Hilbert College	The Rimm Reportg Debate.	- Home - Students - Tutorials - - Student Papers -
(Note: This paper was written at the University of South Carolina) Authors: Malai Roper, John Blanton, Jennifer Prince, Adrienne Smith   I. The Man and his study Censorship of the mass media has been a major controversy throughout history. It has taken on different forms in television, radio, and print. The latest controversy of censorship has to do with the Internet. In a controversy there is always the extremists that support one side of the issue or the other. One such extremist would be Martin Rimm, who almost single-handedly sparked a debate over the issue of censorship of the Internet about 5 years ago. Martin Rimm, an electrical engineering student at Carnegie-Mellon University, published the "Rimm Report" in 1995. It is unimaginable how a student could write an article that would reach the proportions that his did. This article spawned numerous arguments among the media, the Senate, and ordinary people. The "Rimm Report" is actually a study titled "Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway," which was conducted and researched by Martin Rimm. This study looked at the availability, and frequency of pornographic images on the World Wide Web and BBS systems. It received national publicity when Time magazine ran the cover story "On a Screen Near You: Cyberporn." What the American public and even Time was not aware of, however, is that the study was erroneous and Martin Rimm was at fault. This paper looks at this study, the Time articles, the backlash, and the flaws of the "Rimm Report." II. The Study: What is it about? Martin Rimm conducted the study "Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway" when he was an undergraduate at Carnegie-Mellon University. He supposedly looked at "917,410 images, descriptions, short stories and animations that were downloaded 8.5 million times by consumers in over 2000 cities in forty countries, provinces, and territories " (Rimm, 1849) according to the subtitle. The study starts with an introduction discussing computer networks and pornography. He lists all the different types, from pedophilic to bestiality, and then looks at the marketing schemes of pornographers. He turns to talk of the "research team" (note: besides the aid from his faculty adviser, he is the only person authoring the article) (Hoffman & Novak, 2). He outlines the study to follow, with a description of the places they pulled images from, which included commercial adult BBS's (billboard systems, which are similar to newsgroups, where you subscribe to the group and receive messages) and the internet. Next Rimm compares the study to others, he points out that his study looks at porn from the perspective of the consumer rather than looking at the effects of it on consumers. He turns to implications of his study, which state "...findings may have serious implications for legal theory and public policy related to pornography (Rimm, 1853). He even discusses child pornography and obscenity standards. Rimm then turns to definitions of the "Information Superhighway" in which he describes the internet, Usenet, and bulletin boards. Following this, Rimm discusses the methodologies used for each "type" of information source, whether it be Usenet or BBS. After declaring the results for each category, he speaks of the reliability of each. The main part of his study deals with adult BBS and the frequency of pornographic images on those systems. He divides the images into categories based on their physical description, whether they contain certain words such as "teen," "dog," "bondage," and "choking." Each one is placed in separate categories, like pedophilic, bestiality, soft-core, and hard-core. Rimm concludes his study generalizing about pornographic marketers on "Information Superhighway. Appendices follow with a quick look at the internet and porn on it. Then Rimm lists the Dietz-Sears Carnegie-Mellon classification system used to divide images and the over 2000 places where pornography was downloaded. All in all the entire study is filled with long winded unnecessary and sometimes erroneous descriptions of the "Information Superhighway" as well as extreme generalizations. The rest of this paper is devoted to these flaws and the backlash that came about as a result of one man: Martin Rimm. III. The Time Articles, Flaws, and Backlash A. Time articles, some flaws, & backlash On July 3, 1995, Time magazine published an article by Philip Elmer-Dewitt that had its basis buried in the Rimm study. Not only was the report flawed, but the article was flawed as well. It is unknown whether Elmer-Dewitt was mislead by Rimm, or in collaboration with him. Mike Godwin says that, "he tried to warn Philip of the methodological and other problems (he) had with the study" (Godwin, Hotwired site). Elmer-Dewitt, however, ignored these warnings. It does seem though as if the article were written to shock and begin a debate of censorship among the American public. Several times that article says that the "Rimm Report" will add to the debate and start a government agenda for censorship on the Internet. "Conservatives thumbing through (the report) for rhetorical ammunition will find plenty," (Elmer Dewitt, 42). These statements could almost be taken as foreshadowing for the future of the pornography debate. The pictures alone are obviously meant to horrify the reader. One picture in particular has a child looking at a picture of a lollipop on the screen. The implication is that the Internet is trying to draw children in only to deceive them into viewing porn. There is absolutely no evidence in the report, the article, or anywhere else, that this type of thing occurred. Another bias of the article is when Elmer-Dewitt tries to play on moral prejudices and make pornography on the Internet out to be an evil force. Near the beginning of the article he states that "the combination of sex and computers...seems to make otherwise worldly-wise adults act a little crazy" (Elmer-Dewitt, 38). Barbara Dority, co-chairperson and co-founder of the NW Feminist Anti-Censorship Task force, points out this: "It says 'You can obtain it in the privacy of your home--without having to walk into a seedy bookstore or movie house. You can download only those things that turn you on, rather than buy an entire magazine or video. You can explore different aspects of your sexuality, without exposing yourself to communicable diseases or public ridicule.' Well heaven forbid getting sexual information and exploring one's sexuality should be free from guilt, disease, humiliation, and other unpleasant circumstances." "What an appalling attitude toward human sexuality this paragraph betrays. Another obvious problem is at the outset. What is pornography? The word 'pornography' has come to be accepted as this huge, amorphous thing with no real definition--and each person has a different concept of it," (Dority interview, 2/10/00) Dority says. She also points out that pornography can also include simple nudity. Next, the article claims "As shocking and, indeed, LEGALLY OBSCENE as some of the online porn may be..." (Elmer-Dewitt, 40), to which Dority again points out that "none of this material has been ruled legally obscene" (Dority interview, 2/10/00). She elaborates saying that it would have to go through a long specific process and be ruled as legally obscene. Time itself distanced their opinion in a short article published on July 24th of the same year. This article, also written by Elmer-Dewitt point out the dispute over flaws. It largely focuses on Hoffman and Novak's critique and brings forward other flaws they have shown with the study. It also goes into Rimm's character, divulging that he was involved in other controversies having to do with "fixed" surveys in high school and that he had written two books that seemed to go against his character (Elmer-Dewitt). It seems infeasible that a study, which began as an undergraduate research project, got published in the Georgetown Law Journal, and was endorsed by a national weekly magazine, could contain such flaws. B. Godwin Critique According to Mike Godwin, legal counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Rimm conned many people in order to gain support for himself and his so-called study. Rimm and his faculty adviser, Marvin Sirbu, led Godwin to believe that the research was concerned with different communities and whether or not community standards really do differ. Godwin states, "It seems likely that Rimm and Sirbu aimed to give me the impression that their work would support a particular thesis of mine, hoping that this would attract my support and even collaboration. Nothing wrong with that on its face, except that in this instance the tactic communicated a false impression of the focus of the research" (Godwin, Hotwired site). Godwin believes Rimm manipulated others as well. When attempting to gain support from Carlin Meyer, an outspoken feminist opponent of censorship, Rimm made sure to persuade her that they were in agreement on this issue. Godwin states "There's evidence that Rimm took special pains to persuade Meyer...that he and Meyer were on the same team" (Godwin, Hotwired site). He suggested that our culture would have to come to terms with its appetite for explicit sexual images rather than cover it up through censorship. There are also textual and numerical flaws in the report. Godwin states that "Rimm generalizes adult BBS's as 'the Information Superhighway' which is like generalizing from Times Square adult bookstores to Barnes & Nobles worldwide" (Godwin, Hotwired site). He also believes that the reason it was published in the Georgetown Law Journal was because it would get less critical review there. In fact, the article received no peer review at all, which is a major flaw in any study. Godwin states "it could be legitimized his article yet escaped the kind of critical review the piece would have to undergo if published in a scholarly journal" (Godwin, Hotwired site). He also argues that a law journal article "would have an added advantage in that it would be read by law professors, lawyers, and legally trained policy makers and taken seriously" (Godwin, Hotwired site). C. Rimm's character questioned Another area that bring Rimm's character into question is the fact that he has written two books on very odd topics. His first book, published in 1990, is entitled An American Playground. It is written about casinos in Atlantic City. His second book, published in 1995, the very same year the "Rimm Report" appeared, is entitled The Pornographer's Handbook: How to Exploit Women, Dupe Men, and Make Lots of Money. This is a very different Martin Rimm than the one who seems so adamantly anti-porn in his other research. Another interesting note concerning Rimm's books, is that Aaron Dickey found that "the publisher, Carnegie, happens to have its main office at the same address as Rimm's home" (Dickey, alt.culture.internet). He states that when he called Carnegie's phone number, he heard a recording stating the number was probably too new to be in service. Dickey also notes that the illustrator of Rimm's second book, Carolyn Speranza, is one of the faculty advisers acknowledged in the Rimm study. She is an artist and lecturer in the art department of Carnegie Mellon. Dickey says it is up to the reader to determine if there is a conflict of interest. D. Newspaper critiques The whole dispute penetrated many forms of media, including newspapers. Newspapers in many large cities, including Washington D.C., San Francisco, and New York, debated the issue. Peter Lewis, a reporter for The New York Times, made light of the report, its popularity in the government, the Time article and then focused on its flaws. Among these problems, was the fact that it shows "'...a clear pattern of media manipulation'" (Lewis, 40). Many lawyers and professors with a background in marketing and statistics question its lack of peer review. In Lewis' article, Jim Thomas, professor of sociology and criminal justice at Northern Illinois University, states that the report "would never make it through a traditional peer review..." (Lewis, 40). He calls the data "ambiguous" and "contradictory." The biggest flaw found is Rimm's generalization about the "Information Superhighway" and computer users. The main data in his report is gathered from specialized private adult BBS's that sell pornography. These bulletin board systems are principally not available on the Internet, and require identification that proves the subscriber's age. Even Rimm's adviser, Marvin Sirbu is quoted by Lewis as saying, "the report needed a lot of editing from what I saw...there was a tendency to make generalizations that couldn't be made..." (Lewis, 40). So what did Rimm have to say to defend himself to Lewis? He said, "We encourage people to read the study with care...it will stand on its own merits" (Lewis, 40). Not only that, but he pointed out that he had people look over the study, including Catherine MacKinnon, who incidentally is a prominent opponent of pornography. Lewis also found comments from Rimm's report that seemed to push for sweeping reform from the government. Lines such as, "'Primary and secondary schools are increasingly connecting their students to broader...computer networks, where pornography permeates...'" (Lewis, 40). However, Rimm tells reporters that "he would be unhappy if they study were used to restrict the types of materials...over the internet" (Lewis, 40). The Washington Post also reviewed the Time story and its effect. Elizabeth Corcoran, a reporter for The Washington Post, reviewed the critiques of the article and the report as well. While the Time pushed the issue of cyberporn and children, Rimm's study is about "how frequently people purposefully download pornographic material from bulletin boards..." (Corcoran, C-1). One of her criticisms is the fact that Rimm, who was 30 at the time, was an undergraduate when he wrote the study and "had little experience with such studies" (Corcoran, C-8). She also says that his article had little to no peer review, and those that did look it over found that their "comments were ignored in the final draft" (Corcoran, C-8). Corcoran then shows that the "Rimm Report" was published at a critical time in the government, when issues of internet and obscene material were at a height. Howard Rheingold, in a special to The San Francisco Examiner, also questions Rimm's report, his methodology, and his research. His article turns to Godwin and Hoffman for flaws in the report. Not only did they reiterate that BBS's are NOT the Internet, but also they accused Rimm of "'misrepresentation, manipulation, lack of objectivity, and methodological flaws'" (Rheingold, C-9). Godwin also tells The Washington Post that he feels Time didn't look at the reviews because they would have lessened the sensationalistic effect of the article. He states, "In doing so...Dewitt betrayed the core value of journalistic professionalism..." (Rheingold, C-9). Rheingold then ends his article speaking of the irony that the whole debate could be followed on the Web at the time. "The very medium under attack...played an essential role in debunking the Rimm report" (Rheingold, C-9). He then pleads to the legislators, asking them to take a close look at the situation before raising alarms based on misinformation. E. Hoffman & Novak's academic critique In 1995, Donna L. Hoffman and Thomas P. Novak wrote an article critiquing Rimm's study "Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway." Their article was a detailed analysis of the conceptual, logical, and methodological flaws of the "Rimm Report." The article stated the existence of pornography on the Internet is not what is being debated. The issue is Rimm's presentation of its "extent and consumption" (Hoffman & Novak, 1). Hoffman and Novak believe Time Magazine gave the report credibility it did not deserve. Misrepresentation, manipulation, lack of objectivity, and methodological flaws are highlighted points in the Hoffman and Novak analysis. The "Rimm Report" presented a lot of information that Hoffman and Novak argue. For example: Rimm stated: "Every time consumers log on, their transactions assist pornographers in compiling databases of information about their buying habits and sexual tastes. The more sophisticated computer pornographers are using these databases to develop mathematical models to determine which images they should try to market aggressively." (Rimm, 1850-51) Hoffman and Novak argue: "Every time consumers log on to what? In the final analysis the article provides very little evidence, other than anecdotal or case study, to support the idea that pornographers are engaging in such activities" (Hoffman & Novak, 6). F. His few supporters Not everyone disbelieved Martin RImm and his report. He managed to gain some support with his study in the likes of Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin. They took heart in his findings and even mentioned him in their book, In Harm's Way: The Pornography Civil Rights Hearings. Whether it was his ability to say the right things, or they truly believed in his report is not certain, but MacKinnon hails him as a great researcher with many valid points when she states he is an "...author of a sound and methodologically creative study" (MacKinnon & Dworkin, 19). She also speaks of his findings, saying that they are "the simple truth of pornography's content and use...the more violating the materials are to women, the more popular they are" (MacKinnon & Dworkin, 19). How interesting it is to note that MacKinnon and Dworkin are both members of NOW, an organization that opposes negative portrayals of women. Did Rimm use this as his reason for including these comments in his paper? MacKinnon ends her discussion by defending Rimm, saying that "he was subjected to an intense rumor campaign of vilification on the Internet" as well as being "hounded, harassed, and probed by journalists" (MacKinnon & Dworkin, 19). IV. Congress and the CDA The "Rimm Report" found a home in the Senate with Sen. James Exon of Nebraska during his campaign to regulate the flow of communication online. This campaign started well before the report, but when his campaign failed, the Senator turned to the Communications Decency Act, which was an amendment to an overhaul of the telecommunications act (CNN case history). The CDA was passed on June 14, 1995 with an 84-16 vote in the Senate. During the proposal of the amendment, Rimm's report was waved in the air and quoted by Sen. Grassley, who approved the amendment. It later reappeared on July 12th when Sen. Exon pointed out the Time article as a portrayal of the American public's interest in the topic (CNN case history). Sen. Exon said, "...the American people are being convinced and are being told by national publications, including Time magazine" (Record, 18529). He used the article, along with letters from the National Law Center for Children and Families, to try to push the amendment through the House, and bring it to the attention of the president. The amendment "made online service providers legally responsible for what their users posted" (CNN case history). Later, on August 4th, the House passed their own amendment--the Internet Family Empowerment Amendment--which was less restrictive than the Senate's proposal. After much deliberation, an amendment was composed, and by February 1, 1996, the entire Telecommunications Reform Act, including the CDA, was passed. President Clinton signed it into law on February 8th, and on the same day, 20 groups filed a suit challenging its constitutionality. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) provided the main force in the lawsuit. Another group filed a second challenge shortly thereafter, which was later combined with the original case. The American Library Association, Citizen's Internet Empowerment Coalition, America Online and the Center for Democracy and Technology also questioned the law's vague definitions of "indecent." The panel, which included U.S. District Judge Buckwalter, issued their decision on June 12th, and upheld their earlier restraining order barring enforcement of the law. They felt that it most likely did violate the right to free speech. V. Conclusion Even today, pornography remains a hot topic among many computer scientists. Robert Oakman, a professor of computer science at University of South Carolina, is against laws similar to the Communications Decency Act. Instead, he approves filters, which can be bought and installed to sift through information. Of the CDA, Oakman stated that it is "unconstitutional, which is what all the courts said" (Oakman Interview, 2/8/00). Not only does it cause a stir among the computer community but in public libraries as well. The recent debate has been over filters and their practicality. The debate can even be followed here in Columbia, in The State newspaper, in which just last week Bob McAlister was addressing libraries for using filters. He argues about their practicality and how South Carolina libraries need to join in and use these filters. McAlister feels it is up to the community to define standards and so, he urges taxpayers to take their libraries back. The American Library Association takes a different view. They have found that the filters weed out legitimate information in addition to anything that may seem taboo. According to them, it is a violation of freedom of speech. Should we allow our children to roam the Internet free? Is there any threat that they will see pornography at all if they do? The answer to these questions are not in the Rimm report. Regardless of which side of the issue you are on, it is easy to see that Martin Rimm’s contribution to the argument has no value whatsoever. The only thing that Rimm truly accomplished was giving information that outraged and misinformed. This kind of misleading information can take time to erase misconceptions about a very important medium. Fortunately, time did expose Rimm and very few take his assertions very seriously today. VI. The Timeline 1995 March-Pornographers handbook by Rimm published June 14-CDA passed with an 84-16 voted in Senate July 2-Hoffman & Novak critique July 3-Time article July 5-Rimm's response to Hoffman & Novak critique July 7-Brian Reid critique July 10-Rimm responds to Reid July 11?-"Rimm Report" published in Georgetown Law Journal July 12-Congressional Record shows Time article used as fuel for Exon-Coates amendment July 24-Time publishes second article 1996 Feb. 1-Both houses of Congress vote to approve CDA (Communications Decency Act) Feb. 8-Clinton signs Telecommunications Reform act into law; American Civil Liberties & 19 other groups challenge CDA's constitutionality Feb. 15-Judge Buckwalter issued restraining order temporarily blocking the CDA June 12-Panel including Buckwalter, Chief Judge Sloviter, & Judge Dalzell uphold restraining order, saying violates the right to free speech   VII. Sources Cited Congressional Record. Vol. 141. Part 13. pgs. 18524-18529 Georgetown Law Journal. Vol. 83. Issue 5. June. pgs. 1849-1915 Corcoran, Elizabeth. "Cybersensitivity?" The Washington Post. June 28, 1995. Final Edition. pg. C01. 1076 words. Dickey, Aaron. <kieran@interport.net> alt.culture.internet. "Can you find these Martin Rimm books?" July 8,1995 Dority, Barbara. Personal Email Interview. Co-chair and co-founder of NW Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force. 2/10/00. Elmer-Dewitt, Philip. "On a Screen Near You: Cyberporn" Time magazine. New York. July 3, 1995 Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak. "A Detailed Analysis of the Conceptual, Logical, and Methodological Flaws in the Article: 'Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway'. Vanderbilt University. July 2 1995 Lewis, Peter H. "Critics Troubled By Computer Study on Pornography" The New York Times. July 3, 1995. Late Edition. pg. 37. 1403 words McAlister, Bob. "Libraries needn't worry about filtering Internet" The State. February 3, 2000. Opinion section. 538 words. MacKinnon, Catherine and Andrea Dworkin. In Harm's Way: The Pornography Civil Rights Hearings. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. 1997 Oakman, Robert. Personal Telephone Interview. Computer Science Department professor. 2/8/00 Rheingold, Howard. "The Porn Polemic" The San Francisco Examiner. July 6, 1995. Second Edition. pg. C-1. 840 words http://www.japan.cnn.com/us/9703/cda.scotus/case.history/index.html CNN case history of the Communications Decency Act http://hotwired.lycos.com/special/pornscare/godwin.html Godwin, Mike. Journoporn: Rimm's Fairy Tales. October 30, 1995

This page design copyright 1999 by Steve N. Jackson.

Contents copyright 1999 by Steve N. Jackson and Authors.

Student enrolled in Journalism 110 are actively encouraged to use

the code from this page.

Version 7.09 (19 July).