Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Lt. BOUCHARD. We have approximately 22 of the models testifying for us.

it.

Mr. HUGHES. And were they all willing to testify?

Lt. BOUCHARD. They were willing, but they were not happy about

Mr. HUGHES. Well, I would say most people are not happy about testifying in criminal cases, often in civil cases, but at least they were prepared to testify if need be?

Lt. BOUCHARD. That is correct. I had to serve the subpoenas on 22 of them.

Mr. HUGHES. Actually, Susan was the key witness, she would have been one of the major witnesses in the case.

Lt. BOUCHARD. That is true.

Mr. HUGHES. You have submitted to the committee a number of photographs which we have inspected. Would you have any problem with our making a part of record, at least the publications that you have submitted to the committee?

Lt. BOUCHARD. No, sir.

Mr. HUGHES. How about the photographs? They are evidence in court, are they?

Lt. BOUCHARD. They are not evidence in court any more. I would appreciate it, if you are going to make them-are you saying you want to keep them?

Mr. HUGHES. Well, just for the time being so that I can share them with the other members of the committee that are not here today.

Lt. BOUCHARD. No problem at all.

Mr. HUGHES. We will return them to you.

Lt. BOUCHARD. Yes, if Mr. Sterling will get a hold of me, we will work it out, no problem at all.

Mr. HUGHES. Without objection, then-there is nobody here to object-they will be made a part of the record and we will return the photographs and the publications, if you would like to have those back. For now we would like to share them with the other members of the committee.

Lt. BOUCHARD. Very good.

[The material is available for review in the Crime Subcommittee office.]

Mr. HUGHES. At some point, Susan, you visited a physician, mostly because of complaints in the abdominal area and concerns that when you were whipped you might have been damaged in the vaginal area.

MS. SUSAN. Yes, the stomach is what I went to the doctor for.

Mr. HUGHES. I notice in some of the photographs there were some obvious bruises on the part of some of the women. Did you likewise have some bruises as a result of the torture?

Ms. SUSAN. Yes, mostly on the backside, my back, the back of my legs.

Mr. HUGHES. Were they bruises that one of the participants had administered?

Ms. SUSAN. Yes.

Mr. HUGHES. Also, I believe in your testimony you skipped over one portion, and it was probably just an oversight, involving a dog in one of the scenes. Would you describe what occurred on that oc

casion? I know that that has to be embarrassing, but I would like to have that as part of the record.

Ms. SUSAN. OK. That was the day that I was taking the lingerie photos for the phone customers. There is a photograph available to you of that. You will notice that I have a gag around my mouth and my hands and my wrists.

Mr. HUGHES. I don't see it.

Ms. SUSAN. No, it is not here but we can get it for you. They were taking pictures and it was a very spontaneous thing on their part, that they thought it would be something different if they put some animal in the picture, so they put

Mr. HUGHES. They did something to make it attractive--
Ms. SUSAN. Right.

Mr. HUGHES [continuing]. For this dog to come up to you and make it appear as if the dog was engaged in some kind of sex with you?

Ms. SUSAN. That is correct, although it was not. The picture made it look as if

Mr. HUGHES. I see. Let me ask you, as a result of your coming forward, a lot of witnesses fear recrimination, do you have any regrets about coming forward and

Ms. SUSAN. None whatsoever.

Mr. HUGHES. And is that because perhaps by telling your story and doing what you have done, you might prevent others from falling into the same trap?

Ms. SUSAN. Well, I really do not think, no matter how publicized it is, it is not going to help everybody, but if some of the people that are young and are not aware of what is going on, even just a couple, if they take the advice or read the column or whatever, that will be worth it to me.

Mr. HUGHES. Well, some people fear that there might be some recrimination, some effort to get even. Did you find that there was any such effort on your part?

Ms. SUSAN. Well, my name has not been made available or my address. It is not really going to help me to worry about it. If something should happen, something should happen, but I am always in contact with Mike and Larry, so I am not really worried about it. Mr. HUGHES. I gather they have been very supportive throughout this entire ordeal?

Ms. SUSAN. Yes, they have, from the beginning.

Mr. HUGHES. So you.have nothing but praise for the manner in which it was handled?

Ms. SUSAN. Correct.

Mr. HUGHES. Is there anything else you want to tell us, as I think that I——

Ms. SUSAN. Well, I would like to make clear something that I did not really get a chance to before, was you wanted to know why I did not just leave, and something that I, during the whole process of coming in here and being nervous and all that, I missed an important point that I forgot to make, and that was that not leaving that first day was probably the smartest thing I could have done, because if they knew that I was not coming back, they would just do the things they wanted to do with me then and I wanted to make it clear to them or at least make it appear that I was going

to come back until at least I was dressed and out the door. Does that make any sense to you?

Mr. HUGHES. Yes. Well, of course we can all Monday morning quarterback and I can understand the intimidation involved and I can understand the reluctance and I understand that you needed money and I can understand how they work you in, they really conned you gradually into the predicament you found yourself in. Ms. SUSAN. Yes.

Mr. HUGHES. First with clothes and then tie you up. I suspect that at that point you must have known that there was something going on but not really sure why, because of the reassurances they were giving you.

Ms. SUSAN. Yes.

Mr. HUGHES. I think I can understand, but nobody can really understand the fear until they are in that position. But hopefully, by telling your story and indicating just how you found yourself conned, in this predicament, over your head, perhaps you will help others who find themselves so trapped.

Ms. SUSAN. I hope so.

Mr. HUGHES. Obviously, the mistake is to permit it to progress to the point where you are subject to blackmail and intimidation and fear, and that is how you found yourself.

Ms. SUSAN. Yes.

Mr. HUGHES. OK. Thank you very much. You have been very, very helpful to us. You are brave and courageous for coming forward and we appreciate that and we appreciate your being a good citizen and being willing to testify to make the criminal case that was made against these individuals, and I hope out of these hearings will come perhaps some additional tools that will enable law enforcement to do an even better job of identifying and prosecuting those that engage in such outrageous criminal behavior. It is just unbelievable.

I find what these photographs depict just mind-boggling. I just cannot understand that mentality and that type of conduct. Thank you.

Thank you, Lieutenant, for coming such a long distance to be with us.

Lt. BOUCHARD. Thank you. And if you ever do get a pornographer that does that kind of work to come and tell you how good it is, could I come and listen?

Mr. HUGHES. Well, I do not think we are going to find any pornographers who will want to come here and tell us about their expertise, but I will, I will let you know.

Lt. BOUCHARD. Thank you.

Mr. HUGHES. Thank you very much. Thank you again. Good luck

to you.

Our second panel, Panel II, consists of Professor Frederick Schauer, of the University of Michigan School of Law; Professor Martin Redish, of Northwestern University School of Law; and Alan E. Sears, Legal Counsel for the Citizens for Decency Through Law, Inc., Phoenix, Arizona.

Professor Schauer received his BA and MBA degrees from Dartmouth College, and a Doctor of Law degree from Harvard University. After 2 years as a trial lawyer, he began his teaching career at

West Virginia University. He has been at the University of Michigan since 1983 and is the author of numerous publications.

Professor Redish has taught and written extensively for the last 16 years about both the theory and judicial doctrine of freedom of expression.

Mr. Sears served as Assistant U.S. Attorney and later became Chief of the Criminal Section of the United States Attorneys Office for the Western District of Kentucky, in Louisville. During the period from March 1985 to July 1986, he was Executive Director of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography.

Gentlemen, we welcome you here today. We have your prepared statements which, without objection, will be made a part of the record, and we hope you can summarize for us so we can get right into questions.

We will begin with you, Mr. Schauer. Welcome.

TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK SCHAUER, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MI; MARTIN REDISH, PROFESSOR OF LAW, NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, CHICAGO, IL; AND ALAN E. SEARS, LEGAL COUNSEL, CITIZENS FOR DECENCY THROUGH LAW, INC., PHOENIX, AZ

Mr. SCHAUER. Thank you very much. I am honored to be asked to be here, Mr. Chairman. Should I have to depart in the course of this panel, it is not by way of disrespect either for you or for my fellow panelists. It is only to catch a flight.

My name is Frederick Schauer and I am Professor of Law at the University of Michigan. I am not here on behalf of any individual or organization.

Although I have been writing and teaching about obscenity law and the First Amendment since 1974, I suspect I was invited to testify not because of any knowledge in general I have about these areas, but because I served as a member of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography and was the primary drafter of Part II of the Report, which contains its analysis and conclusions.

I have believed for some years that the regulation of legally obscene material, as defined in Miller v. California and other cases, does not violate the First Amendment. In this regard, I am in a minority among First Amendment scholars, but in agreement with the Supreme Court when it holds that legally obscene material is not covered by the First Amendment. I am still of this opinion. And although I might change a sentence here or there or add and subtract in minor ways, I am also, 2 years later, still comfortable with the analysis, conclusions, and manner of presentation of Part II of the report of the Attorney General's Commission. Because that part of the report presented the Commission's findings and approach to the issues, it is fair to say that I still agree with the general direction of the Commission's focus, findings, and analysis.

I belabor this for a simple reason: Although I believe obscenity regulation to be constitutionally permissible, although I was a member of the Commission, and although my views are largely consistent with its work and product, I cannot support most of the legislation that has been proposed, and I believe that most of these proposals are foundationally inconsistent with the Report.

My reasons for this conclusion are not complex. The focus of the Commission's work and of its product was sexual violence against women, including the variety we have just heard about from Susan. With the exception of H.R. 1213, these bills ignore that concern, addressing a different one-decency-that at every turn produced a divided Commission and no recommendations.

These bills, although at times embodying specific recommendations of the Commission, wrench those recommendations from the context in which they were issued and in doing so put those recommendations into a different context and into the service of a different agenda. You may choose to adopt that agenda, if you wish, but it will not be because of the work of the Attorney General's Commission, but in spite of it.

The Commission's most significant accomplishment was to recognize that not all sexually explicit material, and not all of the much smaller category of legally obscene material, is the same. The Commission distinguished four different categories of material.

The first contains endorsing descriptions or depictions of sexual violence. The second contains material that, although not containing sexual violence such as rape, still contains material that is degrading, primarily to women by virtue of its scenes of domination, humiliation, and subordination. The third category contains material that involves equal and consensual sexual activity, and the fourth involves mere nudity.

With respect to the first, the Commission found that substantial exposure to sexually violent materials bears a causal relationship, defined probabilistically to antisocial acts of sexual violence and, for some subgroups, to unlawful acts of sexual violence. Such material, almost all of which is protected by the First Amendment, and properly so, is likely to affect the incidence of sexual violence against women in the society. Some sexually violent material, a small part of the universe of such material, is legally obscene, and is thus not protected by the First Amendment. The Commission reached similar but less confident conclusions about degrading materials not involving sexual violence. Again, most of that material is not legally obscene, but some is, and is thus constitutionally subject to regulation.

Finally, the Commission examined the evidence dealing with material involving neither violence nor degradation, and thus displaying only equal and consensual sexual activities, no matter how sexually explicit, and no matter how unusual or offensive some people would find such sexual activities or their depiction.

With respect to this category, the Commission concluded that the scientific evidence did not support the hypothesis that such material bore a causal relationship to the incidence of sexual violence, and in fact existing evidence was somewhat against the hypothesis. On this, the Commission was unanimous.

With respect to the question, not limited to the scientific evidence and not limited to harm only in terms of sexual violence, on whether explicit material, even highly explicit material, showing equal and consensual activities was harmful, the Commission was deeply and essentially evenly divided, and thus came to no conclusions about whether such material was harmful at all.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »