Here
is an interview done by the extraordinary Cardinal William Keeler way back in
2001. He was totally courageous and candid; and completely
visionary. In my estimation, he was one of the first
public figures to take the major corporations to task for their
seemingly underground involvement in porn. Then the world was just
beginning to come to terms with the porn explosion that took over the
Internet. Now, the problem has grown exponentially. But for a time,
it looked as if the Bush Administration was going to start
cleaning-up the porn mess left over from the inept and decadent
Clinton White House. Then, September 11th
happened, and everyone's priorities changed. Since then, little has
been done to stop the pornographic juggernaut. AT&T is still a
major sleaze merchant through their Uverse TV system. As for GM, they
sold their shares of DirecTV to Rupert Murdoch. Both AT&T and
Murdoch have smartly covered all of their bases and given generous
contributions to the Democratic and Republican Parties.
In June 2001, you spoke to the bishops' meeting in Atlanta and
denounced AT&T for profiting from adult films. Why?
At the meeting of the
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I raised the issue of
concern that a mainline corporation, one that had been admired by
generations of Americans, one that seemed so much in the mainstream
of good things in our country -- AT&T, Ma Bell -- was in the
business of merchandising hardcore pornography. And I thought it was
something shocking, as [it was] to others who work with me in the
Religious Alliance Against Pornography. It's an ecumenical
inter-religious group. Together we said, "This shouldn't be."
Tell me about the
last 30 days, about the push that the Religious Alliance Against
Pornography has been involved in.
One of the concerns
that we have in the Religious Alliance Against Pornography is that we
represent many religious groups, including Christians, Jews, Muslims,
Mormons, Salvation Army. [They] are all very strong supporters of
what we're trying to do. But it may not be appreciated for just how
broad a spectrum of the population we speak.
So we've been asking
our leaders around the country to drop a note to AT&T, to let
them know that what's happening under the sponsorship of AT&T is
very offensive to many, many people who have a faith in God and a
concern about morality.
What do you hope to
accomplish?
We hope that by this
effort, those who lead AT&T will say, "Wait a minute, we are
in the wrong business. We should make a shift that respects the
beliefs, the feelings of so many good people out there who have been
our customers, who are our stockholders.
There will be a lot
of people that will argue that the growth of pornography or adult
entertainment has been so extraordinary over the past decade that the
genie is out of the bottle, that pornography is mainstream now. Why
the growth?
I can't put a finger on
a specific reason. ... The government, over the last few years, has
relaxed its prosecution of cases. There has been a commercialization
that has used sexuality in so many ways to try and sell its wares.
All one has to do is open a magazine or turn on a television program
and look at the advertising.
See, there's been a
drift across the board in society. We certainly have a responsibility
now to blow a whistle, to say, "Watch out," to individuals
and to society as a whole. And what's come to me from parents is,
"How am I going to raise my children in this kind of an
environment?"
Why the effort to
focus on mainstream companies?
When a company like
AT&T, which has won the hearts and allegiance of so many people,
gets into this business, it's a way of legitimating it, saying that
it's OK, it's alright. That's the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval
we don't want to see put on this kind of business.
On March 21 of this
year, you met with the new attorney general, Ashcroft. Can you tell
me what the purpose of that meeting was?
The Religious Alliance Against Pornography came with a conviction
that we should, as citizens, voice our concern to government
officials responsible for prosecuting the laws that are on our books
of our country, to call attention of the attorney general to these
laws that are extant against pornographers, and to say, "Please
do something about it. They're on the books, they should be
enforced." It has to do with the very character of our country.
Did the attorney
general define his point of view about the role of the Dept. of
Justice, as a prosecutor himself?
No. ... He saw the
moral ill, and also the legal ill that pornography can be for our
country, especially as it's spelled out already in the laws. And, I
think, he has a personal commitment in that area. How far he will be
able to go will depend on the kind of people that are in local
prosecutors' offices around the country.
What did you ask Mr.
Armstrong [C. Michael Armstrong, AT&T's chief executive officer]
to do?
We've been asking AT&T
to get out of the hardcore porn business. Ma Bell shouldn't be
selling smut.
What was Mr.
Armstrong's response?
AT&T, I think,
still looks at it as some kind of legitimate business because there
are other people out there making money in the same arena. But we
just say, "Look, you're a company of great prestige. And you're
being in it gives to pornography, hardcore pornography, a legitimacy
that it does not deserve."
Did he define the
type of pornography that they do provide, and define that there is
some stuff that they will not air?
AT&T's
representatives at this meeting indicated that there are some worse
things out there. But, I think, there was a concession made that what
they have is pretty raw.
Define what was the
reason that they felt they had to carry the Hot Channel and the other
erotic networks that they play?
One point that was
alleged to us is that GM was in the same business, and they had to
keep up with GM. Since that time, GM has publicly announced that it's
spinning off this aspect of the business, so it's moving away from
the association that it has had with the hardcore pornography.
Did they seem
embarrassed about saying that this was a business decision?
I had a sense that
those who spoke with us, or at least one who spoke with us, saw this
as a simple business decision -- did not see it in the parameters of
morality that we were presenting, but was looking at it more as a
dollars-and-cents kind of decision. …
... Did they sort of
say, basically, "You don't understand the realities of
business"? Or did they say to some extent, "We apologize.
It's not what we want to be in. Maybe we'll get out of it at some
later point, but right now, at this moment--" What was the
actual response?
I had the sense, as we
moved along with the meeting, that there became a little greater
openness of mind than in the initial discussion. It was acknowledged
that those who were there around the table represented a significant
group of people in the United States. It was acknowledged that they
would study the issue some more. However, there was no concession
made at that point. But I did hear very clearly said that, "We
will continue to consider this issue.
Do you think they --
Mr. Armstrong specifically -- knew what he was carrying?
He had come to a recent
knowledge of it. And I think that helped him to see the depth of our
concern.
Can you be more
specific about that?
No, no. But, he did
know that was pretty nasty stuff. ...
... Everybody that
we talked to out in L.A., as far as the people who are making this
stuff, say, "Listen, this is my right. You might not like it or
not, but this is legal." And there's other people, people from
the former Justice Department, who say, "What are you talking
about? Penthouse magazine is illegal. The stuff on HBO is
illegal. The reason it's being done is that nobody is doing anything
about it. The laws are on the books." ... Is this legal or isn't
it?
There's no question
that what is obscene material is illegal. And maybe there can be some
quarrel about whether a particular piece is obscene or not. But
there's no question that such material that's truly obscene and
absolutely repugnant to most people is illegal. There's not a
question about that.
Did [Ashcroft] sort
of draw that line -- what is legal, what isn't illegal?
No, we talked in
generalities of hardcore pornography. For example, if hardcore
pornography is involved in interstate traffic, that kind of thing, or
if it is sent through the mail, there's no question about that.
If...what hurts children is done, there's no question about that
being illegal. It's not protected by the Constitution. It's not
protected free speech. It's something else. It's something that is
offensive to so many people.
But where is that
line? What is hardcore? You can buy hardcore on every magazine stand
in America.
I don't know about
that. I'm not one that goes around magazine stands looking through
magazines. …
.. Renewing the Mind
of the Media, what exactly is the program, and why is it important?
Renewing the Mind of
the Media is a program that's important. The largest church in the
United States, the Catholic Church, undertook this program a couple
of years ago as a way of trying to educate their own people about
some basic moral principles that apply to what's happening now in our
culture. In the past year, in maybe thousands of parish churches
around the country, people were given the opportunity to contemplate,
"What can I do in my own family, what can I do in this
community, what can I do personally to try and better the situation
that we have with our media and with the appearance of pornography
and violence?" ...
In the last 10 years
or so, there is enormous thirst for this type of material, because a
lot of people are making money. They call it a $10 billion industry.
Why the thirst?
One of the things we
know about pornography -- and this is attested to by a number of
experts from all kinds of backgrounds -- is that it is addictive. And
what it causes in its consumers is the need to keep consuming, and to
look for something even more provocative than what was seen before,
in order to keep the same level of stimulus and of interest. This can
help explain, at least in part, the industry. The porn industry has
grown so dramatically in recent years.
But, again, the
folks in California that we talk to who make this stuff, say, "It's
my First Amendment right, this is America."
When a fire breaks out,
our response is to say, "There's a fire there, and it's going to
hurt a lot of people." And what we see here is a moral fire.
It's consuming individuals, destroying families. And no matter what
people may say about from another point of view, the commercial
should yield to the moral. What's right can't be compromised. And we
have such a fire blazing here, we really have to summon every
resource we can to try and contain it.
Does it say anything
about society right now that an AT&T or GM or DirecTV or all the
others out there that are now involved in distributing this stuff?
I have a hunch that
there are people at the very top that don't understand what they're
into. There are people making decisions based on the dollars, without
realizing how awful the content is that they're involved with.
They're too busy with their business to take a look at the product.
And I've had people in
Hollywood, and in our own local TV industry, say, "Well, we're
making products and showing things I wouldn't let my own children
see, I wouldn't permit into my house." That tells me something
about these people who are more sensitive. But I think some of the
people at the top in this way in which so much in the entertainment
industry has been centralized, look only at the bottom line, and do
not look at the content. And they're not even concerned about it.
They're only interested in profit.







