WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R–Kansas) announced that a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution will take place on Wednesday to examine the subject of enforcing embattled obscenity laws. The hearing, titled “Obscenity Prosecution of the First Amendment,” will take place at 2:30 p.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building. Scheduled speakers include Robert Destro, a Professor of Law at Catholic University of America, William Wagner, a Professor of Law at Thomas M. Cooley Law School, and Frederick Schauer, a Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard University. As with Brownback’s previous hearing on the issue of pornography, representatives from the adult industry will not be invited to speak.The hearing itself appears to be a reaction to the recent decision by U.S. District Court Judge Gary Lancaster in the case U.S. v. Extreme Associates. Judge Lancaster dismissed all obscenity charges against Extreme Associates last month while citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2004 decision to strike down Texas sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas. According to a press release issued by Senator Brownback’s office, the Wednesday hearing “will illustrate the negative impact this [Extreme Associates] decision can have on prosecuting producers of obscene material.”

The National Catholic Reporter describes Professor Robert Destro as an experienced political activist for the conservative religious movement in America:

“Professor Robert Destro occupies a key post in the nation’s culture wars,” states a National Catholic Reporter article. “Destro, a controversial Reagan-appointee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission in the 1980s, serves as principal investigator of the Catholic University of America-based Marriage Law Project, the core mission of which is to provide ‘legal assistance to church-related organizations’ that support traditional marriage.”

Professor Schauer is a well known opponent of pornography who has spoken out against the adult entertainment industry on a number of occasions. In his essay Speech and “Speech” – Obscenity and “Obscenity”: An Exercise in the Interpretation of Constitutional Language, Schauer argues that the right to produce or buy pornography is not an issue of Free Speech. Schauer further argues that every pornographer is concerned solely with profit:

“The purveyor of the pornography is in the business solely of providing sexual pleasure,” argues Schauer. “It is unrealistic to presume that he is anything but indifferent to the method by which pleasure is provided and profit secured.”

Professor Wagner is a former federal judge who served as United States Magistrate Judge for the Northern District of Florida. According to Cooley Law School, Professor Wagner has also served as a federal prosecutor, “litigating hundreds of federal cases and serving as chief of appellate litigation for the Office of the United States Attorney.”

YNOT has discovered that Wagner has specifically served as a federal prosecutor in prior cases involving obscenity and pornography, including United States v. Ernest Schmeltzer. Professor Wagner has also moderated past discussions on pornography and obscenity at Cooley Law School, including a 2003 forum titled “Protecting Our Children in Cyberspace.”

According to Michelle Freridge, Executive Director of the Free Speech Coalition, Brownback’s hearings are a reason to be concerned.

“My Legal and Government Committee is very concerned,” admitted Freridge in a conversation with YNOT. “Although the court decisions have been going in our way and have validated our right to do business, new legislation could infringe upon those rights. If new legislation were passed it could take years to push that legislation back, and in the meantime the government could prosecute. So we’re deeply concerned that these Senate hearings… what they’re doing is creating a record, a base of evidence, upon which to create legislation that infringes on Free Speech rights of individuals.

Senator Brownback, considered a possible candidate for president in 2008, surprised the adult industry in November of 2003 when he held Senate hearings on the supposed “addictive” nature of pornography. That hearing also featured testimony exclusively from one side of the debate, with dissenting testimony not included in the proceedings. During the hearing, one “expert” compared the effects of pornography on the brain to the effects of crack cocaine.

“The false idea of porn addiction is key,” says Freridge. “There has to be a really, really compelling interest to infringe upon Americans’ Free Speech rights … if porn addiction were true, if a large enough percentage of the population were addicted because of addictive qualities in the product, if it had a negative effect on peoples’ lives that were compelling enough, then they would have [their argument] to say Free Speech can be infringed upon in this case for these reasons.”

She added that the government might have a tough time arguing that a compelling interest exists to restrict erotic speech.

“I don’t think you’re going to find anybody who died from watching too much pornography,” said Freridge.

In a recent nomination hearing for Attorney general Alberto Gonzales, Brownback suggested that the “addiction” angle could be used by the United States Justice Department to get around First Amendment protections in obscenity campaigns against the adult entertainment industry.

“In the climate of Washington DC these days there are a lot of things that don’t make sense that people, if they just say it enough, other people seem to start believing it or at least go along with it to avoid conflict,” said Freridge.

Brownback has also partnered with former Al Gore running mate Senator Joseph Lieberman (D–Connecticut) to introduce legislation aimed at the television and radio broadcast industries that would increase penalties for “indecent” broadcasts.

Some members of the adult entertainment industry have pledged to do whatever they can to counter the impact of the hearings, even though they will not be allowed to speak.

“The hearing will accept written testimony, and it may be read [aloud],” said Freridge. “We have submitted written testimony on behalf of the Free Speech Coalition, and we can help anyone who wants to submit written testimony as well.”

Representatives of the Free Speech Coalition will also attend the hearings as observers.