hotel rooms, pornography presents vivid, salient, and graphic images of
human sexuality, in general, and female sexuality, in particular. And
these are not images where affection and emotional intimacy are well
integrated. Instead, women are consistently and repeatedly objectified
as sexually immodest and indiscriminate; as, to use a phrase coined by
a feminist writer, ``anonymous panting playthings.'' \7\ Women in
pornography are not valued for their intellect or strength; they are
not valued for their talents as doctors, teachers, musicians,
entrepreneurs, mothers, and scientists. No, the unequivocal message of
pornography is that women are valued only as objects for male sexual
gratification. This is the redundant and unchallenged stereotype
projected onto our society by pornography. \8\
Pornography and the Sexual Socialization of Children
This is particularly problematic, I believe, for young people.
Today, the near omnipresent mass media plays more of a role in the
socialization of our children than ever before. \9\ As the values and
standards of pornography and the sex industry become mainstreamed, it
is these distorted images and ideals that our teens draw from as they
come to understand what it means to be men and women and how they
should treat themselves and each other. Socially acceptable and
socially desirable behaviors have been redefined, particularly in the
realm of sexuality. There are many facets of teen culture that reflect
these changes. \10\
Some of the most obvious demonstrations of the sexual socialization
of today's teens can be found in their closets. Clothing is an
important part of teen culture. It serves as a means of self-expression
or a sign of affiliation with a particular social group or set of
values. Parents and teachers have long been aware that ``porn fantasy''
fashions and ``stripper chic'' styles have filtered down to younger and
younger girls. Many critics now fear that mass-market pornography has
begun operating as a kind of social ruse for young women: They are
encouraged to embrace the objectified female sexuality depicted by
pornography based on the misguided notion that it provides
``liberation.'' Some evidence speaks to the potential breadth of this
trend: According to a Time magazine report, in 2003 girls between 13
and 17 spent about $152 million on thong underwear. \11\
One of the saddest consequences of the pornographic sexual
socialization of American youth concerns what has become socially
acceptable, even socially desirable, sexual behavior in teen culture.
An article in The New York Times Magazine explored the increasingly
mainstream phenomenon of teen ``hook-ups''--which are strictly casual
sexual encounters occurring between teenage boys and girls. While
teenagers having sex has been of significant concern for many years,
the degree of deliberate and self-professed detachment manifest in
these ``hook-ups'' is startling. \12\
The legitimacy of this hook-up phenomenon within popular teen
culture was exemplified on the CBS TV program Judging Amy. In an
episode entitled ``Consent'' (#604, originally broadcast October 24,
2004) Judge Amy Gray heard the case of a male teen (Brent) who was
accused of forcing a teenage girl (Caroline) to perform oral sex during
a party. Judge Gray was asked to decide if the sexual behavior was
sexual assault or the result of peer pressure. In a key scene of the
episode Brent testifies ``that's what the parties are for.'' He
explains:
the girls have bracelets to show what they are into. Black--all
the way, blue--oral sex, orange--only kissing. Caroline had on
a blue bracelet. (She denied it meant anything.) He says the
older boys bullied him into getting oral sex from Caroline.
They pulled off his pants and shoved him forward. He felt he
didn't have a choice to back out. \13\
As this episode illustrated, separating sexuality from emotion--
something typical of pornography--is now defined as cool, liberating,
and empowering.
What the Social Science Research Reveals
This fundamental consequence of exposure to pornography has been
unambiguously demonstrated over the last 20 years by an extensive body
of social science research. \14\ The findings are surprisingly
consistent and clear: Watching pornography negatively impacts our most
basic attitudes, beliefs, and values about sex, intimacy, and family.
Frequent consumption of pornography, for example, leads to (1) an
overestimation of almost all sexual activities performed by sexually
active adults. Some writers refer to this as the ``pornucopia'' effect.
(2) Consumption of pornography fosters exaggerated estimates of the
incidence of pre- and extramarital sexual activity--as well as
increased assessments of male and female promiscuity--and leads to
perceptions of dishonesty and distrust among intimate partners. (3)
Consumption of pornography spawns doubts about the value of marriage as
an essential social institution and about its future viability. It also
diminishes the desire for offspring within marriage. The strongest
effect of this kind concerns the aspiration of female viewers for
female children. (4) Consumption of pornography creates and enhances
sexual callousness and trivializes the criminality of sexual assault
and abuse targeted at both adults and children.
Taken together, the research at hand establishes that consumption
of pornography is a significant contributing factor in the creation of
perceptions, dispositions, and behaviors that reflect sexual
callousness, the erosion of family values, and diminished sexual
satisfaction. \15\ Generalizing from these findings, we can anticipate
that pornography should produce adverse consequences for individual
consumers, their families and coworkers, and the broader community.
Pornography Facilitates Sexual Aggression
Consideration of the pragmatic implications of the research
evidence suggests, first of all, that the distorted messages of
unrestrained human sexual promiscuity conveyed by pornography could be,
as others have argued, a potent catalyst for abusive behaviors such as
domestic violence and rape. Watching pornography, it must be
remembered, has been shown to result in both a ``loss-of-respect'' for
female sexual autonomy and the disinhibition of men in the expression
of aggression against women. Extensive research evidence shows that
these two factors are prominently interwoven components in the
perceptual profiles of sexually abusive and aggressive individuals.
\16\
Pornography Fosters Misogyny
A second implication concerns the extent to which pornography-
induced misogynistic perceptions negatively influence the welfare of
women of all ages in everyday, nonsexual circumstances. Exposure to
pornography, the data reveal, fostered acceptance of the notion that
women are subservient to men and promoted an adversarial, distrustful
relationship between the sexes. Many voices have suggested that the
most damaging consequences of prolonged consumption of pornography are
evident in the ill treatment of women (e.g., employment discrimination,
economic exploitation) simply because of their gender. \17\
Pornography as De Facto Sex Educator
Third, there is reason to suspect that pornography--with its
seemingly factual, documentary-style presentation of sexual behaviors--
has usurped most other socialization agents to become the de facto sex
education for children and adults alike. Thus, the likelihood persists
that the main messages of pornography have a stronger influence on the
formation of sexual dispositions, including coercive disposition, than
alternative forms of sexual indoctrination. \18\
Pornography Threatens the Family
Fourth, it appears that the major consequence of consuming
pornography is not the probability or possibility of committing a
serious sex crime (though this can and does occur), but rather the
disturbance of the fragile bonds of intimate relationships. \19\ This
is where the most grievous pain, damage, and sorrow occur. Pornography
perpetuates stereotypes that promote both exaggerated expectations
about sexual behaviors and interpersonal distrust. Against this
backdrop, there is considerable evidence suggesting that pornography
can interference with or even destroy healthy love and sexual
relationships among long-term bonded partners. At the 2002 meeting of
the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, for example, two-thirds of
the 350 divorce lawyers who attended said the Internet played a
significant role in divorces in the past year, with excessive interest
in online porn contributing to more than half of such cases. ``This is
clearly related to the Internet,'' says Richard Barry, president of the
association. ``Pornography had an almost nonexistent role in divorce
just seven or eight years ago.'' Consumption of pornography also
appears to threaten the welfare of children by creating economic
instability for many families. Increasingly, U.S. businesses are
imposing disciplinary actions, including termination, on employees
because of inappropriate pornography use within the workplace. \20\ One
can only speculate how these Internet pornography threats to the
nuclear family impact children.
Possible Courses of Action
It is against this backdrop we must now grapple with the question
of how we, individually, and as a national family might best respond to
pornography, in general, and pornography on the Internet, in
particular.
We must acknowledge, however, that this discussion involves what
may be one of the most complicated challenges of our time--how to
reconcile the conflicting interests of promoting free speech, free
thought, and free enterprise without abdicating our larger societal
role to insure that parents have the freedom and resources necessary to
raise and socialize their children as they see fit. Further, we must
accept the fact that no single solution for protecting children from
Internet pornography whether technical, legal, economic, or educational
will be sufficient.
Within this framework, some recommendations can be offered for
contemplation. First, we must give full consideration of the
desirability of pornography as a rudimentary ``educator'' about sex for
children and adults alike. ``The promotion of social and educational
strategies that teach children to make wise choices about using the
Internet and to take control of their online experiences'' has, as
noted in the National Academies' National Research Council report
Youth, Pornography, and the Internet, been ``largely ignored in the
present debate.'' \21\ This, it seems, is a trend that urgently needs
correction.
Towards this goal the Federal Government could support research
initiatives (1) to more clearly document the incidence and prevalence
of pornography use on the Internet by children, (2) that would better
illuminate the impact of pornography use on the economic and relational
stability of the family, and (3) effective strategies to counteract the
distorted, redundant stereotypes perpetuated by an industry designed to
sell sex as an entertainment commodity.
Comprehensive educational strategies should also be developed and
offered to educators for adaptation to their local community needs.
And, clearly, these curricula should not be conceived of as ``sex
education'' class; but, rather, as media literacy programs. As recently
demonstrated at a Midwestern high school \22\ our ongoing national
strategy concerning pornography has produced a difficult paradox:
Despite our developing recognition of the adverse consequences that
pornography can have on individuals, families, and our society, many of
us remain afraid to engage in public discourse on the issue because it
pertains to sexual behaviors. We proclaim, in other words, that
pornography is ``bad'' but shy away from explaining why leaving it to
the curiosity of children and young adults to discover for themselves
what all the fuss is about. Simply said, we must develop educational
and social strategies that will tarnish the luster of the ``forbidden
fruit'' of pornography and equip the American public with the resources
needed to make informed decisions about the role of this type of media
content in their lives.
Of course, initiatives such as these are not inexpensive and, given
current budgetary constraints, it seems that innovative funding
solutions must be explored. Personally, I've found the ideas expressed
in the ``Internet Safety and Child Protection Act of 2005'' (S. 1507)
sponsored by Senator Lincoln and others very provocative and hope that
this bill will be expeditiously given full consideration.
Another, more immediate, consideration that should be explored
concerns the current, seemingly universally applied, definition of
pornography as ``free speech.'' Specifically, one can argue that the
current practice of many Internet pornography vendors of offering
``free samples'' of sexually explicit images and videos as part of
their marketing ploy involves the use of pornography as ``commercial
speech.'' \23\ Research suggests that websites attempting to lure
consumers with free content typically incorporate no age verification
mechanism and often feature explicit ``gonzo porn'' that depicts sex
between multiple partners, involves physically abusive behaviors, and
avoids safe-sex practices. Many images--especially those depicting
incest or involving teenage and/or amateur female performers, for
instance--appear inconsistent with current child pornography laws.
Further, these sampler websites often include the serialization of full
films, providing the viewer with several one or two minute segments
each week, thus encouraging the consumer to develop the habit of
returning for more free content but always offering the opportunity to
view the complete film for a fee. Taken together, these marketing
practices raise the question: Does the use of sexually explicit images
as part of a commercial transaction represent ``commercial speech'' and
thus mitigating the degree of constitutional protection typically
accorded pornography?
Conceptualization of pornography on the Internet as commercial
speech would offer the opportunity to scrutinize the appropriateness of
other common, but deceptive, marketing practices. A recent website
survey, for example, found that searches of keywords such as sex
education, sexual health, and sex advice for teens yielded a
preponderance of pornography web pages. Specifically, 63 percent of
1,556 compatible web pages were categorized as pornographic. \24\ This
raises the question: Does this distorted use of terminology that most
reasonable people would normally not associate with the commercial
distribution of sexually explicit images constitute deceptive
advertising and are their mechanisms available to correct this
practice?
And, finally, we must recognize that our society is on the verge of
an era when anyone with a cell phone will be able to watch sexually
explicit videos anywhere. One can only wonder what mechanisms are being
developed to provide protection to children with the newest
distribution technologies such as video streaming to wireless
telecommunication devices.
ENDNOTES
\1\ Weaver, J.B., III (November 18, 2004). Testimony before the
U.S. Senate.
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1343&wit_id=3913.
\2\ Brosius, H.B., Weaver, J.B., III, & Staab, J.F. (1993).
Exploring the social and sexual ``reality'' of contemporary
pornography. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 161-170.
\3\ Mun, A. (December 13, 2005). Adult Industry Generates $12.6
Billion in 2005, AVN Estimates; State of the U.S. Adult Industry Report
Highlights Diverse Products and Delivery Options. http://
home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/
index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20051213005951&newsLang=en.
\4\ Arnold, T.K. (January 9, 2006). Adult biz hot for home video.
http://www.bizreport.com/news/9599/.
\5\ CBS News 60 Minutes (September, 2004). Porn in the U.S.A.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/60minutes/main585049.shtml;
PBS Frontline (August, 2001). Interview Dennis McAlpine. http://
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/interviews/
mcalpine.html#hotel; Thompson, M. (April 13, 2004). Porn profits go
mainstream. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/
TVReports/P80813.asp.
\6\ Paul, P. (January 19, 2004). The porn factor. Time, 163(3), 99.
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,993158,00.html; Paul,
P. (2005). Pornified: How pornography is transforming our lives, our
relationships, and our families. New York: Times Books.
\7\ Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
\8\ United States Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (1970).
Report of The Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. New York,
Bantam. Over 30 years ago the Commission reported essentially the same
observation noting that ``It is often asserted that a distinguishing
characteristic of sexually explicit materials is the degrading and
demeaning portrayal of the role and status of the human female. It has
been argued that erotic materials describe the female as a mere sexual
object to be exploited and manipulated sexually. One presumed
consequence of such portrayals is that erotica transmits an inaccurate
and uninformed conception of sexuality, and that the viewer or user
will (a) develop a calloused and manipulative orientation toward women
and (b) engage in behavior in which affection and sexuality are not
well integrated.''
\9\ Cantor, J., Mares, M., & Hyde, J.S. (2003). Autobiographical
memories of exposure to sexual media content. Media Psychology, 5, 1-
31.
\10\ Boies, S.C., Knudson, G., & Young, J. (2004). The internet,
sex, and youths: Implications for sexual development. Sexual Addiction
& Compulsivity, 11, 343-363. Greenfield, P.M. (2004). Inadvertent
exposure to pornography on the Internet: Implications of peer-to-peer
file-sharing networks for child development and families. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 741-750; Mitchell, K.J.,
Finkelhor, D., Wolak, J. (2003). Victimization of Youths on the
Internet. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 8, 1-39;
Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2005). Exposure to Internet pornography
among children and adolescents: A national survey. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 8, 473-486.
\11\ Wallis, C. (October 6, 2003). The thing about thongs. Time,
162(14), 94.
http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1005821,00.html.
\12\ Denizet-Lewis, B. (May 30, 2004). Friends, friends with
benefits and the benefits of the local mall. The New York Times
Magazine. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/
abstract.html?res=F60713FA3C5A0C738FDDAC0894DC404482.
\13\ Judging Amy (October 24, 2004) Consent (program #604). Episode
synopsis at http://judgingamy.tvfans.org/amy/episode/a604.htm.
\14\ Weaver, J.B., III (1994). Pornography and sexual callousness:
The perceptual and behavioral consequences of exposure to pornography.
In D. Zillmann, J. Bryant, & A.C. Huston (Eds.), Media, family, and
children: Social scientific, psychodynamic, and clinical perspectives
(pp. 215-228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
\15\ Schneider, J.P. (2000). A qualitative study of cybersex
participants: Gender differences, recovery issues, and implications for
therapists. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 7, 249-278; Stack, S.,
Wasserman, I., & Kern, R. (2004). Adult social bonds and use of
Internet pornography. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 75-88; Mulac, A.,
Jansma, L.L., & Linz, D.G. (2002). Men's behavior toward women after
viewing sexually-explicit films: Degradation makes a difference.
Communication Monographs, 69, 311-328.
\16\ Oddone-Paolucci, E., Genuis, M., & Violato, C. (2000). A meta-
analysis of the published research on the effects of pornography. In C.
Violato, E. Oddone-Paolucci, M. Genuis (Eds.), The changing family and
child development (pp. 48-59). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing;
Malamuth, N.M., Addison, T., & Koss, M. (2000). Pornography and sexual
aggression: Are there reliable effects and can we understand them?
Annual Review of Sex Research, 11, 26-91; Shope, J.H. (2004). When
words are not enough: The search for the effect of pornography on
abused women. Violence Against Women, 10, 56-72.
\17\ Russell, D.E.H. (1998). Dangerous relationships: Pornography,
misogyny, and rape. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
\18\ Beauregard, E., Lussier, P., & Proulx, J. (2004). An
exploration of developmental factors related to deviant sexual
preferences among adult rapists. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and
Treatment, 16, 151-161; Fisher, W.A., & Barak, A. (1989). Sex education
as a corrective: Immunizing against possible effects of pornography. In
D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (eds.), Pornography: Research advances and
policy considerations (pp. 289-320). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Haggstrom-
Nordin, E., Hanson, U., & Tyden, T. (2005). Associations between
pornography consumption and sexual practices among adolescents in
Sweden. International Journal of STD & AIDS, 16, 102-107; Smith, M.
Gertz, E., Alvarez, S., & Lurie, P. (2000). The content and
accessibility of sex education information on the Internet. Health
Education & Behavior, 27, 684-694.
\19\ American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (November 14, 2002).
Is the Internet bad for your marriage ? http://www.expertclick.com/
NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=3051.
\20\ Greenfield, D.N., & Davis, R. A. (2002). Lost in Cyberspace:
The web @ work. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4, 347-353 ; Griffiths, M.
(2003). Internet abuse in the workplace: Issues and concerns for
employers and employment counselors. Journal of Employment Counseling,
40, 87-96.
\21\ The National Academies (May 2, 2002). No single solution for
protecting kids from Internet pornography. http://
www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309082749?OpenDocument;
Committee to Study Tools and Strategies for Protecting Kids from
Pornography and Their Applicability to Other Inappropriate Internet
Content, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National
Research Council (2002). Thornburg, D., & Lin, H.S. (Eds.), Youth,
pornography and the Internet. Washington: National Academy Press.
\22\ Townsend, Angela (January 14, 2006). School gets lesson on
porn : Don't bring it up in classroom. The Plain Dealer. http://
www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/
113723103675680.xml&coll=2.
\23\ U.S. Constitution--Analysis and Interpretation (pp. 1020-
1187). Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access.
\24\ Smith, M. Gertz, E., Alvarez, S., & Lurie, P. (2000). The
content and accessibility of sex education information on the Internet.
Health Education & Behavior, 27, 684-694.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Our next witness at the table is Tatiana Platt, Chief Trust
Officer and Senior Vice President of America Online.
STATEMENT OF TATIANA S. PLATT, CHIEF TRUST OFFICER/SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, INTEGRITY ASSURANCE,
AMERICA ONLINE, INC.
Ms. Platt. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you
today on the topic of protecting children on the Internet. My
name is Tatiana Platt, and I am Chief Trust Officer and Senior
Vice President at AOL.
AOL has played a significant role in the development of the
online medium, and we have always had a special appreciation of
its enormous potential to benefit society, especially children.
Learning how to explore and understand the online world is an
essential skill for our children in today's world, but we all
agree that kids need, and deserve, special protection in this
ever-evolving medium.
By promoting major public-education campaigns and closely
cooperating with elected officials and government agencies on
outreach and enforcement efforts, we have tried to offer
strong, proactive leadership in every area of children's safety
online. In some ways, even more important than those efforts,
however, has been our commitment to providing our members with
the resources and tools that they need to make informed
decisions. No law, no technology, and no corporate initiative
can ever take the place of an educated and involved parent when
it comes to their children's online safety. That's why we work
hard at AOL to give parents the most useful information, tools,
and safety tips to help protect their children. By doing so,
we've tried to empower parents so they can reinforce the rules
of online safety, pay attention to what their children are
doing, and make use of technologies, such as our parental
controls, to protect their children from inappropriate content
and help ensure that their online experience is safe and age-
appropriate.
AOL parental controls have been integrated into the AOL
service since the very first days of our company. In the
beginning, those controls were mostly focused on limiting or
filtering children's access to inappropriate websites and
content areas such as chat rooms and message boards. Over time,
however, our parental controls have evolved in response to
technological changes in the medium, such as broadband access
and multiple devices, as well as shifting consumer demand. We
have added new age categories for parents who want a one-button
solution to setting controls. We launched an online timer to
give parents the ability to set limits on how much time their
children spend online. We created the AOL Guardian, a feature
that enables parents to receive daily and weekly updates on
their child's online activities. And we have given parents the
ability to view, set, or modify their parental controls from
anywhere they have access to the Web through the AOL.com
portal. Today, with over 5 million screen names on parental
controls, they are the foundation of our child-protection
package and a key offering of our subscription service.
But AOL parental controls are only one of the tools that we
use to keep children safe online. Because we know that e-mail
is the number-one technique used by spammers and pornographers
to spread their filth, we wage an around-the-clock war against
unwanted and inappropriate e-mail. AOL blocks approximately 1.5
billion spam e-mails per day, and has reduced complaints about
spam from its members by 75 percent in the past 2 years.
Creative pornographers have also started to attack
computers directly via adware and spyware. While annoying and
potentially dangerous for adult users, spyware and adware can
be devastating for younger users, bombarding them with a never-
ending stream of pop-ups for pornography, gambling, and other
inappropriate material. To respond to this threat, AOL
introduced AOL Spyware Protection, software that can block more
than 28,000 different types of spyware and adware.
Equally important, as viruses and hackers don't stop to
check for age verification, AOL is also working hard to make
online safety and security easier for members of all ages
through our technology offerings, such as the AOL Safety and
Security Center.
We have found that education of our members is an ongoing
process. As new consumers come online every day, and as our
existing customers' lives evolve, their parental control needs
may change, as well. We believe that every family should
periodically review new information, check their child's
parental control settings, and update them as appropriate for
their child's age and maturity. We also try to offer relevant
tips to help ensure their child is having a safe online
experience. These tips include commonsense advice, like finding
out if your child has a profile on any of the common social-
networking sites, and either removing or reviewing that profile
for inappropriate content.
AOL's commitment to families and child safety includes a
wide range of elements: educating consumers, providing great
age-appropriate content for young audiences, working with law
enforcement to go after bad actors, building an industry-wide
coalition of like-minded companies and organizations, and
offering parents easy-to-use, flexible parental control
technology tools to customize their child's online experience.
Finally, it bears repeating that there is no substitute for
parental involvement. Raising consumer awareness about parental
control choices in children's online safety is a collaborative
effort, and we welcome continued private and public
partnerships to achieve that goal.
I thank the Committee, and I welcome the opportunity to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Platt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tatiana S. Platt, Chief Trust Officer/Senior Vice
President, Integrity Assurance, America Online, Inc.
Thank you for inviting me to testify before you today on the topic
of protecting children on the Internet. My name is Tatiana Platt, and I
am Chief Trust Officer and Senior Vice President at America Online,
Inc. My responsibilities include providing strategic leadership for the
development and execution of processes and practices that ensure the
integrity of AOL Inc. businesses. I oversee the integrity of the user
experience, consumer protection, advertising and programming standards,
privacy, online safety, accessibility, community standards and policy.
This includes oversight of our child safety and privacy protections.
AOL has played a significant role in the development of the online
medium, and we have always had a special appreciation of its enormous
potential to benefit society--especially children. Learning how to
explore and understand the online world is an essential skill for our
children in today's wired world, but we all agree that kids need and
deserve special protection in this ever-evolving medium. AOL wants to
give parents the tools and information to help ensure that their
children can enjoy a rewarding and safe interactive experience online.
By promoting major public education campaigns and closely
cooperating with elected officials and government agencies on outreach
and enforcement efforts, we have tried to offer strong proactive
leadership in every area of children's safety online. In some ways even
more important than those efforts, however, has been our commitment to
providing our members with the resources and tools they need to make
informed decisions. No law, no technology, and no corporate initiative
can ever take the place of an educated and involved parent when it
comes to their children's online safety. That's why we work hard to
give AOL parents the most useful information, content, tools and safety
tips to help protect their children, as well as convenient access to
other resources available for families both on AOL and elsewhere on the
Internet. By doing so, we've tried to empower parents so they can
reinforce the rules of online safety, pay attention to what their
children are doing, and make use of technology such as our Parental
Controls to protect their children from inappropriate content and help
ensure that their online experience is safe and age-appropriate.
AOL Parental Controls have been integrated into the AOL service
since the very first days of our company and have long been one of the
most compelling reasons for parents and families to use AOL. In the
beginning, those controls were mostly focused on limiting or
``filtering'' children's access to inappropriate websites and content
areas such as chat rooms and message boards.
Over time, however, our Parental Controls have evolved in response
to technological changes in the medium--such as broadband access and
multiple devices--as well as shifting consumer demand. For example, we
created a new Kids Only category setting in 1995, recognizing the
increasing popularity of our children's content and the increasing
number of families getting online. As the online medium became more
mainstream, we focused on simplifying our Parental Controls. In 1997,
we added our two ``teens'' categories, for parents who wanted a ``one
button'' solution to setting controls. Even so, we continued to offer
fully customizable selections for those parents who wanted to customize
their child's experience. This ``category'' approach has proven very
successful and popular with our millions of families with children.
In 1998, we changed our registration process to prompt parents to
set Parental Controls for each of the screen names or subaccounts that
they can create with their AOL account for a child or other family
member. When we integrated that step into the Create A Screen Name
process, we saw a dramatic increase in adoption of the Parental
Controls tools as a result. This process allows parents to make a
decision for their child with age-specific Parental Control settings at
the time that they are creating a user name for them, rather than
leaving it up to the parents to remember to go back later. And to
ensure that those controls cannot be circumvented by the child, only
the parent's account--or a ``master'' account--can create a new screen
name or set or change Parental Control settings.
In the spring of 2000, we launched an online timer to give parents
the ability to set limits on how much time their children spend online.
A parent can determine when and for how long their child can be online.
By doing so, a parent can help ensure that their child can only access
the Internet for limited times per day, after homework is done, or when
they are there to supervise.
In February 2003, we created AOL Guardian, a feature that enables
parents to receive updates on their child's online activities. Parents
can choose to receive daily or weekly notices that include information
about which websites their child visited or attempted to visit and to
or from whom they sent or received e-mails or Instant Messages (IMs).
The feature provides parents with a higher level of information about
their children's online activities and can act as a springboard to help
parents engage in conversations with their children about appropriate
online behavior.
Soon after that, we helped parents move their households into the
high-speed world with a new feature called Internet Access Controls.
This feature allows parents to apply Parental Controls to the entire
computer, rather than just activities within the AOL software, so that
children in the household will always have the protections of those
controls, regardless of whether they have a dial-up or always-on
broadband connection.
We also gave parents the ability to view, set or modify their
Parental Controls from anywhere they have access to the Web through the
AOL.com portal, rather than having to log on through AOL at home to
change those settings. In addition, we created a new Web Unlock feature
that lets a child e-mail a request to their parents to be given access
to a specific site that has been blocked by the Parental Control
settings.
These content settings are judiciously embedded into many of the
widely used features on the AOL service including, but not limited to,
search (a child's search capabilities are limited to his or her web
settings), e-mail (a child will not be able to click on any links that
are deemed inappropriate), and shopping (children will be restricted
from accessing and purchasing products deemed to be mature or adult in
nature).
When creating a separate screen name for their child, parents are
given the opportunity to choose one of three different standard age
``category'' settings: KOL, RED, or RED Plus. These settings offer
compelling age-appropriate content that allow a child to experience all
the great things being online has to offer while providing parents a
level of comfort that their child is only being exposed to content or
people they have approved.
A KOL setting (recommended for 12 and under) restricts children to
the KOL Channel, which has been specially created and programmed for
children 12 and under. The child also receives a customized Welcome
Screen. In addition, KOL offers Radio KOL, a daily online radio show
which now draws more than a million weekly listeners, Games,
Interactive storybook, and Homework Help.
Our goal is to create compelling age-appropriate content that will
keep kids coming back, while blocking our youngest members from
reaching any questionable websites or content areas or communicating
with unknown people. For example, a child using a KOL screen name can
access age-appropriate content on AOL and the Web and interact with
others online through e-mail and in special supervised kids' message
boards and chat areas, but he or she is blocked from taking part in
general audience chat rooms and message boards on AOL, is blocked from
Instant Messaging and cannot visit any website that has not been
approved as age-appropriate.
The reaction from members and media to this online safe zone for
kids has been outstanding. In 2001, Yahoo! Internet Life Magazine
awarded the Kids Only Channel as the ``Best Kids Community'' for ``kid-
friendly games, chat and homework helpers.'' In 2003 and 2005, KOL got
a ``Best of Web'' award from WiredKids, the world's largest online
safety and help group after being nominated by kids and teens and
chosen by parent volunteers. And in 2004, KOL won the National
Parenting Seal of Approval.
AOL's RED, or Young Teen (recommended for ages 13-15) category
provides more freedom than a Kids Only screen name, but does not
provide full access to more mature content and potentially-dangerous
interactive features. The RED service is designed to respond to the
surge in online activity among today's teens and to empower them by
letting them customize and personalize their desktop and choose content
to highlight based on their specific interests. The RED service gives
teens their own Welcome Experience, toolbar and Buddy List'
feature as well as exclusive content and features from leading brands,
original programming and expanded community tools.
Young Teen screen names are allowed to access most AOL content, and
they can visit websites that have been approved as age appropriate.
They may communicate with others online through e-mail, IM and in Teen
chats and message boards that are monitored by background-checked
employees. Teens are restricted, however, from visiting inappropriate
websites, or taking part in private chat rooms.
Older teens are channeled into RED Plus, or Mature Teen
(recommended for ages 16-17) settings, which allow older teens more
freedom than the younger Parental Controls categories as they learn to
be responsible adult online users. Mature Teens are offered access to
the same RED content areas as younger teens, but they can also access
almost all content on AOL and the Web except sites that have been
classified for an adult (18 plus) audience. They can locate others and
communicate online through Instant Messaging, Teen chats and message
boards, and e-mail.
Each of these category settings has a pre-selected set of
``defaults'' for different features such as chat, e-mail, Instant
Messages and Internet access. A parent can choose to customize any of
these defaults within a category to ensure the experience best matches
his or her child--so even on a KOL screen name (our most conservative),
a parent may choose to further limit access to e-mail to an
``approved'' list, or, alternately, may decide that the child is mature
enough to fully participate in Instant Message conversations.
Today, with over 5 million screen names on Parental Controls, they
are the foundation of our child protection package and a key offering
of our subscription service. While providing kids with entertaining and
educational experiences has always been an important mission for AOL,
we strongly feel that it is also our responsibility to help parents
manage their child's online experiences.
AOL's Parental Controls give parents both control and peace of
mind, enabling them to make informed decisions about their kids' online
activities by selecting the appropriate level of participation for each
child. Parents also have the ability to customize additional features--
such as chat, e-mail and Internet access--based on their children's
online savvy and maturity.
AOL's Parental Controls also have another advantage, in that the
majority of our technologies are run at the server level, rather than
being limited to a single machine. Thus, we can provide equal
protections to children regardless of where they log into AOL--at home,
school, or a friend's house--and we can give parents the ability to
check and update those controls from any computer with Web access.
But AOL Parental Controls are only one of the tools we use to help
keep children safe online. Because we know that e-mail is the number
one technique used by spammers and pornographers to spread their filth,
we wage an around-the-clock war against unwanted and inappropriate e-
mail.
AOL blocks approximately 1.5 billion spam e-mails per day and has
reduced complaints about spam from its members by 75 percent in the
past two years. To reduce the amount of spam received by subscribers,
AOL has developed new, more efficient and accurate spam blocking
technology over the past few years, investing and continuing to invest
millions of dollars every year. This technology permits AOL to identify
and stop spam from even reaching a subscriber's mailbox.
AOL is also working with other Internet businesses, including
Yahoo! and Microsoft, on standards for identifying legitimate e-mail.
While the industry hasn't yet settled on a standard, e-mail providers,
including Yahoo!, Microsoft, and AOL, are testing a variety of
technologies, including Sender Policy Framework (SPF), Microsoft Sender
ID, and DomainKeys.
To add an additional layer of protection for our younger members,
AOL gives parents the ability to create an approved list of screen
names and e-mail addresses that limits with whom their child can
communicate by e-mail and IM. Manual spam filtering is also available,
which allows a parent to block all mail with specific words, from
specific senders, or which includes specific content.
To help ensure that kids never see graphic images in e-mail from
unknown senders, AOL's default setting for KOL and RED members is to
have file attachments, embedded images or videos blocked in both e-mail
and IMs. A parent can make the choice to turn this feature on for their
specific child.
Keeping younger members from seeing inappropriate Internet content
is not enough, however. One of the greatest strengths of the online
medium is its ability to build community, and we want to be sure that
our younger members have safe access to chat rooms and message boards
where they can make new friends, get homework help, or chat about
current events.
Because we know that community areas in both the online and offline
worlds can be dangerous if left unsupervised, all KOL and RED chat
rooms and message boards are monitored by trained staff. These
dedicated individuals have gone through background checks and careful
training in order to sensitively work with children and help prevent
inappropriate language or conversation in chat rooms and message
boards. They control the tone and content of each chat room and message
board, warn or remove disruptive participants, and can alert parents if
their children engage in dangerous or inappropriate behavior.
Because creative pornographers have started to attack computers
directly via surreptitiously-installed software, AOL is also on the
forefront of fighting adware and spyware, sometimes referred to
generically as spyware. While annoying and potentially-dangerous for
adult users, spyware and adware can be devastating for younger users,
bombarding them with a never-ending stream of pop-ups for pornography,
tobacco, gambling, pharmaceuticals and other inappropriate material.
Once installed on a computer, spyware can also perform other
malicious acts such as tracking a user's online behavior. Spyware can
be installed on a user's computer surreptitiously using a vulnerability
in the operating system or browser, with permission buried deep in an
End User License Agreement (EULA), or in exchange for ``free''
software.
Regardless of how it is installed, spyware can be difficult to
remove. First, a user must be able to find it. With the advent of
``root kits'' and other tricks, spyware authors are hiding their
software on users' computers, making detection more difficult. Second,
newer versions of spyware are being written with self-healing routines,
delete one file and, the next time the spyware starts up, it creates a
new copy of the file.
Early last year, AOL introduced AOL Spyware Protection software
(ASP). ASP searches for and attempts to block more than 28,000
different types of spyware and adware. Once installed, ASP conducts
four separate scans--every few seconds, every 15 minutes, daily, and
weekly to find programs that can track users and detract from their
online experience. ASP also automatically checks for and installs any
new updates every time a user logs on, so it can find and block the
hundreds of new types of spyware being unleashed every month. AOL is
continuing to improve the software and a new version of ASP was
released just a few months ago.
Equally important, as viruses and hackers don't stop to check for
age verification, AOL is working hard to make online safety and
security easier for members of all ages. In December 2005, AOL released
its first version of the AOL Safety and Security Center (SSC). SSC is
an interface for all aspects of the AOL Safety and Security Center,
including anti-virus, anti-spyware, and firewall software. By default,
all the safety and security features are on, and all of the features
are automatically updated to help protect against the latest threats.
In addition to the tools mentioned here, AOL also makes available
extensive educational content to help keep parents as savvy as their
children when it comes to the Internet.
We have found that education of our members is an ongoing process.
As new consumers come online every day and as our existing customers'
lives evolve, their Parental Controls needs may change as well. We
believe that every family should periodically review new information,
check their child's Parental Controls settings and update them as
appropriate for their child's age and maturity. Also important, we have
worked to quickly and effectively notify our members of significant
news and developments in the area of children's safety, like the
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act or new Parental Controls
offerings that may impact their family's online safety decisions.
Furthermore, by updating parents on Internet and online
developments we try to offer relevant and reasonable tips on how to
help ensure their child is having a safe online experience. These tips
include:
Keeping the family computer in a central location and not
behind closed doors in a child's room.
Finding out if your child has a profile on any of the common
social networking sites and either removing or reviewing that
profile for inappropriate content.
Checking Google and other major search engines for your
child's name, address, phone number and school name to
determine if any personally-identifiable information has been
placed online that could enable a predator to find them.
Reviewing your child's e-mail address book and IM Buddy List
to be sure you know who all of your child's online and offline
friends are.
We have also worked with leading industry groups to help form a
common alliance to help protect children online. In 1998, America
Online was the first Internet Service Provider to partner with the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and helped
launch its CyberTipLine. Since then and on an ongoing basis, AOL has
been successfully working with NCMEC in many different arenas including
technical assistance, technology training, event sponsorship, online
safety campaigns, and financial contributions.
AOL has a variety of different content areas on the service that
explain and link to NCMEC's site and the CyberTipLine specifically. AOL
is a member of NCMEC's Board of Directors and helps conduct training
for the NCMEC staff and the law enforcement community for investigative
and prosecutorial training. In November 2002, AOL and NCMEC also
launched online ``Amber Alerts'' to help find missing children by
instantly sending an alert to both AOL members and Internet users who
have opted into those alerts via e-mail, phone or Instant Message.
Furthermore, AOL through its leadership role in the Internet
Service Provider trade association, USISPA, has partnered with NCMEC to
produce a Best Business Reporting Practices document to promote a
uniform and comprehensive referral protocol to facilitate the
investigation of online trading of illicit graphic images.
Although the majority of our online efforts are designed to help
protect children against the daily threats of pornography, adult
content, viruses, hackers, spam, phishing, and spyware, America Online
also has a robust process in place to deal with the darkest players of
the Internet, those online predators who might attempt to solicit a
child for sexual activity. As soon as an AOL member notifies us of such
an attempt, we will investigate and, if appropriate, engage NCMEC and/
or the local law enforcement agency in order to prevent the incident.
We also work very closely with local, State, and Federal law
enforcement agencies to track down and prosecute child predators. This
operation has been ongoing for the last three to four years and as of
last year, over 150 of these reports have led to arrests for child
solicitation.
Our criminal investigation staff also works to share their
experience by training Federal, State, local, and military
investigators and prosecutors. AOL conducts ongoing cybercrime training
and digital evidence training at the FBI Academy, the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, the U.S. DOJ's National Advocacy Center,
the National White Collar Crime Center, the National District Attorneys
Association, the American Prosecutors Research Institute, the National
Association of Attorneys General, and NCMEC. AOL also has periodic law
enforcement training at its own facilities in Dulles, Virginia. There
are AOL technologists on around-the-clock call when law enforcement
contacts AOL with criminal cases that relate to the AOL networks and
services. AOL realizes that critical data and the understanding of this
information is vital to a case especially if children are involved and
at risk.
Because child pornographers often share their illegal images by
posting them to public sites, America Online has developed state of the
art technology that uses sophisticated processes and protocols designed
to help detect illegal image files (child pornography) that are posted
to the AOL network. Once detected, an immediate report is made to law
enforcement via NCMEC for further investigation and prosecution. It has
taken several years of research and testing to produce this
countermeasure and has now been in use successfully for the last two
years.
We believe this type of cooperation with law enforcement and
investigative organizations is critical to supporting AOL's online
safety mission.
Despite all of these technological, industry, and legal efforts,
however, the most important force in protecting children is actively-
involved and well-informed parents. That's why we don't just arm
parents with online tools; we also provide them with tips, training,
and information to monitor and guide their children's online
experience.
To do so, AOL has been a leader in organizing industry efforts to
educate consumers about online safety and is committed to continuing
this leadership role. AOL was a leading corporate host of the America
Links Up national public education campaign, designed to give parents
information to help their children have a safe, educational and
rewarding experience online.
In addition, AOL created and distributed a special video for kids--
called Safe Surfin'--that features online safety tips presented by some
of the younger generation's favorite celebrities. This video was
developed in partnership with the National School Boards Association
and has been introduced into schools across the country.
Furthermore, AOL, in conjunction with the American Library
Association, launched the Internet Driver's Ed program. This program is
a traveling Internet education and safety class for children and
parents, hosted in children's museums and other prominent venues in
major cities nationwide.
AOL was also a key partner in forming the GetNetWise.org website--a
resource designed to provide consumers with comprehensive online safety
information that includes guidance from some of the major industry
leaders. We also launched the Safety Clicks! Campaign through a
partnership with Childhelp USA and the National School Board Foundation
(NSBF). This is a nationwide effort to provide parents, kids and
educators with the resources they need to enjoy a safe and enriching
online experience. And AOL partnered with scores of governors and first
spouses to launch the Internet Keep Safe Coalition, a state-supported
educational program whose mascot, Faux Paws the Techno Cat, helps
educate children to safely navigate the Internet.
AOL also partnered with leading computer manufacturer, Dell, to
create the TechKnow program. This program trains kids on computer
technology and includes training on Internet safety. The program
reaches between five and ten thousand children each year. They ``earn''
a computer from Dell, and AOL gives them a free account after they take
the safety course. Learning about safety on the Internet should be as
basic to computer users as the mouse, keyboard or software.
AOL regularly speaks on the topics of protecting children online
and Parental Controls and often provides safety demonstrations to local
area schools and children's organizations. Such efforts serve to
reinforce to parents the need for them to take their child's Internet
use seriously and to avail themselves of the tools that can control the
access their child has online.
In conclusion, AOL's commitment to families and child safety
includes a wide range of elements: educating consumers about online
child safety, providing great age appropriate content for young
audiences; working with law enforcement to go after bad actors,
building an industry-wide coalition of like-minded companies and
organizations, and offering parents easy to use, flexible Parental
Controls tools to customize their children's online experience.
We are constantly enhancing our offerings to families and working
closely with others in the industry to fine-tune our technological
tools so that they are the most up to date and effective as possible.
The Internet is evolving every day as new types of interactivity arise,
and new content is posted. We must strive to be ahead of the curve.
Finally, it bears repeating that there is no substitute for
parental involvement. Raising consumer awareness about Parental
Controls, choices and child online safety is a collaborative effort. We
welcome continued private and public partnerships to achieve that goal.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much.
We'll print all of your statements in full in the record,
just in case there's any question.
Mr. Lordan--that's Tim Lordan, Executive Director of the
Internet Education Foundation.
STATEMENT OF TIM LORDAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERNET EDUCATION
FOUNDATION (IEF)
Mr. Lordan. Chairman Stevens, Senators, and the Committee,
I thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I thank you,
the staff, who spent their past holiday season investigating
Internet pornography. Couldn't have been a fun holiday season.
The Chairman. Pull that mike a little closer to you.
Mr. Lordan. Yes.
We are--the Internet Education Foundation which is a
501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to educating the
public and policymakers to the potential of the Internet to
promote communications, commerce, and democracy. We have two
major projects which are relevant for this discussion today.
The first is, we do the event programming for the advisory
committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus, which Senator
Burns co-chairs with Senator Leahy and Congressmen Goodlatte
and Boucher on the House side. Over the years, starting in
1997, we have held Congressional briefings on Internet
technology and policy. And a perennial favorite of the
committee is holding information seminars on parental-
empowerment tools, how to protect children online, and the
like. We've been doing this since 1997. And, from that
perspective, we have an interesting view on the evolution of
the marketplace for protecting kids.
In addition, we host an award-winning website called
GetNetWise.org. And that particular website advises parents and
caregivers on how to protect their kids online. It also
includes, as the cornerstone, a large database of searchable
parental-empowerment tools, from filters to time-limiting
tools, and two other types of monitors. We developed that
website with the help of folks in the industry, the experts
from AOL, and others, but also with a--with an advisory board
of the real experts in the community on parental empowerment in
child safety, like Donna Rice Hughes, Larry Magid, Anne
Collier, Stephen Balkam, from ICRA, as you--as mentioned
earlier. And the--each one of those individuals is doing a
tremendous amount of education on their own to help educate
parents about the availability of these tools and how to
protect their kids online. So they really should be commended.
And most of them are doing it from a nonprofit perspective, as
well.
Porn is certainly a challenge. No parent will say that
access to pornography for their children is a good thing. We
heard disturbing testimony earlier today about parents actually
taking explicit pictures of their children and abusing them in
that manner. Child pornography developed in that way is
obviously against the law and really disturbing. And I was
really glad to hear Mr. Burrus and Ms. Parsky saying they have
the resources they need to address the problem, and the tools
to go after those criminals.
I think, today, I want to focus my comments on the average
American family, who is trying to deal with keeping their
children away from either inadvertently or purposefully going
to look at inappropriate material. And you can define it any
way--obscenity is certainly against the law; pornography,
itself, however you define it; or just plain old trash. The
question is--a parent doesn't care, whatever they think is
objectionable, it's pornography to them.
I think that it bears repeating, and Senator Stevens began
his comments, that the Internet isn't an appliance you can just
simply turn off. It is so critical to a child's development,
his success in the workplace, success in school. Essentially,
we cannot turn off the Internet and expect the children of
today to be competitive in a global information economy. So, we
have to find the strategies to empower parents to help keep
their kids online while also away from pornographic material.
Congress has asked this question before. And Dr. Weaver had
mentioned the National Academy of Sciences' two-year study on
this issue. The Congress also commissioned the COPA Commission
to look at this issue, as well. And both those blue-ribbon
panels have suggested that Congress needs to take a--the
solutions problem is a holistic one--no substitute for the
parenting, as Tatiana had mentioned, and that public education,
Congressionally funded public education, wouldn't be a bad
idea, either, but good parenting, use of parental-control
tools, whether they be filters or monitors, or a combination
thereof, is the effective way to go.
The good news is that parents are getting this message. The
majority of parents are actually using--with teenaged
children--filters. Also, there's a sharp increase in the amount
of parents, according to the Pew Internet & American Life
Project, in the last several years who are using filters. So,
there's hope.
We're also very concerned about Dr. Weaver's comments about
content as being untethered from its World Wide Web roots.
Filters and filtering tools analyze text in a Web page. And
just the same way that Google returns a perfect result for your
search, filters do the same thing when it comes to analyzing
text and Web pages, the text that pornography is embedded in.
As that content and that multimedia gets untethered from those
roots, we think that there's a challenge there, but, as the
industry converges, the multimedia of today and tomorrow, we
think there's a lot of opportunities to empower parents.
I was thinking, in the--I've been attending your
obscenity--or your indecency discussion, and I've been
wondering whether--why don't I use the V-chip? I have three
young children--and I have implemented, and then I've used it,
but I--my parental-control choice, at the moment, is my TiVo.
The TiVo on my television set is basically a large computer
with really intuitive software. I actually select the content
and prerecord the content I only want my children to see, and
that content only. And they watch it on the terms that I
dictate. And I think those tools are just a sample of the
powerful and innovative tools we'll see coming down the road.
And I think if the industry gets together, we can do it right,
just the way that we can filter content in today's Internet.
I thank the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lordan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Lordan, Executive Director, Internet
Education Foundation (IEF)
Chairman Stevens, Co-Chairman Inouye and Members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting the Internet Education Foundation to comment on
this enormously important issue.
I am Tim Lordan, Executive Director of the Internet Education
Foundation (IEF).
About Us
IEF is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to educating
the public and policymakers about the potential of a decentralized
global Internet to promote democracy, communications, and commerce. In
furtherance of this mission, IEF executes two main projects: the
Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee \1\ and the GetNetWise
Project. \2\ Working on the former project has allowed IEF to closely
follow the development of policies and practices aimed at ensuring that
children have safe and rewarding experiences online. Through the latter
project IEF works to educate parents on the steps they can take to keep
their children safe online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee (ICAC) is
a diverse group of public interest, non-profit and industry groups
working to educate Congress and the public about important Internet-
related policy issues. See http://www.netcaucus.org.
\2\ GetNetWise is a public service provided by Internet industry
corporations and public interest organizations to help ensure that
families have safe, constructive, and educational or entertaining
online experiences. The GetNetWise coalition wants Internet users to be
just ``one click away'' from the resources they need to make informed
decisions about their family's use of the Internet. GetNetWise is a
project of the Internet Education Foundation with an advisory board to
children's online safety experts and advocates. See http://
www.getnetwise.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee has held over
a half-dozen Congressional education panels and technology
demonstrations on the state of the art in keeping children safe online.
For these Congressional briefings we have assembled experts in the
field of children's online safety--from law enforcement officials to
technologists.
In developing the GetNetWise.org site we rely on similar experts in
the field of child safety to develop our educational materials.
Further, our industry partners bring important technical expertise to
the project. The site includes precautionary tips, short video
tutorials and suggested actions to take to combat various cyber threats
including kids' Internet safety and privacy. In the last year alone,
the site has attracted over 200,000 unique visitors, and is widely
recognized as a critical resource for parents looking for information
on how best to protect their children online. In fact PC Magazine lists
GetNetWise as one of its ``Top 100 Websites'' they ``can't live
without.'' \3\ In addition to tips the GetNetWise.org site also
includes a searchable database of over 70 parental empowerment tools
that provides parents with detailed information about tools that filter
sexually explicit content, limit a child's time online, monitor their
online activities, and block children from providing information about
themselves to strangers. This tools database is the cornerstone of the
GetNetWise website and central to its success. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``2004 100 Top Websites You Didn't Know You Couldn't Live
Without,'' PC Magazine, Apr 20, 2004. Available online at http://
www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1554208,00.asp.
\4\ Tools database at http://kids.getnetwise.org/tools/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Challenge
Access by children to age-inappropriate material is a parenting
challenge in any medium. Parents must make decisions everyday about the
types of content that are appropriate for their children at every stage
of their development. While the concerns families harbor about Internet
pornography are very real, parents are also realizing that the Internet
has become an integral and necessary component of their children's
future success in school and, ultimately, in the workplace. The
Internet, in all of its myriad manifestations, is not an appliance that
parents have the option of simply turning off. Nor should they--even if
they were able.
It is beyond the scope of my testimony to detail how transformative
the Internet is becoming to virtually every human endeavor. Obviously,
this committee understands the Internet's profound affect the Internet
is having on all manner of commerce. Soon the Internet will become the
primary conduit to the digital repositories of all human knowledge.
Even now, when faced with a challenging research assignment, today's
school children reach for the mouse and keyboard just as naturally as I
would have reached for my library card. A child's capacity to master
the Internet--to communicate, to research, to collaborate--will
directly impact his or her success in future academic and career
endeavors. Taken one step further, mastery of the Internet today is a
critical factor in keeping America competitive and culturally relevant
tomorrow.
How do parents allow their children to use the Internet for all its
many and undeniable benefits while at the same time rest assured that
they are not accessing pornography while online? As any parent can
attest, parenting is not restful and there are no panaceas.
Certainly in the decade since the Internet started to become widely
available, Congressional intervention has provided anything but a
panacea to the availability of pornography online. Neither the
Communications Decency Act (CDA) \5\ nor Child Online Protection Act
(COPA) \6\ has ever been enforced. While the Supreme Court struck down
the CDA outright, \7\ COPA survives yet, but its outcome is far from
certain. Even if COPA were to pass constitutional muster, experts say
that parents would find it of little solace as the vast majority of
Internet pornography--about 75 percent--comes to the U.S. from overseas
Web servers outside the jurisdictional reach of U.S. laws and
enforcement. \8\ This is the conclusion of a blue ribbon, National
Academy of Sciences panel commissioned by Congress to undertake a study
of ``computer-based technologies and other approaches to the problem of
the availability of pornographic material to children on the
Internet.'' \9\ The panel, chaired by former U.S. Attorney General
Richard Thornburgh, reached its conclusions after two years of
research, with the assistance of extensive expert testimony, and
numerous meetings, plenary sessions, workshops, and site visits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt at Sec. 223.
\6\ 47 U.S.C. Sec. 231.
\7\ See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844.
\8\ See Nat'l Research Council of the Nat'l Academy of Sciences,
``Youth, Pornography, and the Internet'' (2002) at page 4. The full
report is also available online in HTML format at
http://books.nap.edu/html/youth_internet/ and in PDF format at
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309082749/html/index.html.
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parenting Online
There is no substitute for old-fashioned parenting when it comes to
keeping children safe online and away from pornography. However,
responsible parents can employ the assistance of technology tools such
as content filters with remarkable efficiency. Content filtering and
other parental empowerment tools are supplements, not substitutes, for
parenting in the online age. As with any other approach to ensuring
proper child development, active participation by parents in a child's
online activities is critical. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Nat'l Academy of Sciences report emphasized this point by
noting `` [t]echnology-based tools, such as filters, can provide
parents and other responsible adults with additional choices as to how
best to fulfill their responsibilities. Though even the most
enthusiastic technology vendors acknowledge that their technologies are
not perfect and that supervision and education are necessary when
technology fails, tools need not be perfect to be helpful.'' Id at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Content filters use some of the same technology as your favorite
search engines. A search engine uses complex mathematical formulas to
return the most relevant results. The engine examines all the words you
type in, it analyzes their relation to one another, searches its index
of websites for similar word relationships. Content filters work in
much the same way--by mathematically analyzing the relationships
between words and websites to determine whether the content should be
blocked. Thus, the text-based nature of today's Internet has enabled
these filtering tools to work remarkably well.
Statistics show that parents are starting to use parental
empowerment tools more and more. A March 2005 report by the Pew
Internet & American Life Project (Pew) showed a sharp increase in the
percentage of parents who used filters--compared to those who used
filters in 2000. \11\ Any number of factors could explain this sharp
increase. Major Internet service providers provide robust parental
control tools as a benefit of the service itself. Most of these
services or software tools use a combination of tools to help parents
guide their child's experiences online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Pew Internet & American Life Report, ``Protecting Teens
Online'' 2005 by Amanda Lenhart. The full report is available online at
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/152/report_display.asp .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pew also found that a substantial number of parents have
implemented ``house rules'' that detail when and for how long children
can use the Internet. \12\ Also according to Pew, 62 percent of parents
say that they have ``checked up on where a child has gone online.''
\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Pew Report at 10.
\13\ Pew Report at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statistics show that parents continue taking their online
parenting responsibilities seriously. While there are no silver bullets
to the problem of Internet pornography, the studies and research show
that a holistic parenting solution can go a long way. The
Congressionally appointed COPA Commission in its 2000 report to
Congress shared this view. The commission concluded that the ``most
effective current means of protecting children from content on the
Internet harmful to minors include: aggressive efforts toward public
education, consumer empowerment, increased resources for enforcement of
existing laws, and greater use of existing technologies.'' \14\ The
holistic approach includes active involvement in a child's online
activities, using parental control tools such as filters, and setting
basic rules for proper Internet use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The ``Final Report of the COPA Commission,'' released on
October 20, 2000, is available online in HTML format at http://
www.copacommission.org/report/ and in PDF format at
http://www.copacommission.org/report/COPAreport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunities for Parental Control Solutions in the Age of Convergence
While the Committee has chosen to bifurcate the Internet hearing
from the mass media decency hearing, we believe that these seemingly
disparate issues are headed for a convergence. Digital convergence
means that the lines separating various types of media platforms are
blurring. Now, more and more audio and video segments are coursing
through online and wireless networks, increasingly un-tethered from the
common Web browser. These segments are streaming to a new array of
applications and devices in ways never imagined when GetNetWise.org was
launched in the last millennium. The terms video iPods, IPTV, flash
video, and vlogging have suddenly entered our daily lexicon. In fact,
the Internet is starting to become the delivery vehicle of choice for
traditionally produced mass media content.
On the one hand these developments pose challenges to industry
efforts to give users effective parental empowerment tools to protect
children from inappropriate content. Conversely, because of the power
and flexibility of information communications technologies multimedia
convergence presents an incredible opportunity for the industry to
develop intuitive, flexible and powerful parental control solutions
that parents can use.
The Challenge of Multimedia Convergence
As it becomes easier to host, distribute, and access video content
online, filters will have to evolve to keep up. Until just recently
Internet content was limited to HTML-wrapped text and static images.
While Internet video has been a concern for parents for some time now,
online video always seemed inextricably bound to its World Wide Web
text platform, and easily filtered by software tools. The multimedia
Internet of tomorrow will very likely contain the same content as mass
media networks. Even today, video content produced for network
television is available for viewing on Apple iTunes and Google Video.
Further, the Internet is starting to become the dominant ecommerce
distribution mechanism for popular music.
A substantial amount of the multimedia content coming online lacks
basic ratings information that would otherwise be present if delivered
through traditional channels (e.g. broadcast, cable TV, satellite TV,
DVD, VHS, compact disc, etc.). Ratings information, embedded digitally
into the content, would be invaluable in developing powerful and
flexible content control tools for the age of multimedia convergence.
Internet filtering tools of tomorrow could sort PG-rated content from
G-rated content by reading the embedded digital ratings information.
This is the type of nuanced content controls parents will want and
need.
Further complicating matters is the distribution of non-traditional
multimedia over wireless networks and the Internet. While mainstream
media firms are starting to move their movie, television and music
content online, the Internet is awash in new multimedia content that is
sprouting from myriad content producers using readily available and
low-cost digital tools. Increasingly available and robust broadband
connections to homes and businesses will also fuel the explosion of
non-traditional content flowing online.
Eventually parents will demand that they have the same ability to
control their children's access to the multimedia content online as
they do the content from their television, DVD player, local cinema, or
record store. The COPA Commission was prescient in recommending in its
report to Congress in 2000 that ``as we move forward, it is important
that technologies to protect children reflect next-generation Internet
systems and the convergence of old and new media.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Final Report of the COPA Commission, at 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Opportunity
These challenges can be met and the possibilities for parental
controls in the multimedia Internet of tomorrow are truly breathtaking.
The smart devices connected to the Internet are capable of performing
any number of complex tasks given the proper information. A former
Federal Communications Commission Chairman once famously quipped that a
television set is nothing more than a toaster with pictures. With
respect to the intelligence built into the device itself, the metaphor
may not be far off when compared with computers or other similar
multimedia devices.
It is difficult to stand here today and ponder the innovations of
tomorrow that will provide parents intuitive and flexible parental
control tools to help them meet the challenges of parenting in the
digital age. Yet we believe that by working together with industry at
all levels to develop some voluntary industry best practices and
technical guidelines, the content, software and technology industries
can meet this challenge and create framework to help empower parents as
we hurtle towards convergence.
Next Steps
To meet these challenges and seize these opportunities IEF is
convening a working group of leading thinkers, family advocates,
consumer groups, and technologists to explore practical solutions for
promoting parental empowerment as multimedia platforms converge. During
a full-day discussion on February 17, 2006, IEF will bring together
members of its GetNetWise Advisory Board to help explore the issues
related to multimedia convergence and parental empowerment. A select
group of experts in various fields will be asked to attend and comment
on different social, technical and policy issues. We believe that this
is an important undertaking and necessary to assure that parental
control technologies of tomorrow meet parents' needs.
This is an important time because we are just moments ahead of the
curve on this issue. The project that we are starting will require the
participation of content producers, software developers, information
intermediaries, broadband providers and parents themselves. Our goals
in promoting a solutions-oriented discussion on Multimedia Convergence
and Parental Controls are three-fold.
First and foremost, we want to assist parents in making informed
and nuanced decisions about the multimedia content their children
access whether it comes over the air, down from a satellite, over a
broadband connection, or through a mobile entertainment device.
Second, we want to develop strategies to help assure that
multimedia content includes appropriate ratings information and that
distribution intermediaries are able to interpret the information and
display it--ultimately enabling access control for underage users.
Third, we want to help educate parents how to understand the
various ratings schemes so that they can make informed decisions about
what content they will let their child access.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cambria is the counsel to the Adult Freedom Foundation.
Pleased to hear from you, Mr. Cambria.
STATEMENT OF PAUL J. CAMBRIA, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL, ADULT
FREEDOM FOUNDATION
Mr. Cambria. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Stevens,
Senator Inouye, and distinguished Members. I thank you for the
opportunity to speak to you today about this important national
topic.
I am general counsel to the Adult Freedom Foundation, but I
am also counsel to numerous individual and corporate clients
who offer lawful adult-oriented entertainment to interested
adults.
In years of representing the adult-entertainment industry,
I've come to know firsthand the commitment of the industry to
providing adults, and not children, with legal, mature
entertainment. The perspective I have gained through more than
a quarter century I think is unique among the panel members
here today.
My own views concerning adult entertainment are not only
influenced by my profession, my experiences, but they're also
tempered by my experiences as a father of five children, all
girls, between the ages of 2 and 16. With teenagers at home, I
share the concerns of parents and Members of this Committee for
the welfare of children in all their activities, including
online communication, but I also want them to appreciate that
the true freedom of living under our system of government means
that we do not succumb to efforts to restrict First Amendment
rights of the majority of adults by unlawfully restricting
access to non-obscene and, therefore, lawfully protected
material.
Lawful adult expression is accepted in mainstream America,
in both the marketplace of ideas and in the commercial
marketplace. The Adult Video News, which is a trade-industry
paper publication, estimates, as we have heard here today, that
the revenue in 2005 from such material was approximately $12
billion, with over $2.5 billion generated from the Internet.
The Free Speech Coalition reported, in its 2005 White Paper,
nearly half of the retail outlets in the United States sell or
rent adult titles, which generated revenue in excess of $3.95
billion. Approximately 40 percent of American hotels offer
adult videos, while the Nation's major cable and satellite
television providers offer many channels, as well.
A Nielsen/NetRatings study estimated that approximately 34
million Americans visited adult entertainment sites on the
Internet during August of 2003, and, on an average day,
American adult websites have as many as 60 million unique
visitors, far more than we see for the top news sites in the
world.
Given this indisputable popularity, adult entertainment on
the Internet is clearly an acceptable form of legal
entertainment for a substantial segment of our community.
The Committee asked what role government should play in
protecting children on the Internet. My answer is, government
clearly plays a major role and has provided a variety of
powerful tools sufficient to address any concern it may have
about adult expression on the Internet, not the least of which
is the willingness of the adult-entertainment industry, as
evidenced by your gracious invitation to me here today, and my
words and efforts to work with Congress and work with the
Department of Justice, to demonstrate that the adult-
entertainment industry is interested in fashioning effective
solutions to the concerns that we have here today.
As I have listened this morning, I realize just how far
behind we are in communication. Mr. Valenti, this morning, the
various things that he said, I agree with and think could be
applied, as well, to the adult side with regard to, for
example, ratings--self-ratings of the materials. Self-ratings
of the materials could dovetail with filtering processes, which
allow parents to block, at the destination computer--the one in
the home--sites that are unwanted as far as parents are
concerned, for children, but, at the same time, not censor
unlawfully the flow of information which would be available and
acceptable to an adult, who would have the right to acquire
this kind of material.
The adult-entertainment industry has been a staunch
supporter of efforts by groups that are against child
pornography. They are involved in supporting groups that are
against child pornography. They are involved in reporting cases
of child pornography. They've been involved in offering and
paying rewards for those involved in child pornography.
I think that the adult-entertainment industry is certainly
ready, willing, and able to discuss, in a productive manner, a
rating system much like we heard about this morning--obviously,
tailored to the content that we're dealing with--the same as
the music industry is involved in voluntarily, and the same as
we have with some video games, and others. Every American
website is governed by the Federal obscenity laws and the child
pornography laws. Adult-entertainment producers had been
meticulously verifying the age of performers long before they
were required to do so by Federal law. You passed the CAN-SPAM
Act of 2004. It protects children by regulating the market, by
American companies. And it certainly has been doing a good job,
as we heard again here this morning.
Congress doesn't need to burden Internet speech,
particularly with controls that are not constitutional. And
we've seen some examples of attempting to do that, and the
Supreme Court has struck them down.
I submit to you that a dot-kids domain would be the same as
a family tier situation that you were discussing here this
morning, and that a dot-kids domain would be far more
beneficial than a dot-xxx domain, because, in a dot-xxx domain,
foreign countries could totally ignore that and feel that they
weren't bound by it and still send the material in; whereas, a
dot-kids domain would be a situation where, if you programmed
your computer so you could only accept that, that would mean
that that material, fit for children, would be all that that
computer would access. And that seems to be a more workable
solution.
I've exceeded my time here. I apologize for that. I
obviously welcome this opportunity. I hope that this is the
beginning of an ongoing opportunity to attempt to come up with
solutions. The adult-entertainment industry is interested in
coming up with solutions, and in cooperating, and in helping
the filtering process be successful. I welcome your questions,
and I, again, thank you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cambria follows:]
Prepared Statement of Paul J. Cambria, Jr., General Counsel, Adult
Freedom Foundation
Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
today about this important national topic. I am Paul Cambria, general
counsel to the Adult Freedom Foundation, and counsel to numerous
individual and corporate clients who offer lawful adult-oriented
entertainment to interested adults via magazines, movies, and the
Internet. During my years of representing the adult entertainment
industry, I have come to know first hand the commitment of the industry
to providing adults, not children, with legal, mature entertainment.
The perspective I have gained through more than a quarter century
representing individuals and businesses involved in adult entertainment
is probably unique among the panel members you will hear from today. It
is my hope that my remarks will bring some balance to a discussion
before this Congress that is too often dominated by a vocal minority
intent on vilifying expression protected by our Constitution.
My own views concerning adult entertainment and, in particular, its
availability on the Internet, are informed by my professional
associations, but are tempered by my experiences as a father of five
children. With teenagers at home, I share the concerns of parents and
the Members of this Committee for the welfare of children in all of
their activities, including online communication. But I also want them
to appreciate the true freedom of living under a government that does
not succumb to efforts by a motivated minority to restrict the First
Amendment rights of the majority of adults by way of speech-limiting
schemes camouflaged as child protection or ``pornography'' initiatives.
Indeed, the pejorative phrase ``Internet pornography'' wrongly
marginalizes legitimate adult expression that is accepted by mainstream
America in both the marketplace of ideas and the commercial
marketplace. Americans spend billions of dollars on adult entertainment
each year. Adult Video News, the industry's trade magazine, estimates
2005 industry revenue at approximately $12.6 billion, with over $2.5
billion generated by adult Internet entertainment. The Free Speech
Coalition also reports in its 2005 White Paper that nearly half of the
retail outlets in the United States that sell or rent videos also carry
adult titles and, in 2002, adult video and DVD rentals and sales at
these stores exceeded $3.95 billion. Adult movies are available in
approximately 40 percent of American hotels, and the Nation's major
cable and satellite television providers offer many channels of adult
programming.
And, of course, adult entertainment is popular among Internet
users. A Nielsen/NetRatings study in 2003 estimated that approximately
34 million Americans visited adult entertainment sites on the Internet
during August of that year. On an average day, American adult
entertainment websites have as many as 60 million unique visitors--far
in excess of the unique visitors to even the top news sites in the
world. Given its indisputable popularity, Internet adult entertainment
cannot be written off as mere ``pornography'' at the whim of those who
refuse to acknowledge that it is an acceptable form of legal
entertainment for a substantial segment of our community.
This Committee asks whether the government should play a role in
controlling so-called ``pornography'' on the Internet. My answer is
that the government already plays a major role, and has at its disposal
a variety of powerful tools sufficient to address any concern it may
have about adult expression on the Internet--not the least of which is
the willingness of the adult entertainment industry to work with
Congress to fashion effective solutions to concerns that are proven to
be legitimate.
Contrary to the claims of those who wish to stifle any adult
expression with an erotic theme, the adult entertainment industry does
not exploit children. The industry does not employ child performers,
and does not condone access by minors to materials created for the
entertainment of adults. Put simply, the market for adult entertainment
producers is adults, not children. In fact, the adult entertainment
industry is a staunch supporter of efforts by the Association of Sites
Advocating Child Protection (ASACP), and also supports voluntary
labeling and content-rating, and the use of parental filters such as
Netnanny.
Moreover, adult businesses on the Internet are currently subject to
an array of legal requirements. Every American website is governed by
the requirements of Federal obscenity laws. Similarly, these websites
must also comply with strict Federal child pornography laws.
Consequently, adult entertainment producers were meticulously verifying
that their performers were of the age of majority long before Federal
law in 1995 required them to keep performer identification records.
Additionally, the 2004 CAN-SPAM Act protects children by regulating
the marketing by American companies of adult materials through e-mail.
Several states have also enacted laws prohibiting the dissemination of
harmful materials to minors, and these laws compliment long-standing
state obscenity and child pornography laws that can also apply to adult
entertainment websites.
Consequently, before Congress acts to further burden Internet
speech protected by the First Amendment, it should consider the
objective need for additional laws, and it should avail itself of the
adult entertainment industry's repeatedly rejected offers to assist
Congress in fashioning effective and lawful solutions. Congress cannot
control through legislation the illegal activities of overseas
webmasters or spammers, whose business practices reflect negatively on
the Internet as a whole. As seen after the implementation of the CAN-
SPAM Act, foreign webmasters will continue to engage in illegal and
unethical activities with impunity, resulting in no noticeable impact
from the end user's standpoint. It is unjust to punish American
webmasters, who are attempting to run ethical and legal businesses,
with over-regulation in response to problems caused by those who are
beyond the reach of the United States law, and it is equally unfair to
exclude the adult entertainment industry from the political process of
resolving issues central to the industry.
While no system is perfect, effective means of controlling
children's access to adult material on the Internet presently exist.
For instance, a 2005 study by the Pew Internet and American Life
Project revealed that 54 percent of Internet-connected families use
some sort of filter or monitoring software. Additionally, parents
themselves have the means to restrict their children's access to
material they deem inappropriate for minors, and implementation of a
``.KIDS'' domain would assist them in this endeavor.
The adult entertainment industry would also welcome the opportunity
to work with Congress and the Department of Justice to explore the
potential for age verification systems that employ constitutionally
valid standards or a voluntary rating system for adult-oriented content
similar to those used by the Motion Picture Association of America, the
recording industry, and the video game industry. In the global context
of the Internet, the development of effective and affordable voluntary
solutions, with the help of the adult entertainment industry, will
certainly have a broader impact than additional laws that burden only
American Internet businesses while diminishing their global
competitiveness, and stifle in a constitutionally unacceptable manner
what is perhaps the world's most valuable source of entertainment and
information.
I thank the Honorable Senators again for inviting me to testify
today. I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that the
Committee Members may have.
The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Cambria.
The balance of the programming industry has the burden of
doing the rating. Why don't you just rate them yourselves?
Mr. Cambria. I think that what we've lacked is a structure.
We've lacked a dialogue with authorities, with either Congress
or with law enforcement----
The Chairman. No, no, no, not Congress. I'm talking about,
when you offer a program, it ought to be rated as adult-only
and marked so that it cannot be misunderstood.
Mr. Cambria. And I don't think that any adult producer
would disagree with that.
The Chairman. But you don't do it now.
Mr. Cambria. I agree that what we need is organization, and
we need a belief that it will be meshed with, for example,
filtering----
The Chairman. Well, in my advice----
Mr. Cambria.--so that it means something.
The Chairman.--you need to tell your clients, they'd better
do it soon, because----
Mr. Cambria. I----
The Chairman.--we'll mandate it, if you don't.
Mr. Cambria. I take that advice seriously, and I appreciate
it.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Now, Ms. Platt, we've had questions about filtering
software. Now, could you tell us, do you market filtering
software with your AOL presentations?
Ms. Platt. Yes, we do. And, actually, some of our
advertising, even on TV over the years, has talked about the
AOL parental controls.
The Chairman. And we've got people down there looking at
that presentation now, about the V-Chip. Do you go through the
process of educating people on how to use the filtering
process?
Ms. Platt. We employ a different tiered approach to
educating our customers about parental controls. We do it, you
know, kind of a spreading information of marketing materials,
putting information online, but, more importantly, we choose to
put the information in parents' hands right as they are
creating accounts for their children.
On AOL, you can have up to seven screen names that use the
account, get e-mail and different things like that. The first
account is the adult/parent account that is opened up with a
credit card. From there, the parent can create user names for
other members of the household, including maybe a spouse or,
you know--not necessarily all children. But when the master
holder of the account goes to create a secondary account of any
kind on AOL, they are asked, right off the bat, is that user
going to be a child? Are they going to be under the age of 13,
or, if not under the age of 13, they are given the choice to
pick different categories--13-to-15-year-old, 16-to-17-year-
old, or else 18-and-over. And so, right at the outset, you
know, trying to educate parents that they need to have controls
in place, we push them through a process where they can't even
avoid communicating about whether or not the user is going to
be a child.
Once the account gets set up, the parent presumably will
have chosen parental controls for their child. There are
various e-mails that we send out. I mentioned in my oral
testimony, and also my written testimony, the AOL Guardian
report that we provide to parents, where they actually can sign
up to get a list of the websites that their child has been to,
and also who their child has sent e-mails to, or received e-
mails from, as well as instant messages. So, there's ongoing
communication with the parent about what the parental controls
mean.
Say a parent chooses to set up the account, but, at the
time, it's not meant for the child; and so, they set it up as
an adult account, and then they realize that they're letting
their child use it. We make information available throughout
the service. In our safety areas, we actually have a keyword,
parental controls. We put different promotions from time to
time in our programming areas to talk about parents and
children online and safety. So, we employ a variety of
different push mechanisms to get information out there.
The Chairman. Well, that's all nice. I wonder, you weren't
here this morning when we heard about the new initiative of the
people involved in satellite, cable, and broadband, and now
broadcasting, to have an initiative through the Advertising
Council to bring a common education program to families on how
to use the devices and the techniques that are there now to
block or to, in effect, filter out with a V-Chip, programs that
parents may not want their children to see. Is AOL involved in
any Internet provider/supplier, I don't know what the generic
term would be, to get everyone involved to see if we can have a
common education program, like the television media and the
radio media are trying to do?
Ms. Platt. Well, you're correct, I was not here earlier
today for that. As indicated in my written testimony, AOL
engages in a variety of different efforts where we partner with
other companies in the business to launch education campaigns,
I mentioned Safety Clicks!, America Links Up, and there are a
few others that are mentioned where we're going out there to
spread the word, leveraging the resources of not only AOL, but
other players in the industry, to get information out there
into the hands of parents, and also information directly to
children about safety tips they can follow about being safe
online.
There is a difference, though, you know, in terms of the
different filtering that different companies provide, and how
it works and things like that. One of the approaches that AOL
has taken from the beginning, recognizing that a lot of parents
don't really understand what this technology is all about, and
they're completely confused by what their kids seem to know so
much more than they do, is to create these kind of default
settings for parents, so that it's not too confusing. So, you,
as a parent, you can tell us the age of your child, and we will
tell you what the normal setting would be, what would be the
normal appropriate content for that child's age. We then also
allow parents to customize the parental controls. Say they're
really confident about their technical ability, or they want to
give a little bit more room to their child after the child has
been online for a year or so and they've spent some time with
them, seeing that the child is acting mature online, then they
can go in and fine-tune, change the Internet settings, change
the instant-messaging settings, or what the case might be. But,
really, understanding that we pull together, as a company,
resources that we have to understand that there's content out
there on the Web. We can use our own internal technology to
rate websites out there to determine what is appropriate and
what is not appropriate, creating a sort of white-list
approach. Say, in the kids environment, we will ensure that
kids are not going to be able to get to websites that have
inappropriate content. And so, that there isn't a sense that
the child is on the parental controls, they start complaining
to their parent, ``Well, why am I on this restrictive
control?'' Because parents often succumb to the pressures of
their child, saying, ``Oh,'' you know, and take off the
parental controls. We also provide additional content that we
create specifically for the children. We have an award-winning
kids channel, called KOL, which provides really engaging, age-
appropriate content.
The Chairman. That's all well and good, but, you know, in
my State, I just got the figure the other day, 90 percent of
our children in sixth grade are totally computer literate.
Their parents aren't. Now, we are looking at these other
entities that we talked to this morning, and organizations. But
with a family, where a husband and wife both work out of the
house, you've got three kids coming back to the house between 2
and 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and then the parents come home
at about 6 o'clock, it seems to me that the industry itself
that's marketing all this computer stuff has a burden it has
not shouldered yet, and that is to find a way so that those
parents, who really don't understand it that well, can ensure
that their children are not getting in this pornography while
they're not there. Do you agree with that?
Ms. Platt. I do, and I welcome the opportunity to increase
awareness. And I think that, you know, not only industry
players need to come together, but we need to work with public
and private partnerships.
But let me say----
The Chairman. Well, wait a minute.
Ms. Platt.--one piece of----
The Chairman. I'm over--I've run over my time. I'm a
chairman that usually uses the gavel on other people, so I have
to do it to myself.
Senator Inouye?
Sorry about that. He may ask you the same question, I don't
know.
Senator Inouye. Please continue.
Ms. Platt. Thank you. What I wanted to say is, contrary to
some research, actually, that I think Tim quoted from Pew,
there was a study conducted late last year, the AOL-NCSA study,
that found that only 8 percent of parents using the Internet,
as a rule--not AOL users--are actually using filters on their
computers. That means there are households with kids in the
household. Now, AOL, the percentage is significantly higher.
But that, to me, points to a problem that I called it earlier,
the laziness of parents, or perhaps the overwhelmed nature that
parents have in dealing with these computer issues, where we
have to make it easy for them, but we have to also reinforce to
them that they do need to consider it part of their parental
duty.
Mr. Lordan. If I may interject, Senator, with regard to
your question earlier about the Ad Council, I do recall several
years ago there was a movement to try to get the Ad Council to
spearhead a campaign about keeping kids safe online, either
from predators or from pornographers. And I don't know if it
ever did go anywhere. But an interesting thing, as far as
education goes, you see that the major online providers, like
MSN, AOL, Earthlink, and others, are essentially competing in
marketing the effectiveness of their parental controls. Now,
obviously, Tatiana would say that theirs is the best. That's a
healthy, healthy marketing campaign. If parents are--if they
view that as a competitive advantage against their competitors,
then they're obviously advertising the strength of their
parental controls. I mean, that's a huge amount of money that
you would otherwise have to raise from a nonprofit way and go
to the Ad Council to do. I don't know how much advertising
dollars are going into those marketing campaigns, but it's
substantial.
The other thing is that Congress, when it comes to asking
these questions about how to keep kids safe online, sometimes
they ask the questions, but the commissions that are tasked to
do it over a 2-year period, or a 1-year period, like the COPA
Commission or the National Academy of Sciences, don't have the
funding to actually spread the word. In fact, the COPA
Commission, when it was asked to do its study, didn't even have
the funds to do the report. They cobbled together a few dollars
over the course of a year, they did a tremendous amount of
research. They didn't have the money to even host a website to
hold all their findings and their research. We scraped the
Internet Caucus Advisory Committee, which advises the
Congressional Internet Caucus Senator Burns chairs--we cobbled
together a few dollars to host that website, and we host it, to
this day, because the report to Congress is available for
download today, but they didn't have the funds to do it.
So, there's a lot that can be done on the education
campaign, not only from government, but also industry. But you
don't see a lot of the cable companies or the broadcasters
competing--doing marketing campaigns about the effectiveness of
their V-Chip versus the other guy's V-Chip.
The Chairman. Well, you're wrong. They're down there right
now doing it.
Mr. Lordan. But as far as a marketing, almost education
campaign, I'm not sure we've seen that in the past, not the way
that these online companies are competing.
The Chairman. No, because at our request, they're working
together. That was the question----
Mr. Lordan. Perhaps.
The Chairman.--Why doesn't the computer area work together?
Mr. Lordan. Oh, they do.
Ms. Platt. They do.
Mr. Lordan. They do. All the time. There are lots of
different initiatives, as I mentioned earlier in my testimony.
The Chairman. Sorry, Daniel.
Senator Inouye. Dr. Weaver, what is your definition of
``child pornography''?
Dr. Weaver. Well, now, my research hasn't focused on child
pornography. I rely on the definitions that have been provided
by Federal legislation, and refined by the courts, when I use
that term. Obviously, it's pornography involving children. I
think there's also a condition that, you know, individuals who
appear to be children. I think that's part of our necessity
for----
Senator Inouye. I can understand----
Dr. Weaver.--age verifications.
Senator Inouye. As a witness said, 12-year-old, that's
obviously a child. But in some definitions they speak of
``involving minors.'' What would that mean?
Dr. Weaver. I'm not sure. I mean, I have, in our research,
we've seen images, we've seen videos, that appear to involve
women, very young women, 13-14. But it's impossible to be sure,
because some people are very petite, et cetera, et cetera.
There is one, a famous case within the adult industry of an
actress who made a considerable number of productions, and we
later learned she was 16 years old when she was making those.
So, I think it's not an easy issue. I think the problem is that
anytime we use images of an individual who appears to be
particularly young, a minor, then we're perhaps conveying a
message to potential young viewers that, ``Hey, there's
somebody just like me.'' And that might be problematic. And I
think it is.
I would like to, if I could, point out one other issue.
Actually, a couple. Today, we've heard a lot of discussion
about the adult-video industry, and my experience, and our
research, suggests that we need to be careful when we think
about the adult-video industry, because it's much like
discussing, and the best metaphor I can come up with is the
Alcohol Distillers Association. Sure, there are legitimate
individuals, legitimate organizations, that are trying to do
the best they can to operate within the law, but you know,
there are plenty of moonshiners out there, too. And I think
that's the problem today on the Internet, is that the Internet
provides those people who want to operate outside the bounds of
organizational constraints, perhaps provided by the adult
industry, et cetera, with the opportunity to do so, to have
these websites where content is free.
We did one study where we got a group of undergraduate
students involved, and, in one afternoon, we, at 3 o'clock,
with permission from the State of Virginia, began searching
websites. We started off with a search term from the 1960s,
``free love,'' you know, hypothesizing that a student might be
wanting to write a paper about the youth movement of that era.
We instantly got, I think, 25,000 hits, the first eight of
which were porn sites. And, in 1 hour, recording the content
onto videotape, we never got to anything other than the porn
sites. And many of them were just streaming movies, complete
images of people engaged in sexual behaviors in all sorts of
public locations, et cetera. And, as a parent, I couldn't help
but imagine what that would be like, to have a child come home
at 3 o'clock in the afternoon and sit down at the computer, and
most children are so sophisticated, as Chairman Stevens noted.
There's no problem to override, you know, any sort of software
controls that most filtering companies offer, most providers
offer, or go to a friend's house and work on their computer.
It's just really frightening, when you think about the amount
of material that is perhaps illegitimate, outside of the adult
industry's management structure, that's being streamed to, and
available to children today.
Senator Inouye. Every witness today, in the morning and
this afternoon, has touched upon parental obligation or
parental responsibility. And yet, our study indicates that, on
the V-Chip for television, only 15 percent of the parents are
either aware of it, or know how to use it, or have used it. And
Ms. Platt just said that--8 percent. Are you suggesting that
the filtering process is not working?
Ms. Platt. I'm suggesting that there needs to be greater
work done in the area of educating parents about the
availability of filters that are there for them, and how to use
them.
Dr. Weaver. Senator, if I may, how many homes have you
walked into, remember 10-15 years ago, where the videocassette
recorder always flashed the incorrect time? How many people had
trouble programming the time on their home videocassette
recorders? And now we're expecting parents to be able to figure
out how to manage the Web filters, et cetera, on their
computers? I think we have not done the job that needs to be
done to, number one, talk about sexual images, talk about
perhaps how they're not a forbidden fruit that needs to be
craved by young adults, but also to provide parents with the
understanding of how to program their V-Chip, how to program
their digital cable box, how to get their computer to block
certain images that are inappropriate.
Senator Inouye. My concern with this hearing is that our
first witness this morning said that, in a poll, about 70
percent of the parents who were polled said they were very much
concerned about pornography and obscenity, adult and children.
In the same poll, they asked question number two, do you want
the Government involved? Seventy percent said no. My concern is
that this matter has become--has incensed Members of Congress
to a degree that if the industry is not going to act upon it,
Congress will. And, oftentimes, Congress does a lousy job.
Dr. Weaver. Well, if I may, I've talked to a lot of my
colleagues, and I think that one approach that would be very,
very valuable is to treat this as a public-health crisis. We
now have a situation where we have sexual-education content,
essentially, that is more vivid, more salient than anything we
could hope to teach in our school systems, that's being offered
free every afternoon on the Internet. And I think that we
really need to consider this, and put the resources that have
done so well at helping us reduce smoking, reduce drunk
driving, et cetera, to work, perhaps, to talk about, you know,
``Pornography is not something that's cool and hip. It's
something else,'' and that perhaps those who use pornography,
as many who smoke or drink and drive, will realize that it's
perhaps not a socially acceptable activity. The problem is,
we're not saying anything, as a society; we're staying quiet.
And by staying quiet, we're conveying acceptance or approval.
Senator Inouye. I notice my time is up.
The Chairman. Senator Allen?
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for these
good questions, very probing questions. And thank you all for
your testimony here.
There are the legal distinctions in here about free speech
that Mr. Cambria's talking about, and all of us understand the
concept of free speech, freedom of expression, and Dr. Weaver
talking about, ``This is commercial speech.'' What AOL is
trying to do, and Mr. Lordan was talking about educating
people--it's not so much into--you get the child-pornography
situation, and that has to be prosecuted. The pornography,
though, that ends up invading a computer, whether it's adware
or these pop-ups, are something that takes over your computer,
but it is also something that you don't have any controls to
stop, unless you use these various sort of filters, which we've
figured out, at least in our household. Thank goodness, my wife
Susan's father taught computers at Piedmont Virginia Community
College, and so he's the most tech-savvy one in our family, and
helped us do this.
The e-mails and so forth that come in are clearly
commercial, in my point of view. They are not e-mailing people
whatever it is because it's a freedom-of-expression matter;
they want to entice you to open the e-mail up. Once you open it
up, sometimes you don't know what it is, you think it's your
sister's name, so ``Oh well, my sister's written me,'' and you
open it up. Well, no, it was not your sister or someone you
know.
So, at any rate, it--can we have a discussion here between
Mr. Cambria and Dr. Weaver on this question of whether or not
this is commercial. Why would that not be considered
commercial? Mr. Cambria and Dr. Weaver, I'll allow you some
time to posit and argue your case, because there is a
distinction between commercial speech versus freedom of
expression. And would you answer what Dr. Weaver said? Or, Dr.
Weaver, if you want to state your case, very quickly, let's get
a discussion going on that, because there is a different sort
of regulation. We can try to get dot-kids. And I've been a big
supporter of that. But, reportedly, that's just not doing very
well, it doesn't have the content, and so forth. I agree with
you, as a strategy, that does make more sense. Unfortunately,
as a practical matter, dot-kids, from what I've been told, has
not been successful, as supportive as I have been for it.
So, Mr. Cambria, why would that not be considered
commercial speech----
Mr. Cambria. Well----
Senator Allen.--these ads or these e-mails or these pop-
ups?
Mr. Cambria. Well, first of all, commercial----
Senator Allen.--which is regulated differently, and it may
be a deceptive practice.
Mr. Cambria. Well, there's a regulation with regard to
commercial speech that always talks about the issue of fraud.
If there's fraud involved with it, then it's not protected
speech. If it's obviously not a situation of fraud, it is
protected speech. And I think that's what we're talking about
here, there are a number of filters and other programs, and I'm
not the technophile here to come up with that, but the way I
understand it, in my own home with my own children--I happen to
use the AOL system with my children, and it works great. There
are a number of things that are coming in that, if I understand
Dr. Weaver correctly, talking about movies and/or other images.
It seems to me these can easily be blocked by the various
filtering techniques that we have. On the other hand, they
should be blocked at the destination computer, if you will, the
one in the home. But you should be in a position where an adult
in the home can unblock and then have access to this speech,
which is lawful speech. And that really comports with the First
Amendment and free speech, and it comports with my
understanding of the issue, which is, How do we live in this
society, where we have this wonderful thing called free speech,
and it's legal speech? Once we get to the legal part of it,
meaning adults have a right to it, how do we then address our
concerns with regard to our children?
Senator Allen. All right, but----
Mr. Cambria. And it can be addressed.
Senator Allen.--it may--I'm not saying there's not a right
to it. Just like you can order whatever you may want, whatever
may be legal, through the mails, but you could not, I don't
believe, legally send, through snail mail, regular mail, or
U.S. Postal Service mail some of the things that get solicited
that are e-mailed to you and come up on one's computer if you
don't have all these proper filters. And there are all these
roadblocks you can put in, but most people apparently are not
doing that. So, would----
Mr. Cambria. Well, on that----
Senator Allen.--you have a legal right to send that kind of
thing, unsolicited, to people's mailboxes?
Mr. Cambria. Well, obviously, you know, we have the CAN-
SPAM Act, and it appears to be working. And it's obviously
triggered by certain keywords. And we heard, that it was, in
fact, cutting down tremendously on the number of e-mails and so
on that people are receiving. Clearly if somebody is deceptive
in speech, I believe that the government can reach that. If, on
the other hand, the speech is straightforward, if it's adult,
if it's not obscene, if it's not child pornography, then it is
lawful. It is lawful for all purposes. And then the question
is, well, what do we do about it with regard to our children?
And then we come up with a measure that doesn't violate the
Constitution, but solves our problem. What we've been
discussing here is not only parents being responsible--put the
computer in a room where you can observe it, observe your
child, go through Guardian, which I do every day to my
children, and all of that, but the thing is that you, in
addition, come up with a way of filtering it that doesn't stamp
out the speech. I mean, it's the old adage about, you know,
burn the house down to light the candle. I mean, we don't do
that. And we can't do that. And we've seen, historically, that
each time Congress has attempted to, if you will, douse more
than they're able to legally, the Supreme Court's struck that
down.
Senator Allen. Well, and for good reason, because I'm not
one who's in favor of the government restraining people's First
Amendment rights, but they also do have a right to what they
would like to have in their homes or their properties and so
forth, and some of this ends up being offensive. And I'm trying
to find logical, legal, constitutional ways, mostly
technological, as my solution.
Now, Dr. Weaver, I've gone over, 30 seconds, in----
Dr. Weaver. I'll try. I'll try. First of all----
Senator Allen. Yes.
Dr. Weaver.--we need to recognize, I discussed this with
two communication-law specialists, the way that the explicit
images are now being used as advertisements on the Internet, at
Web portals, they both consider it, and they're very familiar
with this area of the law, to be examples of commercial speech.
Second, this dependence upon filtering by the adult-video
industry is just not right. It's really--there's recent
research that shows, for example, that attempts to search terms
like ``public,'' ``sexual health,'' ``sex education,''
``teenage advice about sex,'' resulted in 1,500-plus websites
being revealed. Sixty-three percent of those were pornography
vendors. So the notion that you're going to be able to, as a
family member, as a parent, somehow--that's deceptive use of
those key terms. That's all there is to it. Someone has used
``teenage advice about sex'' deceptively to attract people to
their porn vending site, and that's commercial speech, a
deceptive practice.
Senator Allen. Thank you. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, for your
forbearance. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Senator Pryor, for waiting. But you're on.
Senator Pryor. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cambria, let me start with you, if I can. I tried to
listen very carefully to your testimony. And I don't want to
put words in your mouth, but it sounds as if you can--you do
support the use of filters, as long as they're structured the
right way. Is that right?
Mr. Cambria. I think, as long as they don't violate the
First Amendment. And I get that, actually, from what our
Supreme Court told us----
Senator Pryor. Right.
Mr. Cambria.--in a unanimous decision.
Senator Pryor. Right. And age verification, in terms of the
user's age verification, you wouldn't be opposed to that, it
sounds like.
Mr. Cambria. Absolutely not. And I might point out, though,
as Dr. Weaver mentioned the one case, there have been three
cases in perhaps the last 25 years of the detection of underage
performers, and, in those cases, those individuals had
government-issued impeccable proof of age. And when it was
discovered, the material was obviously recalled, they were not
using it. It's contraband, and so on. So, it's not like it's a
pervasive issue.
Senator Pryor. Now, let me ask this. Do you believe that
the U.S. Government currently has enough law on the books?
Mr. Cambria. Yes, I do.
Senator Pryor. OK. Now, let me ask--I asked an earlier
panel about this dot-xxx.
Mr. Cambria. Yes.
Senator Pryor. And, a moment ago, you said you think that
dot-kid is better?
Mr. Cambria. Better.
Senator Pryor. I want to know why.
Mr. Cambria. Well, two reasons. Dot-xxx would not--you--we
can't, in this country, unless we're able to engage in treaties
with the rest of the world, impose that on the rest of the
world. So, it----
Senator Pryor. Well, how can you--OK, with dot-kid, you
can't, either.
Mr. Cambria. Well, except dot-kids only has one content,
and that's what fit for children-only. So, in other words, if
I'm home with my daughters, and I configure my computer, very
easily, so that it only accepts dot-kids on the Internet, I
know that's all general----
Senator Pryor. But what if----
Mr. Cambria.--information.
Senator Pryor. But what if, then, folks who are peddling
pornography and child predators, et cetera, somehow could latch
onto the dot-kid. Isn't that a gateway into your house?
Mr. Cambria. Well, but, again, now, you know, we're
assuming something that would be a technology question. I don't
know the answer to that. I'm told that that--that that can be
prevented.
Senator Pryor. I'll say this----
Mr. Cambria. Like the family tier, for example----
Senator Pryor. For the----
Mr. Cambria.--that you were talking about this morning.
Senator Pryor. For the Committee's benefit, I like the dot-
xxx, and I think that's something that we ought to pursue. And
I don't know exactly how that should be structured, but I think
there's value in us at least throwing that on the table and
talking about it at some point in the future.
What about the problem--and let me first ask about your
industry and your association.
Mr. Cambria. Yes.
Senator Pryor. You represent filmmakers? Do you represent
Internet websites? Both? What----
Mr. Cambria. Yes.
Senator Pryor. What percentage----
Mr. Cambria. All of the above.
Senator Pryor. OK. You called it, a few moments ago, the
adult-entertainment industry.
Mr. Cambria. Yes.
Senator Pryor. Does that mean that everybody that makes
adult films is a member of your association?
Mr. Cambria. No. No, no, no.
Senator Pryor. What percentage?
Mr. Cambria. No. The individuals who I represent, the Adult
Freedom Foundation, is basically a group of very influential
producers and distributors.
Senator Pryor. But it could be a very small percentage, as
well.
Mr. Cambria. Except that it would be like saying, if you
were dealing with Mr. Valenti, and he was representing
Universal, Sony, Paramount, and so on, that that wouldn't drive
the rest of the industry.
Senator Pryor. OK.
Mr. Cambria. I think the people that I represent drive, and
would drive, the rest of the industry.
Senator Pryor. But my guess is, it really would only be a
tiny fraction of the overall number of websites out there.
Mr. Cambria. Here's how that would work. This is the first
time Chairman Stevens has invited us here. And I think it's the
same as years ago, when the Motion Picture Association was
invited to Congress, and all of a sudden they came up with a
rating system, because Congress wanted to know, and we respond
to our government, for sure. And this is the first time. And
now I'm invited here. Now I clearly will try to make this a
reality. Congressman--I'm sorry, Senator Stevens said, today,
``Your clients should do that.'' And I agree with that. And I
take that as a message and mandate to my clients that we should
do that.
Senator Pryor. Yes. My advice on that would be to pay very
careful attention to what Senator Stevens says, because I think
he's taking a shot across your bow as a warning shot. And it
sounds to me like if you don't clean up your act, we will.
Mr. Cambria. I might welcome a shot across the bow, rather
than one between the eyes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Pryor. Yes. Well, the one between the eyes sounds
like it's coming, if you guys don't clean up your act.
Mr. Cambria. Yes.
Senator Pryor. But, one last----
Mr. Cambria. And we're here to do that--not clean up our
act. We're here to cooperate and to try to make these filters
work. And I think we need to do that. In other words, the same
way as the motion-picture individuals have to rate their
movies--and they do it voluntarily--and the music people and
the video game people--if we do that, that allows us to
dovetail with filtering companies so that we can then
accomplish this goal. The worst thing is when the First
Amendment collides with the rights of children in a way where
one or the other has to give. The best situation is when we're
in the middle, and we can solve the problem without hurting one
or the other.
Senator Pryor. Let me ask one last question, if I may. And
that is, foreign versus domestic, how much, in your estimation,
if you know--how much Internet pornography actually comes from
overseas or comes offshore? My impression is that, even some of
the people that we think of as U.S.-based may have offshore
sites, and it's very difficult to regulate. And this may be
particularly true with the free stuff. There's a lot of free
stuff out there that tries to lure people onto the websites,
and my impression is, a lot of the offshore people use the free
lures to try to get people on their websites.
Mr. Cambria. I think that it's almost the same. And I only
say this because that's just my opinion; I don't have any
statistics. I'm sure that we could attempt to put some
together. But I think it basically mirrors what it does for the
general motion-picture industry, that most of the films that
are out there and generating the money and are having the most
attraction come from here, but there will always be those from
other countries--like today, again, Mr. Valenti said, ``There
may be--there were only 200-and-some movies made in Hollywood,
and they're great movies, but there may be 1,000 movies made
out there, and the rest aren't so good.'' There are movies made
all over Europe, and a lot of times we see those movies the
subject of prosecution by the Federal Government because they
are--they are movies that go beyond what the usual producers do
here. And we see that--I've been involved in cases like that
many times, and we see them from other countries, and it's far
beyond what's done here. But I think most of it is done here.
Senator Pryor. Mr. Lordan?
Mr. Lordan. The statistics that you were looking for with
regard to how much pornography on the websites is overseas or
domestic is an important question. The National Academy of
Sciences, in their 2002 report, determined that three-quarters
of all Internet pornography is washing upon our shores from
overseas sites. So, that led them to the conclusion that, even
if you were--you know, put us--I'm no First Amendment lawyer,
but if you--even if the COPA statute, or the CDA statute before
it, were effective, you still have the problem with this 75
percent, which will undoubtedly increase after a domestic
ruling. How do you deal with that? And that's why they pursued
the holistic approach of parental education, parenting, and
filtering tools.
Mr. Cambria. Which, by the way, I think indicates that
controls that stifle what American producers do punish American
producers for speech that's not unlawful and have no reach on
foreign producers. And so, why would that happen? And that
doesn't accomplish our goal, which is to be able to protect our
children, in our opinion, from what they should be protected
from.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
And thank you all. Thank you, particularly, Mr. Cambria,
for coming, at----
Mr. Cambria. Thank you.
The Chairman.--our request. And we thank you all for your
presentation.
We'll continue our series of hearings Tuesday morning at 10
o'clock, and we're going to be dealing with broadcast and
audio-flag questions on that day.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Supplementary Information Submitted by Paul J. Cambria, Jr., General
Counsel, Adult Freedom Foundation
During the hearing before the Committee on January 19, 2006,
Senator Pryor commented, ``in terms of the user's age verification, you
wouldn't be opposed to that, it sounds like.'' Misapprehending the
point, I responded, ``absolutely not,'' and pointed out that in the
past twenty-five years there had been only three cases of underage
performers in the adult entertainment industry, and all three had
government-issued proof of age.
Of course, Senator Pryor was referring to Internet user age
verification--not performer age verification--an entirely different
issue requiring a different response. While I am obviously in favor of
verifying the ages of performers (as are my clients and the adult
entertainment industry at large), I do not agree that Internet user age
verification is a practical or effective solution at this time.
As the Supreme Court emphasized in Ashcroft v. America Civil
Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656, 667-68, 124 S.Ct. 2783 (2004), use of
filtering software is preferable to employing age-verification systems.
Indeed, Congress' own Commission on Child Online Protection researched
ways to protect children online and concluded that end-user filters are
more effective than age verification requirements. See, Commission on
Child Online Protection (COPA), Report to Congress, pp. 19-21, 23-25,
27. Further, age-verification requirements will not affect the
substantial amount of explicit content coming from overseas. Rather,
American adults will be burdened with credit card access hurdles that
only encourage content providers to locate offshore to avoid costly
age-verification obligations.
I favor the Supreme Court's perspective: the evidence shows that
end-user filtering is more effective than age-verification, and less
burdensome on First Amendment rights. As the Court observed on this
point:
One argument to the contrary is worth mentioning--the argument
that filtering software is not an available alterative because
Congress may not require it to be used. That argument carries
little weight, because Congress undoubtedly may act to
encourage the use of filters. We have held that Congress can
give strong incentives to schools and libraries to use them.
United States v. American Library Assn., 539 U.S. 194, 123
S.Ct. 2297, 156 L.Ed.2d 221 (2003). It could also take steps to
promote their development by industry, and their use by
parents. It is incorrect, for that reason, to say that filters
are part of the current regulatory status quo. The need for
parental cooperation does not automatically disqualify a
proposed less restrictive alterative. Playboy Entertainment
Group, 529 U.S., at 824, 120 S.Ct. 1878. (``A court should not
assume a plausible, less restrictive alternative would be
ineffective; and a court should not presume parents, given full
information, will fail to act''). In enacting COPA, Congress
said its goal was to prevent the ``widespread availability of
the Internet'' from providing ``opportunities for minors to
access materials through the World Wide Web in a manner that
can frustrate parental supervision or control.'' Congressional
Findings, note following 47 U.S.C. Sec. 231 (quoting Pub. L.
105-277, Tit. XIV, Sec. 1402(1), 112 Stat. 2681-736). COPA
presumes that parents lack the ability, not the will, to
monitor what their children see. By enacting programs to
promote use of filtering software, Congress could give parents
that ability without subjecting protected speech to severe
penalties.
Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. at 669, 124 S.Ct. 2783. (emphasis added)
Parental supervision and end-user filtering are the most effective
options. The adult entertainment industry would welcome the opportunity
to work with Congress, the Department of Justice, and the major
Internet service providers and filtering software companies to devise
effective and constitutional methods of protecting children online
through filtering and parental supervision.
Notably, many adult websites already self-rate for use in
conjunction with popular filtering software programs. Many of these
companies self-rate under the auspices of the Internet Content Rating
Association (ICRA). The ICRA is an international, nonprofit
organization with a goal of making the Internet safer for children
through self-rating of website content. Self-rating of websites started
in 1996, when the Recreational Software Advisory Council developed the
``RSACi'' rating system for nudity, sex, language, and violence. In
2000, the ICRA substantially expanded the scope of self-rating with the
unveiling of a more comprehensive, international rating system intended
to work hand-in-hand with parental filtering systems.
Today, working cooperatively with many of the world's major
Internet companies--AOL, AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, T-Mobile--the ICRA
operates a free self-rating system that meshes with its own free
ICRAplus parental filter and other popular filtering systems to give
parents effective means to control their children's access to content
on the Internet. More information about these important parental
control efforts can be found at www.icra.org.
Significantly, since the Committee's hearing on January 19, 2006, I
have met with ICRA representatives and key self-rating and filtering
experts on behalf of the Adult Freedom Foundation to discuss an even
more aggressive industry self-rating program. These discussions
continue to develop, and I would be happy to report back to Chairman
Stevens and the Committee on our progress.
______
Prepared Statement of Kat Sunlove, Legislative Affairs Director, Free
Speech Coalition
On behalf of the Board of Directors and members of Free Speech
Coalition, we wish to thank Chairman Stevens, Ranking Minority Member
Inouye and Members of the Senate Commerce Committee for this
opportunity to submit testimony in regards to your recent hearing on
``Protecting Children on the Internet.''
Founded in 1991, Free Speech Coalition (FSC) is the trade
association of the adult entertainment industry in the United States
and has a membership of more than 3000 adult businesses, nightclubs.
webmasters, attorneys and other individuals who make their living
providing legal adult entertainment products and services for a
receptive and appreciative adult market. A good portion of our
membership is also composed of fans and customers who benefit from our
defense of their free speech and privacy rights. FSC represents both
the largest and most recognizable names in the industry as well as
hundreds of smaller and medium-sized entrepreneurs. from mom-and-pop
video stores to home-based websites. These business owners employ
thousands of Americans in well-paying jobs across the Nation and
contribute many millions in State and Federal taxes. According to Adult
Video News (January 2006), the adult entertainment industry contributes
more than $12 billion annually to our national economy.
Many of our members are also parents and grandparents and sincerely
share your concerns about protecting our children from accessing adult
material on the Internet or becoming the target of child predators. As
was pointed out by several witnesses at your January 19th hearing,
there is no ``silver bullet,'' no comprehensive solution to this
problem because of today's easy access to the Internet, its ubiquitous
presence in American life and perhaps most significantly, the
international nature of the Internet. The fact that some 60 percent or
more of adult material available online comes to our shores from
overseas greatly complicates our efforts to find an effective solution
to the problem of protecting minors here in the United States.
But let us first define our terms. Child pornography is, as Ms.
Parsky of the Department of Justice pointed out at your hearing, a
misnomer, which would be better referred to as a ``record and
exhibition of child sexual abuse.'' It is reprehensible and tragic and
is appropriately illegal; not only its transmission over the Internet
but even mere possession can be, and rightly is, prosecuted. America's
adult entertainment industry universally rejects such material and
supports government efforts to eradicate it, including the fact that
FSC offers and has awarded a $10,000 reward for information leading to
the conviction of a child pornographer. In furtherance of our goal of
protecting children in the online world, the adult entertainment
industry supports the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection,
a non profit organization that is dedicated to eliminating child
pornography on the Internet. (See more on ASACP at www.asacp.org ).
Obscenity, on the other hand, is material which has been deemed by
a court of law to exceed a community's standards of decency and which
lacks serious literary, scientific, political or artistic value, as
judged by the reasonable person. However, undesirable obscene material
may be to a community, it should not be confused with a depiction of
child sexual abuse in which an actual minor is harmed.
Sexually explicit materials, which are legal, constitutionally
protected forms of adult entertainment, while not obscene for adults,
are obviously not appropriate for minors. Materials in this category.
widely available on the Internet, create problems in how to shield
minors while still allowing adults access. Often referred to as
``pornography,'' it is this legal adult product, along with sex
education materials, sex toys, marital aids, novelties and other adult
entertainment products, that members of FSC produce and sell to an
adult marketplace. While not everyone enjoys or appreciates the full
range of adult entertainment, it is nevertheless a legal and indeed
very popular line of goods.
The Supreme Court has determined that some of these non-obscene
materials, which are legal for adults, are nevertheless obscene as to
minors and their distribution to minors may be prohibited. Material
deemed ``harmful to minors,'' when placed in the Internet environment,
means that the transmission of constitutionally protected, i.e., non-
obscene, material to adults becomes more difficult to accomplish
without risking unintended access to it by minors. FSC is actively
seeking secure means of preventing access to such materials by minors
without intruding on the free speech rights of adult consumers.
As was pointed out by Senator Inouye at the hearing, a recent
survey showed that while a large majority of American parents are
concerned about the problem of protecting their children on the
Internet, an equally large majority do not want the government involved
in determining solutions for them. Parents and grandparents, as well as
others in a supervisory role, such as teachers or librarians, are the
first line of defense in protecting children from accessing
inappropriate materials on the Internet. Common sense public policies
like putting filtering software in libraries on computers used by
minors, while leaving some computers unfiltered for adult use only,
serve to protect children without restricting the free speech rights of
adults. By sending the challenge to the Child Online Protection Act of
1998 (COPA) back to a lower court, the Supreme Court brought attention
to the question of whether parental use of filters on the home computer
may not offer the best approach to protecting our children. Results of
that lower court inquiry are pending.
Historically. it was possible to segregate adult material in the
public marketplace so that children could be prevented from accessing
matter intended only for adults. A brick and mortar store could provide
signage at the doorway, turning young people away. If a youngster dared
venture inside, a gatekeeper was available to check an identification
document and thus determine the potential customer's age. With the
advent of the Internet and its prevalence in society, the challenges
are much more complex.
America's legitimate adult entertainment industry eagerly awaits a
technology to serve as that gatekeeper that will accurately,
economically, and with minimal intrusion into adults' privacy rights,
determine the age of the website visitor prior to exposure to adult
material. Numerous attempts have been made in this regard. with varying
degrees of success. Despite the failure to date to develop such a fully
effective Age Verification System (AVS), many adult websites have
employed one of the models currently available, despite their expense
and their reduction in adult customer traffic. Some of the problems
involved are that many adults do not wish to reveal personal data
needed to determine their age and Americans move frequently, so that
drivers' license and other such databases may be as much as six months
out of date. Plus, AVS is an imperfect screening mechanism in that an
under-age person can input personal data from their parents or another
adult and still gain access to materials.
In the COPA legislation, Congress essentially endorsed the use of a
credit card for restricting access to adult sites by minors.
Unfortunately, in recent years credit card companies have indicated
that they do not wish to be used in this way and indeed, are now
issuing credit cards to minors without unique identifiers as to the age
of the holder, making their use less effective for age verification.
Another approach to inhibiting minors' access to adult sites is
through meta-tagging--either of adult content or conversely, by tagging
content suitable for children. In fact, many, if not most adult sites
based in the United States do employ some form of self-rating through a
voluntary program such as Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA).
Such identification at the ``html code level'' of a website allows for
effective filtering at the destination computer, i.e., in the home or
school computer used by a child. Most U.S.-based adult websites do
utilize ICRA or other systems to self-rate as containing adult content.
Unfortunately, meta-tagging of American adult websites does nothing to
prevent the entrance of adult material from foreign sites. For this
reason, while we support voluntary adult content tagging, it is the
position of FSC that tagging of sites suitable for children and the
broader use of a ``.kids.us'' domain would be far more effective. FSC
urges the establishment of a dot-kids Top Level Domain (TLD), the
Internet equivalent of a safety zone, much like a bicycle lane on a
highway. In this way, a destination computer can be set to filter in
those sites that are tagged as suitable for children, automatically
eliminating any sites--including overseas sites--that are not so
designated.
Some arguments were advanced at the January 19th hearing in favor
of establishing ``.xxx'' as a TLD for use by adult entertainment.
Although this solution has a surface appeal, there are substantial
practical and constitutional obstacles to the success of such a
proposal. If it is voluntary, there is little likelihood that it would
be universally adopted by U.S.-based adult websites. Even for those who
do adopt a dot-xxx identity, they will certainly not wish to drop their
branded dot-com identity, in which they no doubt have a large financial
investment in marketing and in customer loyalty. The result would be an
expansion of available adult material, not a reduction, a fact which
has elicited conservative opposition to the .xxx concept. And finally,
if American adult dot-coms did not voluntarily migrate to .xxx. this
would create a strong incentive for our government to mandate such
segregation, raising tough First Amendment issues. Such a content-based
approach restricting legal adult expression is unlikely to survive
judicial scrutiny. Resulting court challenges would ultimately delay
any resolution of the problem. And of course, overseas sites would not
be affected by a U.S. adoption of .xxx. They would simply fill the
marketing void created by the absence of U.S. adult dot-com sites.
Clearly, .xxx is not a solution to the problem of keeping minors away
from adult materials.
FSC respectfully requests the commencement of a genuine dialogue
between representatives of our industry and the government. A candid
and respectful discussion of these issues is needed, including
consideration of the various alternative approaches to resolving them,
the pros and cons of those approaches and finally, a consensus
resolution that meets both our common goals of protecting children as
well as protecting legal speech on the Internet. We look forward to
working productively with the Committee on this complex and important
problem facing today's society.