day after the date of the notice, the sender, and persons acting on his behalf, shall not send any mail to the person named in the notice. If the Postmaster General believed that a sender or anyone acting in his behalf violated the notice to refrain from sending mail, the Postmaster General would be required to serve upon the violators a complaint requiring that any response be filed in writing within 15 days. If the Postmaster General then considered that the notice had been violated, he would be authorized to request the Attorney General to apply to any district court within whose jurisdiction the mail has been sent or received, for an order directing compliance with the notice. Failure to obey the court's order would be punishable as contempt.

H.R. 980 differs from the legislation proposed, but not enacted in the 88th Congress in at least three main respects. First, it characterizes the objectionable mail matter as "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy, or vile" rather than "morally offensive." Although such a narrowing of the ambit of this law would be otherwise commendable, it seems only fair to observe that even the courts of the United States have encountered great difficulty in identifying "obscene" material as distinguished from other material, dealing with sex, which is not obscene and whose circulation is constitutionally protected by the first amendment, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent cases like Manual Enterprises v. Day (1961); Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963); A Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964); and most recently, Freedman v. Maryland, decided March 1, 1965. Yet H.R. 980 makes very little attempt to conform to the requirements and tests laid down by the U.S. Supreme Court in such case, for the legitimate regulation by government of so-called obscenity. In fact, H.R. 980, like its predecessor in the 88th Congress, and like some other bills introduced during the present session of this Congress, seems to aggravate the constitutional problems inherent in even the best motivated governmental attempts to regulate the circulation of so-called obscenity by its permitting the subjective opinions and tastes of individuals unconnected with the Government to determine whether some material may pass through the mails and the senders of such mail may be punished for thus using the mails. It would be difficult to improve upon the criticism directed at this aspect of H.R. 980 by Postmaster General Gronouski when he observed that it would empower persons "to set in motion a series of governmental actions which could seriously impede the dissemination of material to the general public despite the fact that the matter itself may not be obscene by judicial standards." We are all, today, very much aware that any legislation or other regulation exerting restraints upon the circulation of printed materials must strictly comply with judicial standards lest one precious freedom of expression and freedom to read be eroded. Yet the proposed legislation almost invites persons to take advantage of the opportunity afforded to translate his own subjective feelings about certain subjects into consecutive orders of the Post Office Department. the Department of Justice, and the Federal court system, designed to bring about the punishment of, or disruption of business of, some group, company, or concern using the mails to offer information or views on subjects which the recipient may personally dislike, including even religious and political views.

For almost anything can be called "obscene" or "indecent" by someone. Surely Congress would want to consider carefully before adding contempt proceedings. What is obscene to one may be the laughter of genius to another; it is to be hoped that the Congress will not require the Post Office Department to go back beyond the days when it considered Aristophones "obscene" by "appointing" scores, perhaps hundreds or even thousands of amateur censors to exercise their subjective judgments on what is or is not obscene passing through the U.S. mails. H.R. 980 embodies a provision barring subsequent mailings of additional "such" mail rather than all mail, but this change seems to present no cure for the original defects pointed out during the course of the hearings on the bills in the 88th Congress; it would seem merely to place upon the Postmaster General the truly impossible duty of deciding which additional mail originating with the same sender might be considered "obscene" in terms of the subjective meaning evidently placed upon that term by the individual objecting recipient. Must not a ludicrous result be foreseen whereby the Postmaster General would be duty bound to censor mail according not to his own official opinion of what constitutes obscenity, but according to the unarticulated, unformulated differing notions of scores, or hundreds, or thousands of persons. I am not surprised that Postmaster General Gronouski recently advised this committee that this bill, if enacted, would "impose a tremendous burden on the Post Office Department which it would be incapable of handling under currently restricted budgeting requirements."

The new bill would provide for an "appropriate hearing," if requested by the sender, to aid the Postmaster General's determination of whether a notice to the sender not to send additional "such” mail-mail which would be considered "obscene" by the objecting recipient-had been violated. This provision for a hearing seems designed to overcome the strong objections made to the failure of the legislation proposed during the last Congress to provide any hearing whatsoever to a person, group, or concern accused of having continued, despite notice. to send morally offensive material through the mail. On the other hand, it seems quite clear that the "appropriate" hearing now intended to be provided is not a "due process" hearing at all since it expressly need not conform to the requirements for hearings under the Administrative Procedure Act. I am advised that in failing to need so to conform, the procedure proposed would almost certainly be constitutionally defective.

The bill also appears to ignore the possibility that a "violator" might unknowingly or inadvertently have violated the notice not to send additional "such" mail to the objecting recipient. Such inadvertent or unknowing sending could be expected, it seems to me, to occur quite normally and in good faith whenever a sender is unable to appreciate fully exactly what kind of expression or material the objecting recipient considers "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy, or vile." In other words, the proposed legislation would seem to cast the burden of becoming mindreaders upon senders of mail. It is hard to believe this Congress would want deliberately to enact so troublesome a law for the attempted regulation of obscenity in the mails. This problem was present also in the legislation introduced in the 88th Congress, where Attorney General Katzenbach pointed out the inherent constitutional infirmity.

In summary, however meritorious the intention of the proponents of such legislation undoubtedly is, H.R. 980 threatens to violate constitutional standards for due process of law, freedom of speech, and freedom to read. Mindful as we all are of the quantity of uninvited, sometimes welcome and sometimes unwelcome. material received by us all almost daily through the mails, we are also mindful that each of us possesses the power for ourselves or our children, physical and legal, to return or discard any such material we many find personally unwelcomed-whether on sexual, political, religious, or other grounds, including even good taste. It does not, however, seem any proper function of our Government to perform for us this job and I find it praiseworthy that those arms of our Government who would inevitably be charged with carrying out such a function also feel that to do so would be unwelcome, improper. and unconstitutional.

The sanctity and right of privacy of the home is indeed an important sanctity and right, one which the Congress ideally should work to uphold. But it does not seem to me that the right and sanctity is invaded by the delivery of mail which can be rejected and discarded, even left unopened. On the other hand, since the proposed legislation seems to threaten to restrain rights of free expression and due process for both senders and recipients of all kinds of mail, and perhaps to deny equal protection of the law to senders of certain kinds of mail matter, it should not be enacted by the Congress. I would like, therefore. on behalf of the American Library Association, to recommend against enactment of H.R. 980 and the similar bills on this subject introduced in this Congress, including H.R. 4302, H.R. 4794, and H.R. 4241.

Sincerely yours,

EDWIN CASTAGNA, President, American Library Association.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. CHAMBERLAIN, OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, I am Congressman Charles Chamberlain, of the Sixth District of Michigan. For some time, I have been concerned over the problem of morally offensive mail, and I welcome the opportunity to submit my views to this subcommittee on H.R. 4943, legislation I have introduced to protect postal patrons from obscene mail matter.

As this subcommittee knows, postal, customs, and Justice Department officials began a program of intercepting and confiscating Communist propagandabut this program was ended in March of 1961. The 1962 postal bill directed the Post Office to intercept Communist propaganda mail-but did nothing to halt the rapidly increasing traffic in obscene and immoral mail. Last year, the House passed H.R. 319, which would permit a person who received mail

which he considered morally offensive to take action which would prevent the sender from mailing more unsolicited material to him or to his children. Unfortunately, the Senate took no further action on this worthy and essential legislation.

A report of the House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service states in 1964 that "recognized authorities" had presented "overwhelming evidence that a multimillion-dollar traffic in obscene and immoral products is still growing, with much of it directed to debasement of the morals of the very young and impressionable," and that a new law with "teeth" was needed to "enable the public to effectively participate in achieving the needed protection of its own interests."

I concur in the conclusions reached by the committee last year and urge that this bill be enacted into law at the earliest possible time. For while some existing laws provide for the successful prosecution of hard-core obscenity and pornography mailers, the public is confronted by the possibility of equal or greater danger from the "gray areas" of indecent and off-color mailings. The bill which I have introduced along with other Members would return morally offensive mail to the Postmaster General with a request that the sender be notified not to mail any more such unsolicited material. Once the Postmaster General notified the sender of this request, no additional material could be mailed to the complaining individual or to his children beginning 30 days after receipt of the notice, and violations could lead to contempt proceedings.

This bill seems to meet constitutional objections by leaving the definition of what constitutes obscenity to the discretion of the individuals concerned, and would seem to offer Americans the best possible method of putting a halt to mailings that shock the sensibilities. I respectfully request this subcommittee to act favorably upon this legislation and expedite its approval by the Congress so that the public may be protected from unscrupulous mailings in the future.

CITIZENS FOR DECENT LITERATURE, INC.,
Cincinnati, Ohio, March 29, 1965.

Hon. GLENN CUNNINGHAM,
Member of Congress,

House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CUNNINGHAM: This letter is in support of H.R. 980 to allow the recipient of obscene material to demand that his name be removed from the mailing list. I urge the Post Office Subcommittee on Postal Operations to vote this measure out of committee.

In actuality, this is a most serious problem for the average uninformed citizen, He gets on one salacious literature mailing list and before long is deluged with material that is obscene and which he cannot stop. This is especially serious if a child is assaulted through the mails and the parents and their home is violated with obscenity over which they have no control.

I personally can see no civil liberties or civil rights objections to this bill except by those lining their pockets with greenbacks or by those maliciously and clandestinely supporting the obscenity racket. Certainly a civil liberty and right should be freedom from obscenity and particularly any home should have the right to sanctity against obscenity if so desired. Let those lamenting in the name of civil liberties protect the individual instead of the purveyor of filth.

H.R. 980 has my personal support; the support of Citizens for Decent Literature and its affiliates throughout the 50 States. I am certain that 95 percent of American parents, as indicated by our surveys, are exasperated by obscenity and want tools provided to resist.

Cordially yours,

DON CORTUM, M.D., National Cochairman.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD G. CORTUM, M.D., NATIONAL COCHAIRMAN, CITIZENS FOR DECENT LITERATURE

A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER

Obscenity to exploit the immature mind, whether youth or adult, is being foisted on our society by a closely knit group of unscrupulous publishers. These

"quack" publishes surround themselves with paid professionals in the field of psychology, literature, and the law. The "quacks" and their "hacks" flit across our Nation to support their perverted criminality before the courts. Even those among us who question under the guise of sexual freedom, freedom to read, constitutional rights, and those apathetic Americans slow to rise to action, are recognizing the problem of obscenity in our society.

How large is the dollar volume of obscenity? It is difficult to estimate, but, it appears fom Federal testimony before many committees, that it approaches $2 billion yearly. This figure includes printed materials, newsstand obscenity, mail order obscenity, records, and film.

Obscenity is worsening in volume, in content, and in traffic. Why? Paralysis of law enforcement through liberalizations of judicial decisions, by incompetency in law enforcement in a highy technical area of prosecution, because of apathy of the public and because of indifference of executive branches of the Government. Obscenity represents a "clear and present danger” to our society. It must be recognized as such.

Mail-order obscenity, purported nudist publications, men's adventure magazines, and paperbacks are flooding the market. All appear to be one gigantic network, seething to erupt-yes, clandestinely supporting the big operator. Nudists publications are so raw that nudists state they are pornographic. Paid models, and exhibitionists repeatedly photographed and repeatedly exhibited attempt to sublimate their psychosexual defects by posing. Lists of homo bars and cafes near army bases are distributed. Homosexuals are demanding their civil rights and are challenging exclusion from church groups. Sex-violence materials, fetish-type and bondage materials are openly available in tremendous quantities in large cities. Girlie-type publications, Playboy being the most notorious example, are engrossed in the breast fetish-degrading the American woman to the status of an animal. Paperbacks in England became so bad that Great Britain made a formal protest to the U.S. State Department. The principle publisher is still in business in Los Angeles County despite the fact that the U.S. State Department contacted Los Angeles County about this publisher. Some paperbacks upheld as obscene by the U.S. Supreme Court are still being sold-even sold through the mails. There is little question about the intent of the author or the publisher but to pander to abnormal sexual curiosity. We need briefly to examine the attitudes of the opponents to the control of obscenity. The opponents say, "If you want to read obscenity it is not right for the Government to intrude." The opponents say, "Children should not be restricted in any reading by their parents." The opponents falsely state, "Obscene books are not forced on anyone.' The opponents, the American Civil Liberty Union, in a brief in 1964 asserted, "The Government should limit nothing in free speech-not even obscenity." The opponents say that one gets a charge out of lewdness and that this acts as an outlet. The opponents state that men raped before the printing press. The opponents state that no girl was ever seduced by a book. The opponents state no one can define obscenity and that no one knows where to draw the line. But, one wise man answered them in one simple statement, "Every evil act is preceded by an evil thought"; and if we plant evil thoughts in peoples minds we can expect evil acts.

It is amusing to read in the 1964 ACLU bulletin that “*** they questioned the value of a sweeping antismut campaign launched with lurid displays of pornographic material' ***” At least we have the ACLU admitting that obscenity exists. Does this material damage society? Yes. The unscrupulous publishers, distributors, and their hacks are not the only ones interested in the spread of pornography. It is a proven fact that a large majority of sex deviates known to police have large collections of pornographic materials. Sex perverts tend not only to distort their own lives but scar and distort the lives of their victims. They become a point of social contagion seeking continually to recruit others to their cult so they won't be so readily set apart from the normal. The more subtle effect is on our young people and their morals. Sociologically obscenity debases moral standards and provides an atmosphere in which evils fester and grow. The smut peddler is encouraging youth to express sex impulses in an unhealthy direction. This provides a basis for unstable marriages leading to broken homes, and thus provides more damaged personalities for the increasing vicious circle. The smut peddler not only aggravates the elements necessary for immorality but provides the elements for criminal activity by tying violence and sex together.

1

To deny the effect of pornography and obscenity is to deny the effect of books, the fundamental reason for freedom of the press. Entire civilizations have been built or destroyed by the effect of books.

Pornographic writers distort the truth, set up false standards, romanticize evil, thus destroying the standards of decency for which civilization has fought since the beginning of time. They foster a contempt for the dignity of man or woman and create a lack of responsibility in the mind of the reader. In making the degradations and perversities of human being socially acceptable these writers violate the unexpressed compact that exists between civilized men. These writers bombard children with sexual materials for which their immaturity ill fits them and the result has been an unnatural oversexualization of a new generation. In their adolescent way youth confound the discussion of sexual problems with encouragement to practice. This results in premature sexual involvment, rising teenage venereal disease, and illegitimacy. Children so involved with sexuality dissipate their energies when they should be applied to development of their physical and intellectual capacities to engage as citizens and workers in the community and as parents in the family. Chaotic relations between the sexes menace the vitality of the nation when a nation dissipatse its energies on sensual sexuality. The whole matter of sex education has been unnaturally inflated producing an obscession among adolescents and immature adults for factual sexual information; yet, curiously, much of the obscession for information is filled by perverted newsstand garbage because sex education is not being done in the home. These newsstands spew forth distortions and emotionally charged sex-violence material. Americans should bristle with anger at the smut peddler who exploits youth and in turn deceives him for a fast dollar. A tremendous vacuum exists since parents are not fulfilling their obligations to give children moral sex education. Community, school, and church efforts to strengthen family efforts in sex education should be encouraged.

The argument is often put forth that there is no cause-effect relationship between obscenity and antisocial acts. It is proliferated by nonprofessional psuedo-medical persons and especially by those associated with publishing, writing, and distributing obscenity. Those defending the obscenity racketeer in court promulgate the big lie to line their own pockets with greenbacks. To deny the effect of the printed word only in the field of obscenity is a gross delusion. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, stated 10 years ago, "We can no longer wait for the scientific answer about cause and effect, but must enforce the law and suppress this material."

Americans are set apart from the rest of the world in this regard. A report of a recent United Nations conference on crime with 85 nations present found the U.S. delegation "pretty much alone on the issue of mass media." "It seems that the rest of the world is quite certain that the portrayal of crime, violence. bruality, and sadism has a bad effect on youth and is directly conducive to crime. The mention of lack of scientific proof by the U.S. delegation was met, by and large, with incredulity—perhaps one should say with utter amazement and a certain amount of hostility." The report states that the other nations felt that U.S. unwillingness as a nation to control crime and violence is explained through the greed of this country in trying to make big money and its products which are deliberately addressed to the base elements of human behavior.

Much of the confusion in sexual matters stem from confounding compassion and understanding with social approval. Christ recognized this problem and admonished us to "Love the sinner but hate his sins."

Psychiatrically clinical studies must go into the unconscious evaluation of the dynamic and the interaction of the child or adult. Who can say when abnormal sex activity may occur and what scientific investigator will be there to record it? Who can predict when a child exposed to sadomasochistic material will act antisocially? It may be next week and it may be 8 years later. Short-term studies are impossible. Planned experiments are impossible, for who would want their child submitted to pornography and followed psychiatrically? Therefore, we must work analytically with children that do develop psychosexual problems. We must realize that for every child seen by a physician there must be countless others with similar problems never seen.

We know that children from stable homes are much less likely to be affected than those where the foundation of personality development is already weakened. In obscenity, women are often portrayed as sexually seductive, deceitful, and the objects of sadistic attacks and for sexual gratification only. The connection of violence is potentially especially damaging because we find that it arouses sadomasochistic erotic fantasies in many children, some of whom remain fixed