The recent LDS General Conference included this prophetic warning about pornography: "David ... was on a rooftop courtyard of his palace, and looking below in a neighboring yard, he saw something he never should have seen. That was the adversary’s bait. Modesty, chastity, and good judgment required that David turn away immediately and not watch, but he didn’t do either thing. Instead, he allowed his mind to turn to forbidden fantasies, those thoughts led to actions, and things quickly spiraled downward from bad to worse to fatal. David was trapped, and for him the consequences were eternal." (L. Whitney Clayton, "Blessed Are All the Pure in Heart," Ensign, Nov. 2007, p.51.) While Marriott International doesn't provide personal access to Bathsheba, it does sell private box seats from which to view her deeds with David. And as surely as misery came to David and Bathsheba, misery will come to Marriott and its in-room pornography customers. Some day, Marriott will become part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Marriott sells box seats on King David's rooftop
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Morality in Media v Marriott International
Morality in Media is a national anti-pornography group based in New York City. I got two hits for Morality in Media at LDS.org (see the "News of the Church" item about Dr. Victor B. Cline here and the comment about a Texas chapter of Morality in Media here).
"An Open Letter from Morality in Media President Bob Peters To Marriott International CEO Bill Marriott: Get Rid of the Porn" is the title of a news release issued last month by Morality in Media. The Bob Peters "Open Letter" has now been reprinted by: Standard Newswire, Special Guests, Syndicated columnist Michael J. McManus suggested readers of his column add their voices by writing Bill Marriott (Marriott Drive, Washington, D.C. 20058) and say, as did Peters: "It is my earnest hope that even after so many years of ignoring complaints about the sale of pornography in your hotels, you will yet do the right thing for your family, church, and nation." Marriott also has an online form where readers can leave comments. I congratulate Bob Peters for taking a stand against Marriott pornography and I endorse his "Open Letter." Removing pornography from Marriott hotels may take years, but I know from personal experience that such things can happen.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
400,000 smoke-free rooms must become porn-free
The "Gospel Topics" section at LDS.org answers "questions about Mormon beliefs,... doctrine, policies, practices, and history." Its article on pornography quotes True to the Faith, which is "a collection of brief, simple statements on gospel doctrines and principles." (Ensign, Apr. 2004, p. 79.) A "Message from the First Presidency" at the front of the book contains a strong endorsement of its contents, including this promise: "Through regular personal prayer and study of the scriptures and the doctrines of the gospel you will be prepared to withstand evil influences that would deceive you and harm you." (True to the Faith, p. 1.) The First Presidency continues: "This book is designed as a companion to your study of the scriptures and the teachings of latter-day prophets.... Refer to it as you study and apply gospel principles. Use it as a resource when you prepare talks, teach classes, and answer questions about the Church" (Ibid). Mormons Oppose Distribution of Pornography The article on pornography in True to the Faith contains this admonition: "Members of the Church should avoid pornography in any form and should oppose its production, distribution, and use." (True to the Faith, p. 118.) This is more than mere authorization for Church members to oppose the distribution of pornography, it is an admonition from the Church to do so. In the October 2006 general conference, Elder Larry W. Gibbons said: "A respected physician ... has come up with what he calls his 80:20 theory of nutrition. This theory says if you [eat] very good 80 percent of the time, you can eat what you want the other 20 percent of the time. "Now, this may be all right in nutrition, but the 80:20 principle is not acceptable in such things as gambling, pornography, or honesty." (Ensign, Nov 2006, p. 102.) The Marriott family is nationally known and well-respected in the Church. The Washington Post says the family clings to its values "in a business climate where hip trumps wholesome." Clearly, an 80:20 approach to pornography won't do: Marriott's 400,000 smoke-free rooms must become porn-free.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Dear Marriott International
Two recent articles in the Deseret News, one about "Marriott porn" and the other about "The nasty taint of porn," highlight a problem with your in-room entertainment offerings. This is not a small problem. Your web site says you have "nearly 2,900 lodging properties located in the United States and 67 other countries and territories." It also says your Chairman and CEO "is an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Some LDS Church members were surprised to learn of your pornography problem (though I personally have been frustrated about it for more than 20 years). It became a hot topic among LDS bloggers on Thursday, July 5th, when Glen Johnson's original AP article was released. The president of the American Decency Association heard about this controversy and emailed one of my blogging associates the following letter he had earlier received from your Chairman and CEO regarding some of the in-room movies that are made available to your guests: Mr. Bill Johnson Thank you for your recent letter concerning the choice of in-room movies available to our guests. We recognize, however, that our customers have certain beliefs, likes and dislikes. That is why we have restricted access to those programs that certain customers may feel are inappropriate. The in-room entertainment operators who provide our systems rely upon a certain volume of movie types in order to be economically viable. If we were to eliminate the R and non-rated offerings, the systems would not be economic. We believe it is more practical to have a system available through a wider variety and to allow our guests to make their own selections. We do monitor the R and non-rated offerings and eliminate those that are most extreme while maintaining the minimal amount to support the economics of the system. We appreciate your comments and value your business. J.W. Marriott, Jr. Unfortunately, the above letter doesn't even acknowledge a "pornography" problem. It sidesteps that issue entirely, as if the material in question isn't pornographic, but merely inappropriate for certain customers. I think Marriott International does sell pornography and I think that is a problem. Now before you write me off as just another over-sensitive prude, please consider the following definitions. What Is Hard-Core Pornography? Hard-core pornography is obscene material that is not tolerated by the law. I don't question that you are opposed to hard-core pornography. This type of sexually oriented material is devoted almost exclusively to explicit and offensive representations of sex. Hard-core pornography also includes explicit sex with children. Hard-core pornography is not "free speech." In communities where citizens oppose it, hard-core pornography can be prosecuted and its creators and distributors sent to jail. Laws against hard-core pornography have been declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Unfortunately however, some people assume material that is actually hard-core pornography is legal simply because it exists in their community. Public prosecutors, on the other hand, are forced to conclude that because such material is tolerated it reflects the accepted community standard. The resulting stalemate leaves each waiting for the other. As Christians and as citizens, we have an inherent obligation to speak out against hard-core pornography. In today's world, we have an additional reason for doing so because the law requires a certain amount of public outcry against these materials in order to justify prosecution. What Is Soft-Core Pornography? Soft-core pornography is obscene material that is tolerated by the law. It is not "legally obscene." Soft-core pornography is "free speech" because it has been granted First Amendment protection. This means that, even in communities where citizens oppose it, soft-core pornography cannot be outlawed because such laws have been declared un-Constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Soft-core pornography usually involves the very same kind of sexually explicit material as hard-core pornography. The difference between hard- and soft-core pornography is not necessarily in the subject matter or even in the level of explicitness. Often, the difference is based entirely on legal technicalities. These legal technicalities were created when the U.S. Supreme Court created the legal definition of pornography. Obscene material that lies within the Supreme Court's definition is hard-core pornography, and obscene material that lies outside the Court's definition is soft-core pornography. As Christians and as citizens, we have an inherent obligation to speak out against soft-core pornography. In today's world, we have an additional reason for doing so because the Supreme Court did not change the nature of this material, they only changed its status with respect to the law. Soft-core pornography is just as obscene and poisonous today as it was before the Supreme Court gave it "free speech" protection. What Are Legal Technicalities? Legal technicalities are details that are meaningful only to the law. In the United States, two landmark Supreme Court cases have established the fine points of obscenity law. They are Roth v. United States (1957); and Miller v. California (1973). The Court, in these two cases, set forth the legal definition of pornography that is used for the purpose of administering criminal justice to those who produce and sell pornography. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, three conditions must be present before obscene material can be outlawed: 1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. 2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state (or federal) law. 3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The "average person" is a legal technicality. This person is comprised of both the young and the old, the educated and the uneducated, the religious and the irreligious—even those who produce pornography. (See Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, at 490, [1957].) How can anyone determine what is offensive to such a person when, in reality, no such person exists? And even if such a person can be imagined, how can pornography be offensive to those who produced it in the first place? This is one reason why only the most revolting obscenity is actually against the law. "Contemporary community standards" form another legal technicality. The very existence of pornography in a community contributes to the community standards which, in turn, are then used to justify pornography's existence as being consistent with such standards. (See Grove Press, Inc. v. Christenberry, 276 F.2d 433, at 440, [1960].) The words "taken as a whole" are an important legal technicality because regardless of how offensive isolated parts of the work might be, unless the entire work, "taken as a whole," is offensive, it cannot be prosecuted. It is not the nature of the offensive parts, but the nature of the rest of the material that determines this. Biblical Principles of Modesty and Chastity In that great day when we shall stand before the judgment bar of God, it is doubtful that we will be talking about "average persons," "contemporary community standards," or the effect of a work "taken as a whole." Legal technicalities will be very out of place in that important conversation. It is, therefore, important for us to understand pornography from a gospel perspective. The essential characteristic of pornography from a gospel perspective is its offensiveness to modesty or chastity. (See this author's article in the August 1989 Ensign magazine.) At One Time, the Law Upheld Modesty and Chastity In fact, this is how the entire Judeo-Christian society identified pornography for hundreds of years. Until 1957, the word obscenity was defined in all English dictionaries in terms of its offensiveness to modesty or chastity. It was only after the U.S. Supreme Court introduced its legal definition in 1957 that dictionaries began to define obscenity without regard to modesty or chastity. It is also a historical fact that the Biblical principles of modesty and chastity were upheld by this country's criminal code and judicial precedent from the day Columbus first set foot on American soil until the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Roth decision in 1957. For centuries, there was no strictly legal definition of obscenity. It was simply against the law to offend modesty or chastity in public in any way and people were sent to jail for doing so. Consider this example. On February 14, 1890, a Valley Falls, Kansas man was arrested for depositing in the U.S. Mail an obscene newspaper. The defendant was a peaceable, well-conducted citizen. He was a married man, living in wedlock, about 60 years of age. He was convicted. He appealed, partly on the grounds that he had acted unwittingly, not realizing that what he had mailed was obscene. To which the federal appeals court judge responded as follows: "There is in the popular conception and heart such a thing as modesty. It was born in the Garden of Eden. After Adam and Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge they ... ' knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.' From that day to this civilized man has carried with him the sense of shame,—the feeling that there were some things on which the eye—the mind—should not look; and where men and women become so depraved ... that they will not veil their eyes, nor hold their tongues, the government should perform the office for them.... "The defendant ... cannot claim that he has acted unwittingly." (45 F.R. 415 [1891]; see also 56 Ind. 328 [1877].) This federal judge was not expressing a private, personal opinion. In those days the law quite properly assumed, and the courts agreed, that all Americans had an innate and uniform sense of modesty and decency, by which to measure the obscene qualities of a book or picture. The Law Discarded Modesty and Chastity Beginning in 1933, a few U.S. judges occasionally challenged this long-standing precedent. In most U.S. jurisdictions, however, support for modesty and chastity continued right up until 1957: "In the mid-fifties, anti-obscenity laws were attacked as unconstitutional. The attacks were repelled. Freedom of expression, said the Supreme Court, does not extend to expression that is obscene.... Despite a few discordant judicial utterances, [the law] was not very different from what it had been in 1868." (Charles Rembar, The End of Obscenity, Random House, 1968, pp. 15 & 17.) But in 1957, the law discarded modesty and chastity. The following case illustrates how this legal transition occurred: On January 6, 1955, the Sunshine Book Company filed suit in U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, seeking injunctive relief against the U.S. Post Office. The Post Office, it seems, had impounded some 400 copies of a magazine published by the plaintiff, declaring them to be obscene. The Sunshine Book Company wanted its magazines back, and, as well, a declaratory judgment that its publication was not obscene. The 1955 U.S. District Court said, "The definition of obscene is: Offensive to chastity and modesty." (128 F.Supp. 564, at 567.) Applying this definition, the court concluded that the postmaster's "decision was founded upon substantial evidence and contains correct rulings.... The magazine is obscene." (Ibid, at 573.) The 1955 decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit in 1957 (see 249 F.2d 114), but it was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1958 on the basis of Roth (see 355 U.S. 372). Unfortunately, if we disregard the Supreme Court's legal technicalities, we discover that Marriott International distributes a shocking quantity of (technically lawful) pornography as part of its in-room entertainment offerings. Understandably, Marriott International doesn't use the word "pornography" in connection with these offerings and probably isn't comfortable with that designation. It is likely assumed by Marriott International that its in-room entertainment operators carefully stay within the law when it comes to "pornography." But therein lies the problem. All of this material is offensive to modesty and chastity and therefore offensive to God. Even the law understands that not all "pornography" is subject to prosecution. What authority do I have to make this claim? I claim only the authority to speak that comes from studying and pondering an issue. But there are four "authorities" that I would like you to consider: 1. The United States Supreme Court itself, 2. The 1986 U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, 3. BYU Law Professor Robert E. Riggs, and 4. A recent prophet, President Ezra Taft Benson. The United States Supreme Court Regarding its definition of pornography, the Supreme Court said: "The Roth definition does not reflect the precise meaning of 'obscene' as traditionally used in the English language.... "Pornographic material which is [legally] obscene forms a sub-group of all 'obscene' expression, but not the whole, at least as the word 'obscene' is now used in our language. we note, therefore, that the words 'obscene material' as used in this case, have a specific judicial meaning." (Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, at 18 & 19, [1973].) Regarding the relationship between pornography and the First Amendment rights of free speech, the Court said: "Obscene material [meaning material that fits the Court's definition] is unprotected by the First Amendment." (Ibid. at 23.) But laws designed to regulate obscene material "must be carefully limited." (Ibid. at 23-24, empnasis added.) This means that the laws enacted by the legislature cannot be more restrictive than the Court's definition of obscenity. "Thus limited," (Ibid. at 25) the law can regulate only that sub-group of obscenity that has been identified by the U.S. Supreme Court. This means that obscenity outside of the Supreme Court's "sub-group" is actually protected by the First Amendment. Most people believe that the Supreme Court has made pornography illegal. What the Court actually said is almost the opposite: "Under the holdings announced today, no one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials unless these [obscene] materials depicted or describe patently offensive ' hard core' sexual conduct specifically defined by the regulating state law." (Ibid. at 27, empnasis added.) The U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography One of the major tasks undertaken by the 1986 U.S. Attorney General's Commission on Pornography was to look closely at the harm caused by pornography. In this connection the Commission decided that the scope of its inquiry should include both hard- and soft-core pornography. The report says: "We have made a conscious decision not to allow our examination of the harm question to be constricted by the existing legal/constitutional definition of the legally obscene [but] to look at the potential for harm in a range of material substantially broader." (Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, Nashville, Tennessee: Rutledge Hill Press, 1986, p. 31.) The report then documents the nature and extent of the harm caused by both hard- and soft-core pornography. Commenting on the fact that the Courts have liberalized obscenity laws by narrowing the legal definition of obscenity to accommodate the First Amendment, the Commission observed: "The effect of [the] Supreme Court and lower court cases is to limit obscenity prosecutions to 'hard core' material devoid of anything except the most explicit and offensive representations of sex.... "Only the most thoroughly explicit materials, overwhelmingly devoted to patently offensive and explicit representations, and unmitigated by any significant amount of anything else, can be and are in fact determined to be legally obscene." (Ibid. pp. 18-19, empnasis added.) The Commission concluded that "a wide variety of sexually oriented material [is] protected by the First Amendment, but it does not follow that the material is harmless, or that its proliferation is good for society." (Ibid. p. 71.) In other words, although the government is prohibited from taking action against certain material, private citizens are not. In fact the Commission encouraged private action against a much broader range of material than can be undertaken by the law itself. "Citizens ... should not only recognize that the First Amendment protects and encourages their right to express [their] concerns loudly and often, but should as well appreciate the fact that in many aspects of our lives to keep quiet is to approve." (Ibid.) BYU Law Professor Robert E. Riggs In a 1981 article entitled "Miller v. California Revisited: An Empirical Note," BYU Law Professor Robert E. Riggs explained that the United States Supreme Court, in Roth, "adopted a definition of obscenity far less restrictive than the test then being applied in many jurisdictions throughout the country." (BYU Law Review, 1981, no. 2, p. 248.) The Professor states: "The effect of Roth,... far from spearheading a new movement for the suppression of obscenity, was to open the legal floodgates to a great wave of sexually oriented expression.... Its impact was not to suppress but to stimulate the production and distribution of sexually oriented material." (Ibid, p. 261, emphasis added.) In support of this he points first to tremendous increases in the volume of sexually oriented materials available nationwide, citing empirical data on the number of appeals related to obscenity issues following Roth. Secondly, he points to Roth's effect on explicitness. He quotes the authors of a technical report prepared in August 1970 for the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography: "The 1960s witness[ed] 'a shift of such major proportions that the degree of explicitness at the frontier in 1960 is now found in mass media widely distributed to the general buying public. During this period, the most explicit materials available on the market became more and more graphic. By August 1970, the most explicit materials available 'above the counter' were approximately equivalent to the most explicit materials ever produced [prior to 1960]." (Ibid, p. 261; emphasis added.) It is not coincidental that during the late 1950s, Church leaders began condemning an increase of pornographic material in our society. A good example of this is Ezra Taft Benson's talk in the October 1959 General Conference. ("Call to Repentance," Improvement Era, Dec. 1959, pp. 956-959.) Today, because of the tremendous shift in standards that has occurred, most (if not all) of the material to which they referred would not even come close to being legally obscene. Before quoting President Benson, I want to share a personal experience involving pornography. For five and a half years, I worked at the Utah State Prison. In my work there I was occasionally confronted with pages clipped from Playboy magazine. Playboy is pornography to be sure. However, regardless of our local community standards, a jury of citizens could never declare Playboy magazine to be legally obscene because it contains enough non-obscene material to place it outside the Supreme Court's sub-group. It is legal. Under today's obscenity laws, pornography cannot be elminated. Only the most completely degenerate and degrading material can be eliminated, while, as President Ezra Taft Benson stated in 1970, "by court edict, pornography [is] allowed to prosper." ("Strengthening the Family," Improvement Era, Dec. 1970, p. 49, emphasis added.) Most pornography commonly available in America today is soft-core pornography and it is, in fact, by court edict "allowed to prosper." In 1986, President Benson declared: "The [U.S. Supreme] Court has removed from both the federal and state government nearly all power to prohibit the distribution and sale or exhibition of pornographic materials." (The Constitution: A Heavenly Banner, S.L.C., Utah: Deseret Book, 1986, pp. 26-27, emphasis added.) Censorship is not an issue. Marriott International offers only a relatively small number of the available videos to its customers. Therefore, Marriott International already censors its inventory. "The truth is, we all censor what we read, watch, or listen to. It's called making a choice." (Ensign, Jan. 1987, pp. 59 and back cover.) President Benson said: "We must ... stand up and be counted on the side of decency.... There will be those who will cry 'censorship' and 'suppressing of freedom of information.' To these people there does not seem to be any difference between liberty and license—but there is a real difference. It is not denial of liberty to forbid the sale of narcotics or alcohol to children, and neither is it a denial of liberty to ban the distribution of filthy, obscene, character-destroying materials. "There has developed in this country, I am sorry to say, a species of so-called ' broadmindedness' which tolerates anything and everything. It is high time right-thinking citizens showed they are fed up with such false broadmindedness." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, S.L.C., Utah: Bookcraft, 1988, p. 412.) Christians Simply Do Not Distribute Pornography Christians don't distribute pornography. Period. Pornography in any hotel is deplorable. Pornography in a hotel that features a prominent LDS family name and a Book of Mormon in every room is intolerable. Our society has forgotten its six-thousand year old tradition of Judeo-Christian decency. Are we as Latter-day Saints justified in doing the same? Have the laws of God changed? Have the Biblical laws of modesty and chastity been repealed? The erosion of moral standards in the world caused by social implementation of the Supreme Court definition of pornography is not surprising—it is happening in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. (See Matt. 24:37-39.) The legal definition of pornography is not the result of modern enlightenment, it is the result of moral apostasy. What difference does it make that the material is now legal? I ask you, therefore, to please remove pornography from your hotels.
Executive Director
American Decency Association
PO Box 202
Fremont, MI 48412-0202
Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer
R. Gary Shapiro is the author of a magazine article and a book: a 1989 Ensign article about pornography and an eleven hundred page scripture reference book. He and his wife Deborah have nine children and 28 grandchildren. He has been blogging since May 2005 at ndbf.blogspot.com.
Definition of Obscenity
People who write dictionaries do not decide what words should mean, they merely report the meanings in current use. Therefore, a survey of English dictionaries published over the years reveals the meaning of obscenity as used by English speaking people generally. An old defnintion from England held that obscene meant "immodest; not agreeable to chastity of mind." (Samuel Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language, London, 1755.) The unassailable Oxford English dictionary says, "offensive to modesty or decency; expressing or suggesting unchaste or lustful ideas." (The Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford, 1933 edition.) For most Americans, the name Noah Webster is synonymous with the word dictionary. In his first (1828) edition, Webster defined obscene as "offensive to chastity and delicacy; impure; expressing or presenting to the mind or view something which delicacy, purity and decency forbid to be exposed." (An American Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged), New York, 1828.) Webster published his own second edition in 1840, and in 1847 George and Charles Merriam published the third edition. In these editions the definition of obscene did not change. In 1909, the G. & C. Merriam Company introduced the New International dictionary. The "new" definition of obscene was "offensive to chastity of mind or to modesty; expressing to the mind or view something that delicacy, purity, and decency forbid to be exposed." (Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Springfield, Mass., 1936.) The leading abridgment of the New International is the Collegiate series of dictionaries. Until 1961, the Collegiate definition of obscene was "offensive to chastity or to modesty." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Co.: Springfield, Mass., 1961.) There have been other dictionaries in America, but all of them have been strikingly similar to Webster on the definition of obscene. The Standard series of dictionaries, written by Isaac Kouffman Funk in 1893 defined obscene as "offensive to chastity, delicacy or decency." The Century series of dictionaries, edited by William Dwight Whitney between 1889 and 1891 defined obscene as "offensive to modesty or decency, indecent." Even today, many dictionaries continue to give variations of that same definition. For example, The Random House College Dictionary published in 1982 says "offensive to modesty or decency; indecent; lewd." See also the on-line The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, which says "offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty."
Comments
Most of the comments on this thread refer to Dear Marriott International and its companion post Definition of Obscenity. On Friday 7/20/2007 at 12:22 AM, Marriott International wrote: Dear R. Gary Shapiro, Thank you for contacting Marriott. We appreciate your input and value the opportunity to respond to your concerns. Your comments about the movie selections available to our guests are well taken. We regret any discomfort that you may have experienced as a result of the availability of this type of entertainment in our rooms. Please be aware that all guests have the option to block these selections while still allowing for the enjoyment of other in-room entertainment options. We realize that every aspect of your stay is important. Your observations help us in the pursuit of our goal to provide you with an excellent experience. If we can be of further assistance, we invite you to reply to this email. Thank you for choosing Marriott. Regards, This boilerplate response to my complaint about in-room pornography doesn't even contain the word "pornography." The first step in eliminating the pornography will be getting Marriott to acknowledge its existence in their rooms.
Karen Lee
Marriott Internet Customer Care
+large.JPG)
