Wednesday, September 30, 1998

Finding decency in the time of Starr

By Sara Eckel

This isn't the column I intended to write.

After reading the Starr report in the New York Times and watching the president's testimony on CNN, I wondered what had happened to Congress' outrage over the preponderance of sexually explicit materials that they said were saturating the media.

After all, it was just a year ago that members of Congress were outraged that the Supreme Court struck down the Communications Decency Act, which made it a crime to publish sexual or adult-oriented material on the Internet.

"This court has now chosen to defend immediate and unrestricted access of children to pornography," thundered Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind. "There are many children with inattentive or computer-illiterate parents who will be left with no protection at all from debased and debasing pornography."

Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., vowed to continue the fight: "We are not going to let this decision stand so that pornographers can continue to prey upon our children."

Then there was Congress' war on TV smut, which came to a head last year, when Congress moved to set limits on the amount of sexual content that appeared on television.

"Americans have every right to expect broadcasters to air programs during the 'Family Hour' (8 to 9 p.m.) that they can watch with their children, without embarrassing vulgar language and sexual references," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas.

Thinking back on these issues, it struck me as strange that members of Congress had done such a complete 180. That they had not only abandoned the crusade to clean up the nation's media but were actually distributing sexually-explicit materials themselves.

But I only had it half right. Yes, Congress has indeed succeeding in putting more salacious material in the hands of children than any pornographer ever could. After all, the average 10-year-old needn't bother firing up a computer or staying up late to learn about the president's definition of oral sex or his unorthodox uses for cigars. She need only flip on the TV set after school or take a peek at the newspaper sitting on the family breakfast table.

However, I was wrong in my belief that this brazen hypocrisy was keeping members of Congress silent on this issue. The astonishing truth is that just this month members of a House subcommittee approved a revised version of the Communications Decency Act, now called Child Online Protection Act.

The irony isn't lost on free-speech specialists.

"Portions of the Starr report aren't much different than the letters in magazines that are regularly attacked as being pornographic," First Amendment lawyer Michael Bamberger told the American Lawyer News Service.

Nor has it avoided the notice of the Internet community.

"How many of the members of Congress who voted for the Communications Decency Act do you suppose also voted to release the report that reads like a borderline pornographic dime-store romance written by a Texas preacher's son?" is the question posed on the Tasty Bits on the Technology Front web page (www.tbtf.com), which then lists the 284 House members who did just that.

If the Communications Decency Act had actually become law, anyone who published the Starr Report on the Internet would have been making themselves vulnerable to fines of up to $250,000 and jail terms of up to five years. So I think those 284 House members should take a stand for moral decency in America - they should arrest themselves.

E-mail Sara Eckel at saraeum@aol.com.

Newspaper Enterprise Assn.