Law Likely to Lead to Stronger Curbs on Pornographers

SACRAMENTO — Gov. George Deukmejian Tuesday signed into law legislation changing California’s 20-year-old definition of obscenity, giving prosecutors a new weapon that sponsors of the measure say will lead to more prosecutions of pornographers.

“It’s a very significant change in the law. This bill will make it easier to prosecute pornography cases,” said the author, Sen. Wadie P. Deddeh (D-Chula Vista).

The law, product of a two-year battle, does not go as far in defining obscene material as Deddeh, law enforcement agencies and fundamentalist Christian groups had wanted.

But its opponents--including the Hollywood film industry and California librarians--contend it goes too far, raises constitutional questions and will stifle legitimate artistic expression.

Current California law defines obscene matter as material that “is utterly without redeeming social importance,” a definition that critics say is so narrow that it makes prosecutions difficult and has led to widespread distribution of pornographic material.

The new law, which goes into effect Jan. 1, replaces the old language with wording that defines “obscene” as material which “lacks significant literary, artistic, political, educational, or scientific value.”

Atty. Gen. John K. Van de Kamp, a strong supporter of the legislation, said: “The current language essentially means that if the material has a scintilla, iota or jot of worth, it is not obscene. This (the current standard) is meaningless.”

Deddeh and others originally had wanted the word “serious” instead of “significant” placed in California’s new definition of obscenity. This would have conformed the new state law to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 definition. Under the Supreme Court guidelines, however, states are permitted to set their own obscenity standards.

In the 1973 case, the Supreme Court agreed that the narrow definition of pornography made prosecution virtually impossible. The court changed its obscenity standard, allowing the material to be evaluated as a whole for “serious literary, artistic, political, educational or scientific value.”

The new California statute’s use of “significant” in place of “serious” may open a whole new front in the legal wars over pornography. The U.S. Supreme Court has spelled out what the word serious means in the federal standard, but defense lawyers are expected to raise new arguments over what the new California wording means.

Uncertainty over how courts will interpret the California phrasing is the price Deddeh had to pay for gaining the support of legislators who would not accept the federal wording, which as of January had been adopted by 38 states.

Civil libertarians find the new California law disturbing.

Marjorie C. Swartz, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the new weapon in the hands of prosecutors will “have a chilling effect” on writers, film makers and other artists who will not have the money to defend themselves in court. At the same time, she claimed that it will not stop the flood tide of pornography because those in the business of producing sexually explicit material have ways of surviving.

“New York has a similar law, and there is plenty of pornography there. No one has been able to stop it. What it does do is have a chilling effect on artists,” she said.

The legislation was supported by a broad range of groups, including fundamentalist Christians, the city and county of Los Angeles, the California District Attorneys Assn., the state PTA, 19 different police departments, several civic organizations and Lt. Gov. Leo T. McCarthy.

Deddeh said he introduced the bill after the City of San Diego passed a resolution asking for state action.

The Senate initially passed the bill in April, 1985, in a bipartisan 31-3 vote. In March, the Assembly passed it, 63 to 3. The Senate went along with Assembly amendments and sent the bill to the governor with a 38-0 vote April 3.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Christopher Wei said the new legislation is unlikely to have a significant impact on widely distributed adult magazines such as Playboy and Hustler.

“The intention of the Legislature is not so much to go after those magazines, but a lot of the real hard-core pornography,” Wei said.

Wei said persuading a jury that sexual material was “utterly without redeeming social importance” was an almost impossible burden for prosecutors.