The Writing of this Document

Porn Studies > Meese Report Table of Contents

The difficulties and complexities of this subject could hardly be exaggerated. One man's nudity is another man's erotica is another man's soft core pornography is another man's hard core obscenity is another man's boredom!

When, at the end of our public sessions it came time to synthesize the import of our debates and discussions in this report it became abundantly clear to the great majority of Commissioners that this report could not be a "staff document"-that is, a document compiled and assembled by the staff of this Commission could not represent fairly the differing opinions and conclusions of the Commissioners. This is not to denigrate the enormous contribution of the Commission staff. They merit the highest praise, especially its Director Alan Sears, for their round-the-clock effort to provide the Commission with the materials and support they needed. The staff worked with great diligence and zeal to perform their duties and much of this final report is a product of that diligence.

In the final analysis however, this report could neither be compiled nor assembled. It demanded single authorship. Quite simply this report could not have been written by Committee.

Professor Fred Schauer provided to this Commission the grace of single authorship and it is largely due to his wholly admirable effort in providing the "framing document" for this report that, in my view, we can present to the Attorney General and the American people a product of which I think we can all be proud.

Statement of Father Bruce Ritter

Porn Studies > Meese Report Table of Contents

Copyright 2005