Adult Choices

The dismissal in federal court of racketeering charges against the distributors of pornographic films will make more difficult the campaign of the Justice Department to take action in this field. But that decision, it seems to us, was inevitable.

In relying on U.S. District Judge David V. Kenyon to establish whether the films violated community standards, the prosecution created an impossible task, the more complex because Kenyon was presiding over a trial in Los Angeles, a megalopolis of incredible diversity. We agree with his statement that “the great majority of people in this town would be incensed by this,” and we also agree with his conclusion: “I cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that community standards were violated.” That anomaly sums up a fundamental defect in the kind of campaign the Justice Department seems intent on waging against pornography.

The rental of so-called adult films has doubled in America in the past two years, although by all accounts the preponderance of that business involves tamer stuff than the films in question in this trial. Millions of Americans have joined the audience for explicit materials, suggesting that this is a mainstream issue, however much many may disapprove. It is clear that the task of establishing the standards called for by the courts is vastly more complicated in a large urban area where the acceptance of this medium is concentrated.

But, then, it has never been easy to set limits to freedom. Few argue against the First Amendment. But almost everyone argues over its implementation. The protection of these rights is most strained when the freedoms are exploited and abused, and when the First Amendment is claimed as defense of writings and pictures offensive to substantial numbers of people.

We have always thought the consenting adult the best judge of the limits of pornography. Clearly, children must be absolutely protected from its reach, and those who prevailed in this Los Angeles case still face criminal charges for allegedly using a person under the age of 18 in sexually explicit performances. Adults who want nothing to do with pornography also must be protected, and so it is that most communities control the unwanted intrusion of obscene material into public places. Beyond that, we think the marketplace and the choices that adults make in what they read and see will best determine the limits.

Government prosecutors disagree, motivated in part by findings of a Justice Department investigation that asserted a connection between certain pornographic forms and acts of criminal violence. The fact is that the report asserting that connection is challenged by some substantial experts and appears, at best, flawed. But, even if that connection were to be demonstrated, its use to justify censorship could not be ordered without imperiling broader rights. There is no way for the state to define the unacceptable without trammeling basic freedoms, and that is why the judgment is better left to individual adults.