not illegal in the State or locality where such transfer, exhibit or possession took place" The clear meaning of this language is that the prohibition of the "transfer" of obscene material has no application in the states which only have obscenity laws that apply only to minors. This includes: While some municipalities in these jurisdictions have enacted local ordinances, there are great areas of these states with no law. A "transfer" or the taking of "possession" within such states is legal. Since a legal "transfer" has taken place such persons may not be arrested when they transport the obscene material into neighboring states. Such a concept is nothing short of idiotic. It vitiates any control by the Federal government and creates enclaves for the production and distribution of such material. The present law does not permit this. Where is the protection for law enforcement officials who transfer such material? The legislation deigns for the first time to define obscenity in the General Jurisdiction and the Special Jurisdiction of the United States. By failing to prohibit "obscene performances" it legalizes live sex shows in both jurisdictions. The Bill provides that there is Federal Jurisdiction if "the offense is committed within the special jurisdiction of the United States", but it also provides that there can be no prosecution if the "transfer, exhibit or possession was not illegal in the State or locality where such transfer, exhibit or possession took place". The special jurisdiction of the United States is defined to include: "real property under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction of the Under existing Federal law the Importation, Use of the Mails or Transportation in Interstate Commerce into or from such Federal Enclaves and Buildings of Obscenity or the Broadcasting of "Obscene" language is prohibited. Now in at least seven states the existing Federal law will be ousted in such enclaves or buildings located in such states. The Federal Assimilative Crimes Act (Title 18, Section 13) it is assumed, now applies to make State Laws relating to obscene material applicable to Federal enclaves. Many states make the distribution (transfer) of Obscene materials whether commercial or non-commercial a crime and make obscene exhibitions criminal whether or not a profit is made. Some also make dildoes and artificial vaginae obscene per se without the application of the three pronged test. Some also have presumptions of scienter. In other words, we have tough state laws (e.g. New York, Texas etc.) that now will be preempted by a weak Federal Law. This is so. since the Assimilative Crimes Act "was to cover crimes on which Congress had not legislated" and "not made punishable by an act of Congress" (Williams v. United States 327 U.S. 711 (1946)). We thus have a strange anomoly. In a state that has no adult obscenity law, H.R. 6915 bars the application of the new Federal law. In states that have tough or adequate obscenity laws, H.R. 6915 prevents them from coming through to apply on Federal enclaves in those states. It looks like a deliberate attempt to weaken Federal protection. It is interesting to note that Congress for many years specifically legislated for Federal enclaves in the area of Obscenity (cf. R.S. Section 5389 (1909); based on c. 258 s. 1, v 17, p 598 March 3, 1873; Title 18, Section 511 (Criminal Code Section 311) repealed by Section 341 of 1948 Code with revisor's note "Repealed by Act June 25, 1948 c 645 Section 21, 62 Stat 862 eff. September 1, 1948 - Sections are not now covered as local laws apply"). From 1873 to 1948 the Federal Enclave law prohibited selling giving away publishing or possessing any obscene material profit. If Congress wants now to again specifically legislate for Federal enclaves, the least it could do would be to restore the protection these After people enjoyed the last time a specific Federal Obscenity Law applied directly to them. all in 1969, 359,000 children had parents who lived on Federal Property (and worked there) (Hearings on P.L. 874, April 28, 29, 1970, 91st Congress 2d Sess S. 3581 Statement of Hon. James Allen, Assistant Secretary for Education page 87). Does not H.R. 6915 also legalize obscenity in other areas of Special Jurisdiction. There is no charge made for "Obscene" movies that may be presented in cruise vessels "on the High Seas" or on "Aircraft going to Europe" both within the "Special Jurisdiction". If no monetary gain, there is no crime. In addition if the Federal Government desires to enact "Comprehensive" legislation covering both the General and Special Jurisdiction of the United States it should give Federal Enclaves the same protection that states afford its citizens. This would include an adult Obscenity Law, a child porn law and a "harmful to minors" law prohibiting dissemination of material to minors which is "harmful" to them even though not obscene. Most states have such laws. Why deprive children in the "Special Jurisdiction" of the United States of such protection? If we are trying to conform to the present obscenity law, why do we reduce the maximum penalty to two years in prison? This means that the man or woman serves 6 months. Is this a realistic deterrent to pornographers considering the fact that we are dealing with organized crime and with a multi-billion dollar business? 11. Child Pornography The Child Pornography portion of Section 2743 beginning on page 160 is obviously inadequate. The law does not require that you prove that the picture in which the minor is engaged in sexual conduct when presented is "obscene". It is enough that it depicts a minor in sexual conduct. Neither the law of the State of New York nor the law of Texas requires that such depictions be "obscene". The New York Law has been judicially upheld. See People v. Ferber 409 N.Y.S. 2d 632 (1978). 12. Artificial Vaginae Another big hole in H.R. 6915 as well as in S1722 is the fact that artificial vaginae and dildoes must be proved to meet the three prong test for obscenity to be prohibited. There is no justice on the Supreme Court of the U.S. that believes that such three dimensional objects enjoy any first amendment protection. They can be and should be declared per se obscene from their very existence and subject to seizure on sight. Such provisions have been upheld by all the members of the United States Supreme Court. In the case of Sewell v. State 23 Crim. Law Repts. 4035 (1978) the Great Dissenters, Brennan and Marshall said: "Appellant fundamentally misapprehends |