Kans. Stats. Ann., Art. 11, Section 21-1102, 1115, 1118;

Ky. Rev. Stats., Ch. 436, Section 436.100, .101 (2):

La. West's Stats. Ann., Vol. 9, Section 106;

Me. Rev. Stats. Ann. 1964, Vol. 9, Title 17, Ch. 93,

Section 2901, 2904, 2905;

Md. Ann. Code, Vol. 3, Art. 27, Section 418;

Mass. Gen. Laws, Vol. 44, Ch. 272, Section 28A; B, Section
31, Section 32;

Mich. Compiled Laws Ann., Vol. 39, Section 750. 343a through
d:

Minn. Stats. Ann., Vol. 40A, Section 617. 241, 617.26;

Miss. Code, Vol. 2A, Sections 2280, 2286, 2288, 2674-03;
Mo. Vernon's Ann. Stats., Vol. 41, Section 563.270, .280,
.290;

Mont. Rev. Code, Vol. 8, Section 94-3601, 3602;
Neb. Rev. Stats., Ch. 28, Section 28-921, 922:
Nev. Rev. Stats., Vol. 2, Section 201.250;

N. H. Rev. Stats. Ann., Vol. 5, Section 571A;

N. J. Stats. Ann., Title 2A, Section 2A:115-2, -3;

N. Y. McKinney's Consol. Laws, Book 39, Art. 235,

Section 235.00, .05, .10, .15;

N. C. Gen. Stats., Vol. 1B, Section 14-189. 1, .2; Section 14-190;

N. D. Century Code, Vol. 2, Section 12-21-08:

Ohio Rev. Code Ann., Title 29, Section 2905. 34, 342 (A), .36,

.40, .41:

Okla. Stats. Ann., Title 21, Sections 1021(3) and (4), 1040.8,

1040.13;

Ore. Rev. Stats. Vol. 1, Section 167.151:

Penn. Purdon's Stats. Ann., Title 18, Section 4524, 4528, 4530;
R. I. Gen. Laws, Vol. 3, Section 11-31-1: 11-31-3; 11-31-4;
S. C. Code, Vol. 4, Section 16-414.1,

S. D. Laws of 1968, Ch. 29, Section 1:

2:

Tenn. Code Ann., Vol. 7, Section 39-3003;

Tex. Vernon's Ann. Penal Code, Vols. 1 and 1A, Art. 527-509,

Section 1;

Utah Code Ann., Vol. 8, Section 76-39-5 (1) through (5);

Va. Code, Vol. 4, Section 18.1-228, -229, -230;

Wash. Rev. Code, Ch. 9.68, Section 9.68.010, .020;

W. Va. Code Ann., Section 61-8-11:

Wisc. Stats. Ann., Vol. 41, Section 944. 21, .22, . 23:

Wyo. Stats. Ann., Vol. 3, Ch. 6, Section 6-103, -104:

D. C. Code, Section 22-2001, as amended by Public Law 90-226,
Sec. 872(a). s.

Such presumption! Such an advocacy of moral anarchy!

Such a

defiance of the mandate of the Congress which created the Commission!

90-231 - 82-9

Such a bold advocacy of a libertine philosophy! Truly, it is difficult to believe that to which the majority of this Commission has given birth.

My Report will go into such detail as is possible on the specifics

of the problem, but I cannot undertake consideration of the subject of pornography without commenting on its underlying philosophical and moral

basis.

For those who believe in God, in His absolute supremacy as the Creator and Lawgiver of life, in the dignity and destiny which He has conferred upon the human person, in the moral code that governs sexual activity--for those who believe in these "things," no argument against pornography should be necessary.

Though the meaning of pornography is generally understood, reference is seldom made to the root meaning of the term itself. This seems important to me. The Greeks had a word for it, for many "its." And the Greek word for pornography is highly significant. It comes from two Greek words, in fact: "prostitute" and "write." So, the dictionary defines pornography as "originally a description of prostitutes and their

trade."

Pornography is not merely associated in this historical sense with prostitution, but it is actually a form of prostitution because it advertises and advocates "sex for sale," pleasure for a price.

The use of sexual powers is intimately bound up with both love and life, not merely with the momentary satisfaction of desire. Only a person is capable of love, but any of the lower forms of animal life can experience

5

6

pleasure as a mere sense reaction. A person is much more than a body, and any form of sexual activity which is impersonal, which uses the body alone for pleasure, violates the integrity of the person and thereby reduces him to the level of an irrational and irresponsible animal.

The traditional Judeo-Christian ethic does not condemn pleasure as an evil in itself; it does condemn the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake, as an end rather than a means, deliberately excluding the higher purposes and values to which pleasure is attached.

Everybody knows that the appetite

for food makes the necessity of eating more palatable, more pleasurable.
To eat to live is rational, sound procedure; to live to eat is an abuse of a
basically good thing. The same is true of the sex drive. It serves the
individual and the common good of the human race, only when it is creative,
productive, when it ministers to love and life. When, however, it serves
only itself, it becomes a perversion, actually an anti-social force disruptive
and eventually destructive of all love and life. Every word by which the
organs of sex are designated bears out this statement: genital, generative,
reproductive, procreative. Love is always fruitful of lasting good; mere
pleasure is of its nature transitory, barren, the only residue likely to be
unhappy, remorseful memories. This thought could be amplified and

graphically illustrated.

Those who speak in defense of sexual morality are accused of making
The defenders of pornography are

sex "dirty." It's the other way around.
guilty of degrading sex. Marcel Proust, French novelist (Sodom and
Gomorrah), described the effect of his early reading of erotica upon

7

himself: "Oh stream of hell that undermined my adolescence." Literature
is a better reflection of life than is scientific opinion; and I am certain
that the testimony of men like Proust could be multiplied if someone took
the time to assemble the sources.

No, the state cannot legislate virtue, cannot make moral goodness by merely enacting law; but the state can and does legislate against vices which publicly jeopardize the virtue of people who might prefer to remain virtuous. If it is not the proper function of law to offer citizens such

protection, then what is it?

The Commission on Obscenity and Pornography --
A Runaway Commission

So-called Presidential Commissions do not work. They never will. Such Commissions, in my opinion, are not a valid part of the American political system. The structure of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography was similar to that of other Commissions. This Commission was not responsible to anyone, either to the President who appointed it, the Congress which created it, or to the people whom the Congress represented.

The selection of the Commission members themselves more often

than not is delegated by the President. In the case of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, with men such as Jack Valenti and Abe Fortas in key advisory roles in the Johnson Administration, it was more likely than not that the orientation of the Commission for permissiveness would be exactly opposite the orientation intended by Congress; namely, for

mor al discipline and responsibility. The truth of the matter is that even the Commission members are not those who gather the facts, do the thinking,

8

render the opinions, etc. The bulk of the work is performed by a Staff basically hired by the Commission Chairman, and in the case of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, generally consisting of persons of mediocre talent, hangers-on in government, or individuals not yet settled on a course in life who accept interim work on a Commission staff as a place to light and learn during the generally short life of a

Commission.

The dispersal of authority and responsibility goes even beyond the Staff. The Commission on Obscenity and Pornography spent by far the greater part of its budget on "contracts" which, as far as I can observe, were principally awarded to persons apparently having predispositions in favor of the Staff's or the Chairman's attitude and philosophy on the subject. These "contractors" are, generally speaking, academicians with ivorytower views, who have little or no responsibility to anyone or anything, excepting their own thought processes which go unhoned by the checks and balances of a competitive, active, real world. And even beyond the contracting academicians, we find a bulk of work done by their assistants, green graduates, and college students.

To establish the validity of my contentions, I recommend the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography be investigated by the Congress in the following particulars:

(1) The illegality of the appointment of the Chairman.

(2) The influence of the Chairman on the selection of

other Commission members.