Congress Aiming to Hit Adult Entertainment Dealers Where it Hurts

Author: Sarah Riordan

They say that if you really want to hurt someone hit them in the wallet. Congressman Duncan Hunter’s bill, H.R. 3889, does just exactly that by throwing a mean right-cross at the monetary chin of pornographers and their distributors.

A well known political and moral conservative, Hunter’s bill, known as the “Parents’ Empowerment Act,” moves beyond the current federal criminal laws which prohibit the sale and distribution of pornographic material to minors. H.R.3889 provides a civil action for a minor injured by exposure to an entertainment product containing material that is harmful to minors. To put that in layman’s terms, parents or guardians of a child injured by exposure to adult material can sue the pants off (no pun intended) distributor who either sells or otherwise distributes pornography to anyone under the age of eighteen.

What constitutes an “entertainment product containing material harmful to minors?” The language of the bill parallels the “Miller Test,” a three-pronged constitutional criteria for federal and state laws and court adjudication.

“Harmful to minors” means any written, visual, or audio matter of any kind that:

1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taken as a whole and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion, and

2) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find depicts, describes, or represents, in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; sadomasochistic sexual acts or abuse; or lewd exhibitions of the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or post-pubertal female breast, and

3) a reasonable person would find, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

While the bill attempts to thoroughly define just exactly what “pornography” is, it can’t possibly elucidate every potential permutation of adult material. Ultimately it follows the wisdom of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Steward, “I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it.” If the average person thinks it is pornography, then it is pornography.

What punitive damages can be awarded to a minor harmed morally or psychologically by viewing prurient material? Compensatory damages begin at $10,000 for each instance of exposure plus attorney’s fees which quite often run as high as the settlement itself. Depending on the number of exposures, a real financial hurt could be put on a careless distributor of adult materials.

Now, some might view this bill as just another attempt for lawyers to get rich. In our sue-happy society, we find reasons to sue for everything from McDonald’s making me fat to Fear Factor grossing me out. However, Hunter’s bill is an attempt to add another layer of punishment on top of any criminal action which might be taken against a careless or outright predatory distributor of pornography to minors. It is a reasonable action by Congress and if passed it should make distributors of adult oriented “entertainment” think twice about to whom they sell their wares. As far as I am concerned, “Go Duncan!”