STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS (Senate - June 07, 1995) These laws prohibit the sale (and sometimes the display) of certain sexually explicit material to minors. See Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968). In order to determine whether material is harmful to juveniles, the material must be found to satisfy a three-part test. One part of this test involves a showing that the material depicts or describes sexual activity in terms patently offensive according to contemporary community standards for what is acceptable for children. In a sense, the federal indecency standard is designed to protect children from harmful depictions of sexual activity, similar to the goal of the harmful to juveniles test. Traditionally, the federal government has not regulated extensively to protect children from inappropriate exposure to pornography because it is primarily a matter of local concern. With the rise of global, international computer networks, however, it has become clear that Congress has a more extensive role to play in protecting children. The Grassley initiative responds to this changed environment by `filing in the gaps' created by new technology. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement from the Family Research Council and the bill be printed in the Record. It has the coauthorship of Senators Dole, Coats, McConnell, Shelby, and Nickles. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [Page: S7923] S. 892 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Children From Computer Pornography Act of 1995'. (a) Offenses : Section 1464 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) in the heading by striking `Broadcasting obscene language' and inserting `Utterance of indecent or profane language by radio communication; transmission to minor of indecent material from remote computer facility, electronic communications service, or electronic bulletin board service'; (2) by striking `Whoever' and inserting `(a) Utterance of Indecent or Profane Language by Radio Communication : A person who'; and (3) by adding at the end the following: `(b) Transmission to Minor of Indecent Material From Remote Computer Facility, Electronic Communications Service, or Electronic Bulletin Board Service Provider : `(1) Definitions : As used in this subsection-- `(A) the term `remote computer facility' means a facility that-- `(i) provides to the public computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system; and `(ii) permits a computer user to transfer electronic or digital material from the facility to another computer: `(B) the term `electronic communications service' means any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photo optical, or photoelectronic system for the transmission of electronic communications, and any computer facility or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications, that permits a computer user to transfer electronic or digital material from the service to another computer; and `(C) the term `electronic bulletin board service' means a computer system, regardless of whether operated for commercial purposes, that exists primarily to provide remote or on-site users with digital images, or that exists primarily to permit remote or on-site users to participate in or create on-line discussion groups or conferences. `(2) Transmission by remote computers facility operator, electronic communications service provider, or electronic bulletin board service provider.--A remote computer facility operator, electronic communications service provider, electronic bulletin board service provider who, with knowledge of the character of the material, knowingly-- `(A) transmits or offers or attempts to transmit from the remote computer facility, electronic communications service, or electronic bulletin board service provider a communication that contains indecent material to a person under 18 years of age; or `(B) causes or allows to be transmitted from the remote computer facility, electronic communications service, or electronic bulletin board a communication that contains indecent material to a person under 18 years of age or offers or attempts to do so, shall be fined in accordance with this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. `(3) Permitting access to transmit indecent material to a minor.--Any remote computer facility operator, electronic communications service provider, or electronic bulletin board service provider who willfully permits a person to use a remote computing service, electronic communications service, or electronic bulletin board service that is under the control of that remote computer facility operator, electronic communications service provider, or electronic bulletin board service provider, to knowingly or recklessly transmit indecent material from another remote computing service, electronic communications service, or electronic bulletin board service, to a person under 18 years of age, shall be fined not more than $10,000, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.'. (b) Technical Amendment: The item for section 1464 in the chapter analysis for chapter 71 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: `1464. Utterance of indecent or profane language by radio communication; transmission to minor of indecent material from remote computer facility.'. - Family Research Council , Washington, DC, June 7, 1995. Pursuant to your request, the Family Research Council has reviewed the constitutionality of the `Protection of Children from Computer Pornography Act of 1995.' It is our opinion that the Act is fully consistent with the Supreme Court's indecency precedents. Before providing more extensive analysis, it is prudent that I state my qualifications to render this opinion. I have practiced in the area of pornography law and have participated in extensive litigation before the Supreme Court, federal courts of appeal, and state courts on pornography-related controversies. I am thus very familiar with the manner in which courts have treated statutes aimed at regulating pornographic materials. The seminal cases applicable to the Act are FCC v. Pacifica, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) and Sable Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989). Taken together, these cases clearly and unambiguously establish the principle that society may prohibit the transmission of indecent material to children. As the Act only attempts to do that, in my view it presents no serious constitutional concerns. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. Cathleen A. Cleaver, Esq., Director of Legal Policy.