WASHINGTON, D.C. – The much anticipated appearance of a representative from the adult industry before the Senate Commerce Committee’s “Protecting Children on the Internet” hearing has left some insiders disappointed and even angry – not simply with the usual anti-porn suspects, but with First Amendment attorney Paul Cambria.Cambria, who spoke on Thursday as general counsel for the Adult Freedom Foundation, maintained a quiet and restrained demeanor, never allowing comments from panelists with marginal sympathy for the concerns of porn professionals or consumers to visibly ruffle him. During his testimony, Cambria painted himself as a concerned father of five daughters with a deep and abiding dedication to the First Amendment whose representation of porn companies and individuals has led him to conclude that those involved in the business of legal adult material are interested in “fashioning effective solutions” to the problem of minors viewing their materials.

Unfortunately for Cambria and, by extension, the adult internet community, his knowledge and understanding of precisely what porn professionals have already done in order to achieve this goal was not much stronger than that possessed by his adversaries. When committee chairman Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) pointedly demanded to know, “Why doesn’t the adult industry rate itself?” Cambria failed to point out that many sites have done precisely that, but if concerned parents refuse to use readily available content filters, the effort is meaningless.

Making matters more complicated for adult webmasters was Cambria’s subsequent promise that they would develop and implement mainstream film/music style ratings. The attorney posited that the alleged lack of ratings might not be due to a lack of interest on his clients’ part, but due to a lack of clear dialogue between themselves and congress or other authorities, so that they could determine an appropriate scale. Not appeased, Stevens informed the Poirot-like attired Cambria that if his clients did not self-rate soon, the government would bring it about by legal mandate.

Although Cambria and others quoted financial statistics that clearly show the widespread use of explicit or otherwise erotic materials, none within the chamber revealed the slightest non-professional knowledge of the subject matter. Allies for the adult industry appeared few and far between, especially with serious and continued discussion of the FBI’s prosecution and conviction of child sex crimes that involve photography and distribution via the internet. The soft-spoken Cambria assured the committee that the legal adult entertainment industry is not involved in the creation or distribution of the misnamed “child pornography,” but the importance of his words were often overshadowed by the dire and strong language of his equally content filter-friendly panelists, none of whom had a kind word for adult pornography. Quite the contrary, in fact. AOL Chief Trust Officer and Senior Vice President Tatiana Platt described the adult content caught in her company’s email filters as “filth” and insisted that adult webmasters employ adware and spyware. Ironically, the company had previously declared porn spam as “passé,” something Cambria did not comment upon, although he did propose that the CAN-SPAM Act had slowed the tide of unsolicited explicit email. Likewise unmentioned was the Free Speech Coalition vs. Ashcroft case in which the fate of fellow-panelist, Professor of Communication and Psychology at the Department of Communications at Virginia Tech, Dr. James B. Weaver III’s, suggestion that the sexual performances of youthful-looking but legal adult models be declared child pornography had already been determined — in favor of the Free Speech Coalition.

Among the most distressing moments from the day was Cambria’s trouble explaining technically why a .kids domain plan would not be as problematic as a .xxx domain plan. With both Senators George Allen (R-Virginia) and Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) listening carefully to Cambria’s testimony on the issue, the inability of Cambria to clearly articulate the benefit of the more targeted and easily policed, but potentially less profitable, .kids domain may have lost unexpected support from men who currently appear to favor the idea of enforced use of the .xxx domain. Cambria did attempt to counter support of the proposed .xxx domain by pointing out that new laws would only punish those within the United States, whose number, he guessed, is roughly half of the entire industry.

Unquestionably the most painful exchange for those sympathetic to the industry occurred during the Stevens/Cambria exchange regarding age verification requirements. Instead of explaining that adult webmasters would welcome a reliable method of age verification, the industry attorney misunderstood the question to relate to proof of age requirements for photo shoots, thus entirely missing the opportunity to educate those assembled about the shortcomings of current online “age verification” methods.