of others. The commission of sexual crimes, the degradation of women, and the abuse and mistreatment of children are terrible and pressing problems that concern us urgently. As we face up to the extensive public consumption even of certain types of extreme pornographic materials, a need for massive public re-education about potential problems associated with them seems strongly indicated. We cannot tolerate messages of sexual humiliation directed to any group. But to make all pornography the scapegoat In the absence of significant social sanctions against pornography, the possibility of halting its use the chance of halting the sales of liquor is not constructive. seems as slim as was during Prohibition. In conclusion we repeat that we face a complex social and legal problem that requires extensive study before realistic remedies can be recommended. Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 The Commission and Its Mandate The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (referred to throughout this Report as "The Commission") was established pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act Act1 on February 22, 1985 by then Attorney General of the United States William French Smith, at the specific request of President Ronald Reagan. Notice of the formation of The Commission, as required by Section 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, was given to both Houses of Congress and to the Library of Congress on March 27 and March 28, 1985. On May 20, 1985, Attorney General Edwin Meese III publicly announced formation of The Commission and the names of its eleven members, all of whom served throughout the duration of The Commission's existence. The formal mandate of The Commission is contained in its Charter, which is attached to this Report in Appendix A. In accordance with that Charter, we were asked to "determine the nature, extent, and impact on society of pornography in the United States, and to make specific recommendations to the Attorney General concerning more effective ways in which the spread of pornography could be contained, consistent with constitutional guarantees." Our scope was undeniably broad, including the specific mandate to "study the dimensions 1 5 U.S.C. App.2, 86 Stat.770(1972), as 90 Stat.1241, 1247(1976) amended by . the available of the problem of pornography," to "review. empirical evidence on the relationship between exposure to pornographic materials and antisocial behavior," and to explore "possible roles and initiatives that the Department of Justice and agencies of local, State, and federal government could pursue in controlling, consistent with constitutional guarantees, the production and distribution of pornography." Because we are a commission appointed by the Attorney General, whose responsibilities are largely focused on the enforcement of the law, issues relating to the law and to law enforcement have occupied a significant part of our hearings, our deliberations, and the specific recommendations that accompany this Report. That our mandate from the Attorney General involves a special concern with enforcement of the law, however, should not indicate that we have ignored other aspects of the issue. Although we have tried to concentrate on law enforcement, we felt that we could not adequately address the issue of pornography, including the issue of enforcement of laws relating to pornography, unless we looked in a larger context at the entire phenomenon of pornography. As a result, we have tried to examine carefully the nature of the industry, the social, moral, political, and scientific concerns relating to or purportedly justifying the regulation of that industry, the relationship between law enforcement and other methods of social control, and a host of other topics that are inextricably linked with law enforcement issues. These various topics are hardly congruent |