It's Not a Privacy Issue!
The distribution of hardcore pornography is not a privacy issue.
What right do you have, Phil, to tell me what I can or cannot do in the privacy of my own home or hotel room?”
As the saying goes, I wish that I had a nickel for every time that I have been asked that question. Whether the topic is Larry Flynt's Hustler Store or Internet pornography, the question is the same. Since several local hotels decided to pull the plug on pornographic adult pay-per-view movies, I have been interviewed on talk shows across America. And without exception, each one has asked, “What right do you have…?”
The answer is simple. The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the private use of sexually explicit hard-core pornography is protected by the First Amendment.
The fact is — this is not a privacy issue.
When CNN host Bill Hemmer posed that privacy question, I responded with a question of my own. "If CNN decided to air a sexually explicit hard-core movie, do you think that law enforcement would go after the viewers, or CNN management?" He got my point.
The issue is distribution, or public pandering, of pornography. And there are laws, state and federal, against the distribution of sexually explicit pornography.
Needless to say, there are moral and decency arguments, which should be sufficient to convince hotels like Marriott and other major corporations to cease profiting from the distribution of graphic, hard-core pornographic materials. How can these companies justify profiting from the distribution of the same materials that Larry Flynt sells, materials that they would not dare display in their board rooms or their own homes?
Thankfully, though, in this day of corporate irresponsibility, we don't have to rely on these moral arguments. The law is on our side.
It was in the case of Stanley v. Georgia (1969) that the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that the private use of sexually explicit hard-core pornography is protected by the First Amendment. Fours years later, in the case of Miller v. California, the same court made it just as clear that the distribution of these materials is not protected by the First Amendment.
In the Miller case, the court gave specific guidelines as to the type of materials that were illegal to sell:
(A) Patently offensive representations of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.
(B) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.
Based on the descriptions that we have been given, the movies distributed by the Cincinnati Marriott Northeast, as well as 23 of the top 25 largest hotels in greater Cincinnati and 40 percent of all hotels and motels in the U.S., clearly fall within these guidelines and thus are prosecutable.
The case law is backed by statutes. On the federal level, Title 18 USC 1462 prohibits distribution of hard-core pornography. At the state level, Ohio's revised code 2907.32. Kentucky's KRS531.020, and Indiana's IC35-49, as well as similar statutes in 42 other states, prohibit the distribution of obscene materials. Most, like Ohio, make it a felony offense.
Whereas locally, prosecutors have relied on state laws against distribution of obscenity to convince the management of several hotels to stop offering movies that they consider prosecutable, proper enforcement of the federal statute could be much more devastating to the pornography industry. Under the federal statute, which prohibits interstate distribution of pornography, companies such as On Command and LodgeNet, the companies that distribute pornographic movies to hotels nationwide, could be prosecuted. In addition, such companies could be prosecuted under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute.
On Command, the company that provided the hard-core pornography for the Cincinnati Marriott Northeast, services a total of 923,000 hotel rooms at 3,440 properties. LodgeNet, based in Sioux Falls, supplied the hard-core sex movies to the Newport Comfort Suites. That company services 890,000 rooms in 5400 hotels, offering movies produced by Larry Flynt, the very person who pleaded guilty to violating Ohio's obscenity laws in Cincinnati in 1998.
Former federal prosecutors tell me that On Command and LodgeNet could be and should be prosecuted by the Justice Department anytime and that all profits and interests in the enterprise could be lost. This would not be new. In the past, RICO convictions against porn-syndicate kingpins resulted in prison terms and forfeitures of millions in proceeds and properties used in the offenses.
Stockholders of these companies need to be asking a serious question. Could they be holding stock in a company that could lose everything?
Yes, presently we must look to existing statutes and the legal system to prevent major corporations from distributing materials that are obscene by our community standards. Our first and preferred course of action, of course, is to encourage corporations to institute responsible policies that place respect and concern for the dignity of men, women, children and families above even their responsibility to bolster their bottom line. That would be the ultimate solution. Until that happens, "we the people" will have to exercise our free speech First Amendment rights and demand that state and federal laws be enforced.
The fact is — this is a distribution issue.
It's not a privacy issue.
P.S.: Bad Business Math
A Marriott Platinum customer contacted CCV to tell us that he will no longer use Marriott — in protest of Marriott's policy of selling pornography. This businessman states that he has stayed in Marriott hotels more than 100 nights in the past five years. Marriott makes 20 percent off each $10 in-room pornographic movie sold. Multiply that times a low average room cost of $100 per night, and the simple math tells you that Marriott would have to sell more than 5000 pornographic movies to make up for the loss of this one customer. In addition to being the responsible thing to do, pulling the plug on pornography seems to make good business sense.
Phil Burress is the President of Citizens for Community Values in Sharonville, Ohio.
Phil Buress is president of Citizens for Community Values in Cincinnati, Ohio.
If you enjoy reading stories like this one, sign up for the free CitizenLink Daily Update e-mail. You'll get news and commentary from Focus on the Family Action delivered right to your computer.
