FREEDOM TO READ FOUNDATION NEWS
50 EAST HURON STREET, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60611 PHONE (312)280-4226
Judith F. Krug, Executive Director
Candace D. Morgan, President
November, 1999
Vol. 24, No. 2-3
Roll of Honor Award
Presented to Charles L.
Levendosky
At the 1999 American Library Association
Annual Conference, the Freedom to Read
Foundation presented its Roll of Honor Award
to Charles Levendosky, editorial page editor of
the Casper (WY) Star-Tribune. The text of the
citation read:
As a poet, journalist, webmaster, friend of libraries
and librarians, and member of the Board of the
Freedom to Read Foundation, you have had an
immeasurable impact on educating the public about
the necessity and power of a free press and on
safeguarding our freedom to read, learn, and connect
with the full span of ideas and information.
Thank you, Charles, for establishing the First
Amendment Cyber-Tribune, an award-winning
website dedicated to informing and teaching the
American people and people everywhere, about why
we so resolutely defend and preserve our First
Amendment for every American, young and old.
Thank you, Charles, for creating and maintaining the
First Amendment Op-Ed Service, a joint project of the
FTRF and the ALA IFC, which provides timely and
thoughtful essays on the dangers of surrendering our
inheritance of free speech to censors of any stripe,
well-meaning or not.
Thank you, Charles, for honoring librarians by
championing our most basic value.
Thank you, Charles, for tirelessly exposing the
dangers and illuminating – by your eloquence and
passion – why we must forever uphold, affirm and
celebrate the principles of intellectual freedom.
New Domain Name
http://www.ftrf.org
Easy to remember! Easy to navigate!
FTRF Membership
Drive: Paper or Plastic
This fall, during the annual Freedom to Read
Foundation membership renewal drive, you
have two options on how to join or rejoin:

CREDIT CARDS
FTRF now accepts Visa, MasterCard, and
American Express. We also accept stocks
and mutual funds. You can give using our
new Web site, www.ftrf.org, or over the
phone at (800) 545-2433 x4226.

PERSONAL CHECK
Current members have received a renewal
mailing. Just write us a check and mail it to
us in the remittance envelope.
Continued on p. 2
Inside:




“An Appeal to Reason”
Brooklyn Museum of Art
Appeals Court Victory in NM Case
Internet Litigation in Virginia,
Michigan
Freedom to Read Foundation News
Membership, cont.
If you are not yet a member, or perhaps
misplaced your remittance envelope, send a
check to:
Freedom to Read Foundation
50 E. Huron St.
Chicago, IL 60611
Membership rates are:
$1,000 Benefactor
$500 Patron
$100 Sponsor
$50
Contributing Member
$35
Regular Member
We also have a $10 student membership.
Wyoming Library
Association/SIRS Award
Presented to Levendosky
On October 15, during the Wyoming Library
Association Annual Conference, Charles
Levendosky received the first ever WLA/SIRS
Intellectual Freedom Award. As is usual with
SIRS-sponsored awards, Levendosky received a
framed citation and a $500 check. A second
$500 check was presented in his name to the
Freedom to Read Foundation. The citation
attested to Levendosky’s outstanding work on
behalf of the First Amendment and the pride of
Wyoming librarians to be able to count
Levendosky among their colleagues and
supporters.
SIRS, an education publishing company
providing databases and computer technology
for libraries, established its intellectual freedom
awards in 1981 to honor individuals or groups
who have met or resisted attempts at censorship
Vol. 24, No.2 – 3
Page 2
and have otherwise furthered the cause of
intellectual and academic freedom.
Mainstream Loudoun
Wins Hefner Award
Elaine Williamson and Jeri McGiverin,
founders of Mainstream Loudoun, received a
1999 Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award
on November 15. They were recognized in the
category of Law after the organization’s victory
in Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of
Loudoun County Library, the seminal court
case overturning the policy of putting filters on
all library computers. Recipients of the HMH
First Amendment Awards receive a $5,000
honorarium and a plaque commemorating his or
her achievements.
Board Positions Open
Six positions on the 2000-2001 Freedom to
Read Foundation Board of Trustees will be
filled in the election to be held April 1 - May 1,
2000. The slate will be prepared by the
Nominating Committee, comprised of Gordon
Conable, June Pinnell-Stephens, and Charles
Levendosky.
If you are a member of FTRF and are interested
in serving in this capacity, or if you want more
information on what a trustee does, please
contact:
Jonathan Kelley
Freedom to Read Foundation
50 E. Huron St.
Chicago, IL 60611
(312) 280-4226
jokelley@ala.org
Freedom to Read Foundation News
New Litigation
Brooklyn Museum of Art
On November 3, U. S. District Judge Nina
Gershon held that the City of New York
violated the First Amendment by denying
funding to the Brooklyn Museum of Art. She
also ordered the city to pay the museum
approximately $1 million in subsidies to cover
the monthly payments it had withheld.
The case, Brooklyn Institute of Arts and
Sciences v. City of New York, was a countersuit
to Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s legal action
against the museum for showing the exhibit,
“Sensation: Young British Artists from the
Saatchi Collection.” Mayor Giuliani called the
exhibit offensive, especially towards Catholics,
and pointed specifically to a piece by Chris
Ofili called “The Holy Virgin Mary.”
Judge Gershon found that the mayor’s actions
were “directly related, not just to the content of
the exhibit, but to the particular viewpoints
expressed. There can be no greater showing of
a First Amendment violation.”
The Freedom to Read Foundation joined an
amicus brief in the case, which argued,
forcefully, that works of art are protected by the
Constitution. The brief also argued that
punishing the museum for the content of its
exhibits violates the First Amendment, and that
the government is prohibited from singling out
a particular viewpoint for suppression. It
clearly pointed out that the issue of public
financing can not be used as a justification for
this type of censorship  that the mayor’s
actions were retaliatory and, therefore,
unconstitutional.
Vol. 24, No.2 – 3
Page 3
Virginia Internet Law
The Freedom to Read Foundation is a plaintiff
in PSINet Inc. v. Gilmore, a constitutional
challenge to a Virginia “harmful to minors”
statute regulating Internet content. The suit was
filed October 6.
On April 7, 1999, the Virginia legislature
overrode the recommendation of the governor
and enacted H.B. 748. Like other states,
Virginia for some time has prohibited the sale
or display to minors of motion pictures, books
and magazines deemed harmful to juveniles.
H.B. 748 added a prohibition of the sale or
display to minors of an “electronic file or
message containing” an image or words deemed
harmful to juveniles. There are no affirmative
defenses as found in the CDA, or the New York
and New Mexico Internet content laws. Thus,
good faith reliance on available technology, use
of credit cards, or good faith reliance on labels
and/or filters is not a defense.
The statute is unconstitutional in two respects,
both of which were explained in ALA v. Pataki
(the New York Internet content case) and ACLU
v. Johnson (New Mexico’s case). H.B. 748
violates the Commerce Clause, because it
would affect content providers outside Virginia,
and the First Amendment, in that it effectively
restricts on the Internet materials that are
constitutionally protected as to adults.
While the Virginia law defines the scope of
prohibited material more narrowly than many
other states, the breadth of this new law and its
potential impact on commercial Internet
businesses is tremendous. As written, the law
applies to all Internet services. The lack of any
exemptions or affirmative defenses, as was
noted above, puts both content providers and
transmitters at increased risk of prosecution.
Moreover, Internet businesses need not intend
Freedom to Read Foundation News
to send material to a specific minor to be found
liable, but rather only need know that minors
can “examine and peruse” the material. Because
there is no technically or economically feasible
way for businesses to ensure that minors will
not see most Internet material, this poses an
insurmountable legal and practical burden on
Internet commerce.
Michigan Internet Law
In a complaint filed June 23, in federal district
court, the American Civil Liberties Union of
Michigan said that a state law criminalizing
online communications deemed “harmful to
minors” violates First Amendment free speech
rights and the Commerce Clause of the United
States Constitution. The law, signed by Gov.
John Engler on June 2, was due to take effect
August 1. It makes it a crime to disseminate or
display “sexually explicit matter” to minors.
Violations are punishable by up to two years in
jail, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.
Because the law is similar to the Virginia law, it
faces similar criticism. In its complaint, the
ACLU said the very nature of cyberspace makes
the law impossible to comply with because
“virtually every communication on the Internet
entails a ‘substantial risk’ that a minor may
receive it.” The speech at issue in this case
does not include obscenity, child pornography,
the luring of minors into inappropriate activity,
or harassment, which already are illegal under
Michigan law.
The case, Cyberspace v. Engler, was heard on
July 29. After a hearing, Judge Arthur T.
Tarnow of the U.S. District Court of Michigan
held the law unconstitutional and issued a
preliminary injunction. The state appealed in
September. The Freedom to Read Foundation
is considering joining an amicus brief during
Vol. 24, No.2 – 3
Page 4
the appeals process. A briefing schedule is
expected soon.
Updates
New Mexico Internet Law
Found Unconstitutional by
Appeals Court
On November 2, the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld the preliminary injunction
against New Mexico’s Internet content law. The
case, ACLU v. Johnson, challenges an
amendment to New Mexico law pursuant to
which any nudity or sexual content is criminal if
communicated on the Internet and accessible in
New Mexico. On April 22, 1998, a complaint
was brought by a group of plaintiffs, including
Freedom to Read Foundation. After a two-day
hearing beginning on June 22, 1998, Judge C.
LeRoy Hansen granted a preliminary injunction
on the grounds the statute violates both the First
Amendment and the Commerce Clause.
The state appealed to the Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, and the argument was held on
September 21, in Denver. The court ruled
unanimously, in an opinion which relied heavily
on ACLU v. Reno, the landmark 1997 U. S.
Supreme Court decision invalidating portions of
the Communications Decency Act. The New
Mexico Attorney General’s office has not
announced whether or not it will appeal the
decision.
FTRF REPORT
TO COUNCIL
Freedom to Read Foundation News
The Freedom to Read Foundation reports to the
American Library Association Council at each
Annual Conference and Midwinter Meeting.
The following is an edited version of the report
presented on June 29 at the 1999 Annual
Conference, in New Orleans, by President
Candace D. Morgan.
Updates to these cases follow at the end of this
report.
As President of the Freedom to Read
Foundation, I am pleased to report on the
Foundation’s activities since the Midwinter
Meeting.
Litigation Summary
As usual, most of my report consists of an
update on litigation in which the Foundation is
involved or is monitoring.
Two such cases involve restrictions on Internet
content. The first, American Civil Liberties
Union v. Reno, was filed after Congress
enacted the Child Online Protection Act
(COPA)  the successor to the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Immediately after
the enactment of COPA in October 1998, the
ACLU and a number of content providers and
Web site operators filed a challenge to its
constitutionality in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Judge
Lowell A. Reed, Jr., granted a temporary
restraining order barring the government from
enforcing the act until the plaintiffs’ motion for
a preliminary injunction was decided. The
Freedom to Read Foundation joined nineteen
other members of the Citizens Internet
Empowerment Coalition (CIEC) in filing an
amicus brief supporting that motion. On
February 1, the court granted the preliminary
injunction.
Vol. 24, No.2 – 3
Page 5
The second case is a challenge of New
Mexico’s “mini-CDA.” The Freedom to Read
Foundation has joined the ACLU and numerous
other individuals and organizations, including
the New Mexico Library Association, the
American Booksellers Foundation for Free
Expression, and the Association of American
Publishers in ACLU v. Johnson. The lawsuit
alleges that the statute will result in a ban on
constitutionally protected speech among adults.
It also alleges the statute violates the Commerce
Clause of the U.S. Constitution since residents
of other states must comply with the statute
because once material is posted on the Internet
it can be accessed by minors in New Mexico.
The lawsuit further alleges that most users of
the Internet cannot feasibly utilize the
verification or segregation defenses.
In April, Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of
Trustees of Loudoun County Library was
finally put to rest. On April 19, the Loudoun
County (VA) Library System Board voted 7-2
not to appeal the November 23, 1998, decision
of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, which enjoined the library
from enforcing its policy requiring the use of
Internet blocking software on all terminals and
for all users, regardless of age. The library
board has put in place a new policy that allows
adults to choose whether or not they want to use
filtering when using library Internet access
computers. Minors must have signed parental
permission specifying whether filtered or
unfiltered access is allowed.
Judith Krug provided testimony during
discovery in this case, but FTRF had no other
role.
The case of Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore
remains unresolved. The Alameda County (CA)
Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit brought
by the mother of a 12-year-old boy who
Freedom to Read Foundation News
allegedly downloaded pictures of nude women
at the Livermore (CA) Public Library. Judge
George Hernandez gave the plaintiff two
chances to set forth a legal basis for requiring
the library to limit its policy of free and open
Internet access. She was unable to satisfy the
court that she had such a basis. On March 11,
attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal. To date, FTRF has had no direct role in
this litigation.
The Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996
(CPPA) has seen two challenges to its
constitutionality. In the Ninth Circuit, the
Freedom to Read Foundation joined an amicus
brief in support of a Free Speech Coalition
challenge to the act (Free Speech Coalition v.
Reno). The brief argued that the act was
unconstitutional because it “criminalizes
materials that do not involve actual minors and
that are not obscene.” The District Court for
the Northern District of California held that the
act was constitutional. An appeal to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals was filed, and FTRF
joined an amicus brief in support of the
plaintiffs.
Another challenge to the CPPA was filed in
Maine (United States v. Hilton). The district
court held that the act was unconstitutional, but
in January, 1999, the First Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the district court’s decision.
On May 28, Mr. Hilton filed a petition for writ
of certiorari with the United States Supreme
Court, which was subsequently denied.
Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. v. United
States challenges provisions of the
Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 that
require “indecent” cable television broadcasts to
be scrambled or blocked. The Foundation
joined thirteen First Amendment groups in
filing an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs’
motion for a preliminary injunction to bar the
Vol. 24, No.2 – 3
Page 6
government from enforcing the statute. The
three-judge panel of the district court denied the
preliminary injunction.
The issues were
reconsidered, however, following an appeal to
the U.S. Supreme Court, which remanded the
case for further proceedings. The district court
now has ruled that the “indecent” provisions are
unconstitutional. The court also found that the
government failed to present any evidence
linking children seeing pornography and
psychological harm. The court agreed with the
amicus brief that lock boxes are a less
restrictive alternative to the statute.
An appeal was filed and the U.S. Supreme
Court has accepted the case for review.
Free expression has suffered some setbacks in
two cases addressing the liability of filmmakers
or publishers for damages when a movie or
book allegedly inspires a crime.
The first case is Byers v. Edmondson, in which
Oliver Stone’s film Natural Born Killers
allegedly inspired Sarah Edmondson and
Benjamin Darrus, her boyfriend, to act out the
violent behavior they viewed. The Foundation
has been involved at several points in the
complicated history of this case.
The case is now pending before the trail court,
and Oliver Stone has been ordered to give a
deposition in the case. Ultimately, he may
convince the judge or jury that the film, as a
matter of fact, did not inspire the crimes of
Edmondson and Darrus. The refusal of the
courts, however, to acknowledge, as a matter of
principle, that films have First Amendment
protection is of great concern. Not protecting
filmmakers from claims for damages caused by
individuals who viewed a film exacts a heavy
toll on expressive freedom.
Freedom to Read Foundation News
The second case representing a setback is Rice
v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc. Hit Man: A
Technical Manual for Independent Contractors,
a “how to” manual published by the defendant
Paladin Press, was used in 1993 by an assassin
convicted of the murder of three persons. After
continuing proceedings in the trial court,
Paladin Press unexpectedly agreed, on May 21,
to a multi-million dollar settlement of the case.
The publisher’s insurance company is said to
have made the decision, motivated by recent
events such as the Littleton, Colorado, high
school shootings, which might have made it
difficult to find a sympathetic jury. The courts’
refusal to acknowledge First Amendment
protection for the book, exposing the publisher
to possible adverse jury findings as to its actual
“assistance” to the murderer, is yet another
precedent with the potential of chilling free
speech.
Other Business
Open Records Requests
Libraries across the country have recently
received a series of open records requests (also
referred to as public records or freedom of
information requests) seeking information on
“patron and staff complaints about patrons
accessing inappropriate material on public
Internet terminals.” Because many local
libraries have no experience in responding to
open record requests, FTRF asked Jenner &
Block, its legal counsel, to prepare a
memorandum providing general guidance that a
library may use if it receives an open records
request. The memorandum is a general
discussion of the issues involved in such
requests, not a legal opinion. Since state laws
vary widely on this subject, local libraries are
urged to seek local legal advice. This
memorandum will be posted on the FTRF Web
site.
Vol. 24, No.2 – 3
Page 7
Note: the memo is on the new FTRF site at
www.ftrf.org/foiamem.html.)
Congressionally Mandated Filtering
A number of bills are pending in Congress
(H.R. 368, H.R. 543, H.R. 896, and S. 97) that
would mandate the use of filters on Internet
terminals in libraries and schools as a condition
for the receipt of e-rate subsidies. The
Foundation is preparing itself to consider legal
action should one or more of these bills be
enacted into law.
As my report demonstrates, the need for the
Foundation to monitor situations that may
adversely affect freedom of expression and take
legal action, when appropriate, continues to
grow. We are financially stable, but in
preparation for a future that holds the promise
of more high profile, high cost cases, we are
exploring ways to increase our membership and
donations. To be prepared to meet the
challenges of the next century, we need the
continuing help of ALA members and state
library associations, as well as others concerned
about protecting free expression.
Respectfully submitted,
Candace D. Morgan
President
Updates of FTRF
Projects
Following are brief summaries of the litigation
and non-litigation in which the Freedom to
Read Foundation is involved, and a report on
the status of each:
Freedom to Read Foundation News
American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno
(Challenge of the Child Online Protection Act):
On April 2, the government appealed Judge
Reed’s Preliminary Injunction to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs’ brief
and amicus briefs (including one joined by
FTRF) were filed in August, and oral arguments
were heard on November 4.
In regard to the motion for preliminary
injunction, the district court held that the
government’s interest in protecting children
from harmful material on the World Wide Web
is compelling. The district court held, however,
that “it is not apparent to this Court that the
defendant can meet its burden to prove that
COPA is the least restrictive means available to
achieve the goal of restricting the access of
minors to this material.” The district court
relied on several factual findings in reaching
this holding: (1) minors can access harmful
material on foreign Web sites and noncommercial Web sites; (2) minors may be able
to legitimately possess a credit or debit card and
access material despite the screening
mechanisms in the affirmative defenses; and (3)
filtering and blocking software is at least as
successful as COPA in preventing minors from
accessing harmful material and, in fact, blocks
access to foreign Web sites as well as noncommercial ones.
ACLU v. Johnson (New Mexico Internet case):
See p. 4 for court decision.
Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of
Loudoun County Library (Filters on all
computers in library district): This case is
concluded. Mainstream Loudoun received the
Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award, Law
category, on November 15.
Vol. 24, No.2 – 3
Page 8
Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore (CA) Public
Library: In October, FTRF joined ACLU
Southern California and People for the
American Way in an amicus brief arguing for
the dismissal of this case.
Free Speech Coalition v. Reno (California
challenge to Child Pornography Prevention Act
of 1996): No new information on this case.
United States v. Hilton (Maine challenge to the
Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996): On
October 4, the US Supreme Court denied
Hilton’s petition for writ of certiorari, which he
filed on May 28. The First Circuit decision
upholding the law thus stands.
Playboy Entertainment Group v. United States
(Challenge to the “scrambling” provisions of
the Communications Decency Act, particularly
as applied to visual and aural “signal bleed”):
The case is now in front of the Supreme Court.
Amicus briefs were filed on September 23, and
the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme
Court is scheduled for November 30.
Byers v. Edmondson (Natural Born Killers
case): No new information on this case.
Rice v. Paladin Enterprises (Hit Man case): No
new information on this case.
Other FTRF
Case Updates
Camfield v. City of Oklahoma City (Tin Drum
confiscation): On August 25, Michael Camfield
was awarded $2,500 by a federal jury, which
found that the police had violated his privacy
rights by obtaining his name from a video store.
The jury also found, however, that confiscating
Freedom to Read Foundation News
the video from his home did not violate his
Fourth Amendment protection against
unreasonable search and seizure.
This decision came more than a year after a
federal judge ruled in Video Software Dealers
Association v. City of Oklahoma City that The
Tin Drum did not violate the state’s obscenity
or child pornography laws. In that case, VSDA
was awarded $400,000 for legal expenses in a
settlement with the city.
In October, Gunter Grass, author of the book on
which the film was based, was awarded the
Nobel Prize for Literature.
David S. v. Ouachita Parish School Board
(Monroe (LA) book removal case): Four titles
were removed from the library shelves of the
Monroe High School Library. Principal Buddy
Reed reportedly ordered the librarian to remove
the books because they contained “sexual”
information, such as information on gays and
lesbians in the military. The principal also
ordered the librarian to provide other similar
books for his review. Reportedly, the librarian
presented the principal with over 200 titles from
the library. The librarian was disciplined for not
complying fully with the principal’s directives
but was not terminated.
Attorney Jim Hashek of Louisiana filed a suit in
October, 1996, on behalf of a high school
student, his parents, and school librarian Deloris
Wilson. After the library board then amended
their book selection policies, plaintiffs amended
their complaint to include a facial challenge to
that policy. The new selection policy creates a
review panel at every public school comprised
of school teachers or librarians, administrators,
parents and business people from the
community who must review – using no written
guidelines – each new library resource before it
can be placed in the school library. Plaintiffs
argue that the intent and effect of the new policy
Vol. 24, No.2 – 3
Page 9
is to tailor book selection to specific religious
beliefs.
Under the new policy, about 50 different issues
of a wide variety of magazines have been
removed or withheld from the shelves,
subjected to restricted access, or excised of
allegedly offensive contents. Principal Reed
even disallowed the posting of Banned Books
Week materials in the library.
Discovery in the case is proceeding. The parties
are engaged in settlement discussions.
Barnes & Noble Indictments: Barnes & Noble
was indicted in Nashville (TN) and in Alabama
on charges that it unlawfully distributed
material harmful to minors by displaying three
books in its stores without appropriately using
blinder racks or shrink wrap around the books.
The targeted books included two by
photographer Jock Sturges, The Last Day of
Summer and Radiant Identities, and The Age of
Innocence by photographer David Hamilton.
Barnes & Noble reached a settlement with
Tennessee authorities agreeing to treat the
materials like material that is harmful to minors.
It agreed that in Tennessee it would display the
books in blinder racks 5 ½ feet off the floor or
use opaque shrink wrap.
The Montgomery (AL) case was dismissed on a
technicality, but may be refiled.
In the third case, in Birmingham (AL), Barnes
& Noble filed its motion to dismiss in April.
The company argued that the statute does not
apply to the books at issue, that if it does the
statute is unconstitutional and that, in any event,
the legality of the books must first be decided
by the judge before the case goes to the jury.
The motion was argued on September 16.
Wichita Falls, Texas: A new library policy
creates a “parental access” area in the public
library with books that are available only to
Freedom to Read Foundation News
patrons eighteen years or older. A book will be
placed in the parental access area if it is
designed for children 12 years old or younger
and 300 patrons of the library have signed a
petition indicating their belief that the material
is “of a nature that is most appropriately read
with parental approval and/or supervision.”
A petition was filed on July 6, 1999, against the
books Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy’s
Roommate. Freedom to Read Foundation
attorneys worked with Dallas attorney John
Horany and the ACLU of Texas, which filed
suit to keep the books accessible.
********
An Appeal to Reason
Dear FTRF member:
Following is a copy of “An Appeal to Reason,”
which I am asking you to read, support, and
urge others to support. This document was
prepared in response to a statement decrying
violence in entertainment issued by a group of
prominent Americans. They called their
statement “An Appeal to Hollywood”
(www.media-appeal.org/appeal.htm). While
there may be much in the media to criticize,
“An Appeal to Hollywood” is likely to do more
harm than good. It promotes the idea that
violent imagery causes crime and should be
suppressed. I believe this attitude encourages
government censorship.
“An Appeal to Reason” calls on Hollywood
executives to provide the highest quality
entertainment possible but, more importantly,
urges them to resist the pressure to create
taboos, villainize art and artists, and constrain
the creative imagination.
Organizations that have added their support to
“An Appeal to Reason” include the American
Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression,
the First Amendment Project, the Freedom to
Vol. 24, No.2 – 3
Page 10
Read Foundation, the Institute for First
Amendment Studies, the National Coalition
Against Censorship, the National Campaign for
Freedom of Expression, and the PEN American
Center.
Individuals also may sign “An Appeal to
Reason” on the Free Expression Network’s
Web site at http://www.freeexpression.org/
reason.htm. By adding your name to those
already in support of this important message,
you will be helping to counteract “An Appeal to
Hollywood,” which is likely to chill certain
forms of expression. Moreover, as is noted in
“An Appeal to Reason,” some signers of the
“Appeal to Hollywood” have openly advocated
government regulation if self-regulation doesn't
work, and proposals currently in Congress make
the threat of government censorship very real.
I also urge you to gather as much support for
“An Appeal to Reason” as you can. Over five
thousand signatures have been gathered for “An
Appeal to Hollywood.” As of today, just over
six hundred signatures have been gathered for
“An Appeal to Reason.”
Thank you for taking the time to consider
lending your support.
Cordially,
Judith F. Krug, Executive Director
Freedom to Read Foundation News
An Appeal
Recently, a group of prominent Americans,
including current and former public officials,
issued a statement decrying violence in
entertainment that they called an “Appeal to
Hollywood.” While there is certainly much to
criticize in the media, this appeal is likely to do
more harm than good. By promoting the idea
that violent imagery causes crime and should be
suppressed, it encourages government
censorship.
We reject this approach and urge public
officials and Hollywood executives to avoid
simplistic responses and sound-bite solutions to
complex social problems. There is no evidence
that banning violence in the media will do
anything to deter crime. Despite the claim in the
Appeal to Hollywood that there is
“overwhelming” evidence that entertainment
violence has “harmful effects,” a 1993 report by
the National Research Council, a division of the
National Academy of Sciences, did not even
include exposure to media violence among the
risk factors for violent behavior. In its 350
pages, the study, Understanding and Preventing
Violence, devoted only four paragraphs to the
question of whether the media cause violence,
noting only that scientists do not agree. The
purported link between media violence and
crime is further undermined by the fact that the
crime rate is now the lowest it has been in
recent decades.
If censorship will not reduce crime, it will
definitely prevent artists from exploring the
subject of violence and frustrate efforts to
understand a fundamental aspect of human
behavior. Art imitates life, and violence has
always been a part of life. Violence has been
portrayed in art and entertainment throughout
Vol. 24, No.2 – 3
to
Page 11
Reason
history, in both refined and popular fare: the
Roman Circus and the wrestling match, public
executions and the evening news, Shakespeare
and Punch and Judy. The fact that audiences
have always been fascinated by both real and
simulated violence should come as no surprise.
Art and entertainment are safe windows through
which to view a world that is sometimes too
terrible to contemplate otherwise. They allow us
to examine our darkest fears. They also enable
us to feel pity and even move us to attempt to
fight the evils that they portray.
To appreciate the importance of violent imagery
to artistic, intellectual and philosophical
endeavors, consider the violence in the Bible,
The Iliad, Agamemnon, Faulkner’s Light in
August, and James Dickey’s Deliverance; in
films such as Paths of Glory, The Seventh Seal,
and The Godfather; in Picasso’s Guernica and
almost all religious art graphically depicting the
Crucifixion; and in theater ranging from
Shakespeare (Macbeth, Henry V, Titus
Andronicus) to the Grand Guignol Theater’s
horror shows.
The attack on violence in the media is the latest
battle in a campaign for “decency” that has been
going on for centuries and includes attacks on
novels, comic books, and even Elvis Presley. It
is worth remembering that Mozart’s Marriage
of Figaro was once considered “low class”
entertainment, as were Shakespeare’s comedies
and other works we now see to contain great
artistry and valuable commentary. South Park
may never rise to such exalted heights, but it
offers humor, fantasy, satire, and irreverence,
all of which surely have redeeming value.
While some believe that the exploration of dark
fantasies in The Basketball Diaries actually led
Freedom to Read Foundation News
to a school shooting, others see it as a powerful
antidote to anti-social behavior.
Although the rhetoric of the Appeal to
Hollywood focuses on protecting children, it
advocates a system of self-censorship by the
entertainment industry that would also limit
what adults could see by creating “minimum
standards for violent, sexual and degrading
material for each medium, below which
producers can be expected not to go.” This
would threaten not only South Park but
innovative adult programming like the HBO
dramatic series, The Sopranos. Despite the
claims in the Appeal to Hollywood that these
codes would not create “wholesale strictures on
artistic creativity,” we should recall the impact
of the infamous Hays Office, whose Production
Code enforced “minimum standards” and
prescribed exactly how movie directors could
depict violence, sex, religion, and the flag.
We are told that self-censorship is acceptable
because government has no role in enforcement.
Yet it is clear that the goal of the Appeal is to
chill certain forms of expression. Moreover,
some signers of the Appeal have openly
advocated government regulation if selfregulation doesn’t work, and proposals
currently in Congress make the threat of
government censorship very real.
Even if it were possible to censor only what
children could see, the Appeal to Hollywood
would be misguided. It suggests that violence is
never an appropriate subject for children. Yet
the word “children” includes kids from two to
17 and encompasses people of vastly different
maturity levels. Certainly, most people agree
that older minors should be able to see
Schindler’s List or The Godfather. Like Boyz ‘n
the Hood, these movies provide the perfect
Vol. 24, No.2 – 3
Page 12
antidote for “escapist” entertainment by
stripping violence of its glamour and
emphasizing the value of human life.
Preventing our young from seeing the ugliness
and brutality of violence deprives them of the
knowledge they need to understand and resist it.
No rating system can separate “good” violence
from “bad.” To some extent, that distinction is
in the eye of the beholder. Even if “bad”
violence could be precisely targeted, however,
the ideas it represents and its power to influence
behavior cannot be neutralized by suppressing
offensive speech and images. To counter
destructive ideas and behavior requires us to see
them for what they are, and to speak out
forcefully and effectively against them. The best
response to hateful speech is still “more speech,
not enforced silence.”
The Appeal to Hollywood says that allowing
children to have unsupervised access to media
“is the moral equivalent of letting them go play
on the freeway.” We reject this hyperbolic
claim as unreasonable, uninformed, and
misguided. We should not blur the line between
thoughts and action.
It is actions by people that kill and injure others,
not their thoughts or fantasies. When we teach a
child that he can blame his misbehavior on a
TV show, film, song, video game, or Internet
site that “made me do it,” we undermine the
idea that we are responsible for our own actions
and open the way to more violence.
We join in the call to Hollywood executives to
provide the highest quality entertainment
possible. We also urge them to resist the
pressure to create taboos, villainize art and
artists, and constrain the creative imagination.