Y 4 loicA

. In 44 KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY LiBRARII ,tos

90-1f3 ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS 00

GOVERNMEN 

Storage KSU LIBRARIES 

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

COMMUNICATIONS AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERSTATE.,:AND FOREIGN COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

A11900 807264 

NINETIETH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 611, S. 375

BILLS TO AMEND THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934

WITH RESPECT TO OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE

CALLS IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE

(And Identical Bills)

-

JANUARY 30, 1968

Serial No. 90-18

Printed for the use of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

89-578 WASHINGTON : 1968

1
COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE

HARLEY 0. STAGGERS, West Virginia, Chairman

SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL, Maryland

TORBERT H. MACDONALD, Massachusetts

JOHN JARMAN, Oklahoma

JOHN E. MOSS, California

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

PAUL G. ROGERS, Florida

HORACE R. KORNEGAY, North Carolina

LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, falifornia

J. J. PICKLE, Texas

FRED B. ROONEY, Pennsylvania

JOHN M. MURPHY, New York

DAVID E. SATTERFIELD III, Virginia

DANIEL J. RONAN, Illinois

BROCK ADAMS, Washington

RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York

RAY BLANTON, Tennessee

W. S. (BILL) STUCKEY, JR., Georgia

PETER N. KYROS, Maine

WILLIAM L. SPRINGER, Illinois

SAMUEL L. DEVINE, Ohio

ANCHER NELSEN, Minnesota

HASTINGS KEITH, Massachusetts

GLENN CUNNINGHAM, Nebraska

JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina

JAMES HARVEY, Michigan

ALBERT W. 'WATSON, South Carolina

TIM LEE CARTER, Kentucky

G. ROBERT WATKINS, Pennsylvania

DONALD G. BROTZMAN, Colorado

CLARENCE J. BROWN, JR., Ohio

DAN KUYKENDALL, Tennessee

JOE SKUBITZ, Kansas

W. E. WILLIAMSON, Clerk

KENNETH J. PAINTER, Assiotant Clerk

Professional Stall

ANDREW STEVENSON WILLIAM J. DIXON

JAMES M. MENGER, Jr. ROBERT F. GUTHRIE)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND POWER

TORBERT H. MACDONALD, Massachusetts, Chairmcvn

HORACE R. KORNEGAY, North Carolina

LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, California

FRED B. ROONEY, Pennsylvania

RICHARD L. OTTINGER, New York

JAMES T. BROYHILL, North Carolina

JAMES HARVEY, Michigan

DONALD G. BROTZMAN, Colorado

CLARENCE J. BROWN, JR., Ohio
CONTENTS

Page

Text of H.R. 611 1

Report of—

Bureau of the Budget 2

Federal Communications Commission 3

Comments on S. 2825 (89th Cong.) 4

Justice Department 2

Statement of—

Brasco, Hon. Frank J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York 8

Gallagher, Hon. Cornelius E., a Representative in Congress from the

State of New Jersey 4

Geller, Henry, General Counsel, Federal Communications Commission 9

Griffith, Kelley E., Chief, Domestic Rates Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission 9

Hyde, Hon. Rosel H., Chairman, Federal Communications Commission 9

Kertz, Hubert, operating vice president, American Telephone tic

Telegraph Co., on behalf of Bell Telephone System 17

Murphy, Hon. John M., a Representative in Congress from the

State of New York 7

Rodgers, Paul, general counsel, National Association of Regulatory

Utility Commissioners 23

Temple, Col. William A., Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense

(Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Department of Defense 15

Van Deerlin, Hon. Lionel, a Representative in Congress from the

State of California 6

Additional material supplied for the record by—

American Legion, The, statement of James R. Wilson, director,

National Security Division 49

American Telephone St Telegraph Co.: Statutes of the 50 States

relating to the use of obscene or indecent language over telephone

or making of threatening or annoying calls 26-49

Department of Defense: Statement on prosecution of case not involving telephonic harassment 17

Federal Communications Commission:

Abusive calling statistics (based on Bell Telephone System

compilations):

Convictions, 1965-67 (table) 14

Monthly totals, 1966-67 (table) 12

Summary for October—November 1967 (table) 11-12

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners: Model

State harassing telephone call act 25

U.S. Independent Telephone Association, letter from William C.

Mott, executive vice president 50

ABUSIVE AND HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS

TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1968

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND POWER,

COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE,

Washington, D .0 .

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2123,

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Horace R. Kornegay presiding

(Hon. Torbert H. Macdonald, chairman) .

MT. KORNEGAY. The subcommittee will come to order.

We have before us for hearing seven identical bills: H.R. 611,

H.R. 1422, H.R. 5867, H.R. 6283, H.R. 7830, H.R. 13323, and S. 375.

Three of these bills have been introduced by our colleagues on the

committee, Mr. Van Deerlin, Mr. Cunningham, and Mr. Murphy.

All of these bills would help us to stamp out the cowardly and

vicious use of telephones to frighten and vilify innocent persons,

many times children.

Equally despicable is the practice of calling families of our servicemen and giving false reports of their deaths, or gloating over their

deaths which have in fact occurred.

Since these practices first became a matter of public concern, all the

States enacted laws to stamp them out. However, the States have

neither the authority nor the facilities to apprehend and punish persons who make such calls from beyond their borders.

This problem is particularly acute in the growing number of large

metropolitan areas which straddle State borders. This gap would be

filled by the enactment of one of the bills which we have before us here

today.

(The bill, H.R. 611, and departmental reports thereon, follow:)

[H.R. 611, 90th Cong., first seas.]

A BILL To amend the Communications Act of 1934 with respect to obscene or harassing

telephone calls in interstate or foreign commerce

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States

of America in Congress assembled, That title II of the Communications Act of

1934, as amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following

new section:

"Sm. 223. OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE.—Whoever by means of telephone communication in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign

commerce—

" (a ) makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal which is

obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent; or

"(b) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or

harass any person at the called number; or

(1)
2

"(C) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously

to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

"(d) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues,

solely to harass any person at the called number; or

Whoever knowingly permits any telephone under his control to be used for

any purpose prohibited by this section—

"Shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six

months, or both."

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BITREAU OF THE BUDGET,

Washington, D.C., January 80, 1968.

Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of the

Bureau of the Budget on H.R. 611, a bill "To amend the Communications Act of

1934 with respect to obscene or harassing telephone calls in interstate or foreign

commerce." This report also represents our views on H.R. 1422, H.R. 5867, H.R.

6283, H.R. 7830, H.R. 13323 and S. 375, bills which are identical to H.R. 611.

H.R. 611 would prohibit the making of obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent telephone calls, or the making of anonymous calls which intend to annoy,

abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number. In addition, it would

prohibit the making of repeated calls to harass a person, either in interstate or

foreign commerce or within the District of Columbia. The bill provides for a fine

of $500 or imprisonment up to six months, or both, for violations.

While the Bureau favors the objectives of H.R. 611, we believe that the comments and suggestions expressed by the Department of Justice in the report it is

making to your Committee merit careful consideration.

Sincerely,

WILFRED H. ROMMEL,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Washington, D.C., February 9, 1968.

Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,

Chairman, Committee on Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN: This is in response to your request for the views of the

Department of Justice on the several bills (H.R. 611, H.R. 1422, H.R. 5867, H.R.

6283, H.R. 7830, H.R. 13323 and S. 375, which we note passed the Senate on April

24, 1967) to amend the Communications Act of 1934 with respect to obscene or

harassing telephone calls in interstate or foreign commerce or in the District of

Columbia.

These bills each would add a new section 223 to make it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six

months, or both, for any person by means of an interstate or foreign commerce

or District of Columbia telephone communication, (1) to make a comment, request,

suggestion, or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, (2)

to make an anonymous call with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass another, (3) to make repeated calls solely to harass a person, or (4) to permit a

telephone under his control to be used for a purpose prohibited by the proposed

section.

The Department in its testimony on similar bills has agreed that the "obscene

and harassing" phone call should properly be punishable as a criminal offense. It

has been our position that enforcement of such a penal provision was primarily

a matter of state concern and responsibility. We feel that it is significant for the

Committee to note that there are thirty-eight States with statutes punishing such

activity and that eleven of the remaining twelve are considering enactment of

similar legislation. We have also stated that if a bill of this kind were enacted

into law the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be obligated to investigate

large numbers of complaints to determine in the first instance whether the offend-
3

jag call was "inter" or "intra" state in nature. We feel this problem still exists.

We are aware that the phone companies have indicated that they now have

sophisticated electronic equipment which would identify the source of the call.

However, we note that such equipment would only be effective in those situations

where the calls are repeated. Further, it is our expectation that when the

Federal remedy is available complainants in large numbers will contact the FBI

directly. If this expected burden materializes it can only detract from the FBI

effectiveness in other areas of higher priority.

While we oppose a Federal law enforcement role in this area, it is clear that

such legislation should not pre-empt, or detract from, existing or future state

laws. In this regard, it should be noted that the Federal Communications Act

sets forth a comprehensive scheme of regulation for wire and radio communication. In so doing it does not set forth any definition of "interstate commerce"

for general applicability throughout the Act. In fact, the general purposes of the

Act make clear that the Congress intended to exercise its full authority under

the Commerce clause. Areas reserved to the states are expressly set forth (for

example, see, 47 U.S.C. 221(b) which expressly grants state jurisdiction with

respect to charges, classifications, etc., for wire service). To avoid any question

of pre-emption we feel the bill must define "interstate commerce" to include

generally only those calls which emanate from a state, the District of Columbia,

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States and

are received in any place outside thereof which is within the United States and

calls wholly within the District of Columbia. Further, even within the class of

"interstate" calls which would be of Federal concern there will be instances

when the state from which the call originated will be the better agency to handle

prosecution (as in the case of juveniles and mental defectives). To preserve this

flexibility the bill should expressly allow for concurrent jurisdiction in the state

from which the offending call originated (the offending acts having been committed within its boundaries).

"Sec. 223(b)" in all the bills punishes the single anonymous call where the

caller's intent is to "annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass." We note that subsections (c) and (d) use only "harass" and not the descriptive series found in subsection (b). Since each of the subsections with the exception of (a) is designed

to punish the use of the phone for harassment, we see no clear reason for this

lack of continuity.

Although the Department of Justice is sympathetic to the objectives of these

bills, we fail to see the need for Federal action in this area. For the reasons given

above, we are unable to support enactment of legislation of this type.

The Bureau of the of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the

submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program.

Sincerely,

WARREN CHRISTOPHER,

Deputy Attorney General.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION,

Washington, D.C., March 20, 1967.

Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request of March 10. 1967, seeking the Commission's comments on H.R. 611, a bill to amend the Communications

Act of 1934 with respect to obscene or harassing telephone calls in interstate

or foreign commerce.

On July 27, 1966, the Commission adopted comments on S. 2825, 89th Congress,

which, as it passed the Senate on June 29, 1966, is identical to H.R. 611. It is

requested that these comments, copies of which are enclosed, be accepted as

the Commission's comments on H.R. 611. The Bureau of the Budget has advised

that while there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program, it believes that the comments and recommendations made by the Department of Justice on S. 2825, 89th Congress,

merit careful consideration by your Committee.

Sincerely yours,

ROSEL H. HYDE, Chet/Irma/IL
4

COMMENTS OF THE FNDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ON S. 2825 (89TH

CoNo.), A BILL TO AMEND THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 WITH RESPECT

TO OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN

COMMERCE

S. 2825 would add a new section 223 to the Communications Act of 1934, to

prohibit, in substance, the making of obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent

telephone calls or those intended to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass, either in

interstate or foreign commerce or within the District of Columbia.

Obscene and harassing telephone calls have become a matter of serious concern, for the dimensions of the problem are already large and are apparently

growing. While the Bell Telephone System, which provides more than 80 percent

of the Nation's telephones, have only recently begun to compile statistics concerning the number of calls as to which it receives complaints, it estimates it receives

approximately 375,000 complaints a year concerning abusive telephone calls that

threaten or harass the recipients. Figures provided the Commission by the Bell

System show almost 43,000 abusive calls in April of this year, and about 46,000

in May.

S. 2825 would deal not only with obscene calls, but also the anonymous call

made with intent to harass, and repeated calls made solely for the same purpose.

The bill thus covers certain types of anonymous calls which have been of increasing concern. The telephone may ring at any hour of the day or night, to produce

only a dead line when answered. Sometimes the caller will merely breathe heavily

and then hang up. Sometimes he will utter obscenities. Recently a new and most

'offensive form of harassment has been devised. Families of servicemen are called

and given false reports of death or injury, or even, hard as it is to believe, are

gloatingly reminded of the death of a son or husband in the service. S. 2825

reaches all of these vicious practices.

Some remedies do exist at the present time. Thirty-eight States have statutes

generally prohibiting the making of various types of obscene, harassing, or annoying telephone calls. These laws, many of which are of recent origin, appear to be

helping to check intrastate abusive calling. In addition, telephone company tariffs

prohibit obscene language over the telephone or the use of telephone service in

such a manner as to harass or frighten others.

The Bell Telephone System has developed improved equipment to determine the

source of anonymous abusive calls, and has issued instructions to operating companies for close cooperation with subscribers who camplain of obscene or harassing telephone calls. It is to be hoped that telephone company publicity recently

given to the problem and the manner in which they will serve customers who

receive such calls will have a beneficial effect.

However, no Federal law deals with any part of the problem, except for 18

U.S.C. 875(c), which prohibits interstate communications containing a threat of

personal injury. S. 2825 would apply to all interstate calls and those calls made

within the District Of Columbia. Its enactment would facilitate prosecutions for

interstate calls by permitting prosecution where it may be convenient for the

witnesses, since section 3237 of Title 18, U.S. Code, permits prosecution of offenses

in any 'district in which the offense is begun, is continued, or is completed.

While enforcement of a federal criminal statute dealing with obscene and

harassing calls would appropriately be the responsibility of the Department of

Justice, the Commission is fully in accord with the effort to deal with this problem

which is embodied in S. 2825, and we support its enactment.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Our first witness this morning will be Congressman

Cornelius E. 'Gallagher, of the State of New Jersey. Mr. Gallagher is

the sponsor of H.R. 611, on which we are holding today's hearing.

Please proceed Mr. Gallagher.

STATEMENT OF HON. CORNELIUS E. GALLAGHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS .FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, the abusive, harassing or obscene

telephone call looms very large in the life of the single working girl,

the housewife, and, the ugliest instance, the wife or mother of a serviceman stationed in Vietnam.
5

In 1965 I first introduced, a bill to raise the penalties for obscene

phone calls . made in the District of Columbia. There still now exists

a wide disparity between the penalties in force in Maryland and Virginia and the usual $10 disorderly conduct fine in Washington. Considering the large number of single women living in the District, these

• penalties are woefully inadequate. I understand that there were over

14,000 obscene and harassing calls in the Washington metropolitan

area in 1967. As you remember, Mr. Chairman, that bill passed the

House twice, but died in the Senate. In 1965 I also introduced legislation to stiffen the penalty for harassing calls made to families of

servicemen in Vietnam. At the time I introduced that bill there had

been a rash of instances of perverted calls to wives and families of

.servicemen either falsely reporting a man's death or openly gloating

over an actual death in Vietnam. We can only imagine the horror of

such an experience.

This bill, H.R. 611, which I introduced in the 89th Congress and

again last year would raise the penalty for calls made within the District of Columbia and impose a similar penalty of a $500 fine and/or

6 months in jail for interstate calls.

Mr. Chairman? I think we should make it clear in the legislative

history that we intend this legislation to cover those harassing calls

directed to the families of servicemen, as I mentioned above. I might

note here that the Defense Department informed me recently that

reports of such instances have decreased during the last year.

I would like to suggest to the committee an amendment to this bill.

Although many obscene and harassing calls originate from teenage

pranksters, the hardcore obscene telephone callers are victims of perverted, sick minds. They are victims of mental illness. I suggest an

amendment to allow the judge to substitute commitment to a mental

hospital for treatment in the place of a fine or jail. We must look with

compassion on those who cannot help themselves.

Mr. Chairman, one of the leading forces working to protect the

cit izen from obscene and harassing calls has been the telephone companies. Enforcement of laws dealing with these calls would be impossible without the assistance, time and efforts of the telephone industry.

There is one aspect of the effort to track down these obscene telephone callers which I would like to discuss briefly this morning. As

I mentioned, the communications industry has done an excellent job

and contributed a great public service by research into new and more

efficient ways of tracking down and prosecuting those who abuse the

telephone. I have noticed in the testimony of telephone company

officials and from various newspaper articles that among the devices

used to trace these callers is the pen-register and the use of the central

computer to record in a permanent record the caller number, called

number, time and date for all calls, regardless of whether they are local

or long distance.

The problem that this raises in my mind is one with which I have

been concerned since I first came to Congress. My concern is individual

privacy.

Whenever the incident of a private conversation is recorded, there

is a corresponding duty to protect the confidentiality of the information recorded. Should the practice of recording all calling and called

numbers become widespread, these trails of old telephone calls could.

89-578-68 2
6

easily become another link in the continuous chain of interconnected

personal information we leave behind us as we proceed through life.

The danger, as I see it, is not the lone notation of telephone calls, but

rather the blending of this information with other personal information—birth records, military records, tax records, social security

records. There has been a great deal of discussion recently of compilations of this data by private industry, State and local governments, and, perhaps best known, the Federal Government's proposed

National Data Bank. My fear is that someday all of this information

will become mixed together in a central bank, easily accessible through

the magical mystique of the computer.

Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that use of these telephone number

recording devices will be limited and that methods will be employed

to protect confidentiality.

Mr. Chairman, obscene and harassing calls can only be stamped out

by a concentrated and coordinated campaign by the Federal Government, State law enforcement agencies, the Nation's telephone companies and concerned private citizens. The bill I have offered, H.R. 611,

provides for the necessary Federal participation in this nationwide

campaign. I am hopeful that this distinguished committee will act

favorably and bring this bill with the amendment suggested to the

floor at the earliest possible time.

Thank you.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you for your views, Mr. Gallagher. Are there

any questions? If not, we shall hear next from our colleague and member of this committee, the Honorable Lionel Van Deerlin. Mr. Van

Deerlin has introduced similar legislation in his bill, H.R. 1422. Please

proceed, Mr. Van Deerlin.

STATEMENT OF HON. LIONEL VAN DEERLIN, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chairman, fellow subcommittee members, a

Federal law for cracking down on abusive telephone callers should be

enacted without delay.

There are few offenses more sinister than the menacing call made

from behind a coward's shield of anonymity. Confronted by an unknown and unseen malevolence, the victim may be terrified as she

contemplates what might happen next. She can hang up the phone—

but the doubts and distress that were prompted by the call cannot be

banished so easily. The perpetrator might have no intention of following up his subtle first aggression—but the victim can only guess at his

ultimate intentions.

I am told that all 50 States now have statutes of their own covering

various types of obscene, harassing, or annoying telephone calls. But

I believe that Federal legislation such as the subcommittee is now considering is also needed. At the very least, it would have a deterrent

effect on would-be abusive callers. It would also plug a gap in our

communications laws, and give the telephone companies a practical

legal tool in dealing with the demented individuals who misuse the

telephone in this fashion.

I believe that many a potential abusive caller would think twice

before dialing if he knew he faced possible penalties. My own bill,
7

H.R. 1422, would provide fines of up to $500 and a maximum 6-month

prison term upon conviction, punishment to fit the crime.

It is my hope that legislation of this sort will be enacted this year,

for the problem of menacing phone calls appears to be growing. This

unfortunate trend is confirmed by available statistics. Last year, an

average of 58,000 abusive calls a month were reported to the Bell

System telephone companies, a 13-percent increase over the 1966 average of 51,000.

These figures, while ominous enough, don't begin to tell the full

story of just how widespread this vicious practice has become. Telephone company officials believe that at least 10 obscene or threatening

calls go unreported for every one that is disclosed, so the true monthly

totals could well approach a half million or more.

In any event, the legislative remedies under consideration today are

long overdue. A bill for curbing abusive interstate calls was passed

without dissent by the Senate last year. I would therefore urge this

distinguished subcommittee to move swiftly and positively to permit

the House to complete congressional approval of this vital legislation.

With the abusive calls rate rising so rapidly, I don't see how we can

do less.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Van Deerlin. If there are no questions, we shall hear next from another colleague and member of our

full committee, the Honorable John Murphy. Mr. Murphy is the sponsor of H.R. 6283, one of the identical bills under consideration today.

Please proceed as you see fit, Mr. Murphy.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN M. MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to

testify this morning in support of S. 375 and related bills to amend

the Communications Act of 1934 with respect to obscene or harassing

telephone calls in interstate and foreign commerce and in the District

of Columbia.

As a sponsor of one of these bills, I am delighted that this subcommittee is now conducting hearings on this important legislation.

The need for this legislation is both obvious and urgent. In 1966, at

the request of the Federal Communications Commission, the Bell System, which provides more than 80 percent of the Nation's telephones,

began to gather statistics on obscene and harassing phone calls. In

an 11-month period in 1966 over 568,000 complaints of such calls were

reported—an average of more than 51,000 each month. In the first 11

months of 1967 more than 640,000 complaints were reported—an average of more than 58,000 each month.

These abusive calls take many forms: some are obscene, others are

merely bothersome or annoying. Recently a new and more serious type

of abusive telephone call has been reported; families of servicemen are

receiving calls giving false reports of death or injury, and in some

cases the families are reminded of the death of a son or husband in the

service.

The majority of these calls are intrastate and would not be covered

by this legislation. However, all States have laws which prohibit such
8

telephone calls, and telephone company tariffs prohibit obscene language or harassing or frightening calls.

In 1966 the interstate calls reported to the Bell System as being

obscene or harassing totaled 512, and in 1967, 470. In the District of

Columbia in 1967 there were over 14,000 such calls reported. These

two categories—interstate (and foreign) and District of Columbia—

would be covered under this legislation.

With the enactment of this bill, full protection against abusive telephone calls would be provided. Such coverage, of course, is only part

of the battle. The real difficulty is in determining the source of the

calls. There has been a considerable effort by the Bell System to

develop new techniques and equipment to help track down these phone

calls, and with the cooperation of an informed and concerned public

we may be able to reduce the growing number of these calls.

Mr. Chairman, I urge this subcommittee to take favorable action

on this legislation.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Murphy.

Our next witness is also the sponsor of similar legislation, the Honorable Frank Brasco, of New York. Please proceed Mr. Brasco.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK J. BRASCO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. BRASCO. It is a pleasure for me to appear before this committee

in support of my bill (H.R. 5867) to prohibit obscene and harassing

telephone calls in the District of Columbia and in interstate or foreign

commerce. Congressional consideration of such legislation dates back

to the 89th Congress when a similar measure, S. 2825, was passed by

the Senate on June 29, 1966. That bill was introduced by Senator

Pastore and was unanimously approved by the Senate Committee on

Commerce. However, House action was not completed and the measure

was pending when the 89th Congress adjourned.

The purpose of my bill, like that of the Pastore bill, is to provide

additional protection for telephone users. The telephone has become a

business and family necessity. Without it much of our modern day

social intercourse would be lost. But despite its many benefits, it provides a ready loak of anonymity for the sort of person who derives

morbid pleasure from harassing and frightening others_

The dimensions of the problem are large. It has been estimated

that some 375,000 complaints about abusive telephone calls are recorded each year. Some steps have already been taken to deter the

use of the telephone for abusive purposes. Thirty-eight States have

enacted statutes dealing specifically with the problem and general

statutes pertaining to breaches of the peace have been used, on occasion, to prosecute such abusive conduct in some of the remaining

States. In addition, the telephone companies have taken certain action

to deter crank calls. Devices have been developed to trace such calls. In

New York City an annoyance call bureau has been set up by the telephone company to shield victims.

While all of such measures have been of great help in the attempt

to eliminate harassing calls, they are not fully effective. Additional

legislation is needed. The interstate gap needs to be closed and the

prohibition needs to be extended to cover the District of Columbia.

Specifically, my bill makes it a Federal offense punishable by a fine
9

of up to $500 or imprisonment for 6 months or both to make obscene

on harrassing telephone calls in interstate commerce or within the

District of Columbia. According to witnesses from the telephone

company, most of the abusive calls are intrastate or local in nature and

thus would come within the prohibition of State or local law. My

bill does not replace the action already taken by the several States.

However, in those cases where the State cannot act because the call

originated in another jurisdiction, enactment of my bill would supplement the State and local law. Thus, under section 3237 of title 18 of

the United States Code, prosecution would be permitted where most

convenient for the witnesses, either in the district where the call originated, where it continued, or where it was completed.

This legislation is long overdue. In metropolitan areas such as the

District of Columbia where a number of jurisdictions are combined

in one central telephone system, the local and State statutes are not

fully effective. This bill will close that loophole; it will permit prosecution of those individuals who use the telephone in interstate commerce

to harrass or frighten others; it will have a deterrent effect on the

making of such calls; it will set an example for the States to revise

or enact, where needed, State statutes pertaining to such abusive

activities; it will extend the prohibition to the District of Columbia;

and it will bridge the interstate gap in such matters.

I hope that this committee will quickly approve my bill and that this

needed legislation will be enacted at an early date.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear here today in

support of this legislation.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Brasco.

I take great pleasure in calling as our next witness the Honorable

Rosel H. Hyde, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

Mr. Hyde, you are welcome. And you bring with you other members

of the Commission?

Mr. HYDE. I have Mr. Henry Geller, the General Counsel of the

Commission to my right, and to my left Mr. Kelley E. Griffith, Chief,

Domestic Rates Division, Common Carrier Bureau.

Mr. KORNEGAY. It is a pleasure to have you before us this morning,

and we welcome you and the members of your staff.

You may proceed in any fashion you want.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROSEL H. HYDE, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: ACCOMPANIED BY HENRY GELLER,

GENERAL COUNSEL AND KELLEY E. GRIFFITH, CHIEF, DOMESTIC

RATES DIVISION

Mr. HYDE. My statement is very brief. I will present it orally, if that

is agreeable.

Mr. Chairman, I am Rosel H. Hyde, Chairman of the Federal

Communications Commission. I appear here today at the committee's

invitation to discuss bills to amend the Communications Act of 1934

with respect to obscene or harassing telephone calls in interstate or

foreign commerce—H.R. 611, H.R. 1422, H.R. 5867, H.R. 6283,

H.R. 7830, H.R. 13323, and S. 375. For convenience, I shall refer by

number only to S. 375 which passed the Senate on April 24, 1967. •

However, because all these bills under consideration are identical, my

comments are equally applicable to all.
10

S. 375 would add a new section 223 to the Communications Act to

prohibit, in substance, the making of obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,

or indecent telephone calls or those intended to annoy, abuse, threaten,

or harass, either in interstate or foreign commerce or within the District of Columbia. It provides for a fine of not more than $500 or

imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both.

The Federal Communications Commission is fully in accord with

the effort to deal with the problem of obscene and harassing telephone

calls which is embodied in this bill.

Obscene and harassing telephone calls have become a matter of

serious concern. The dimensions of the problem are already large and

are apparently growing. At the request of the Commission, the Bell

Telephone System, which provides more than 80_percent of the Nation's telephone, began to compile statistics in February 1966 concerning the number of calls as to which it receives complaints.

The Bell System lists as abusive calls those falling under the heading of obscene, harassing, threatening, or interference. The figures

show that, for 11 months of 1966, the Bell System received over 568,000

complaints concerning abusive telephone calls that threaten or harass

the recipient. This is an average of over 51,000 such complaints each

month. In the first 11 months of 1967 more than 640,000 such complaints were reported. This represents an average of over 58,000 complaints each month, an increase of approximately 7,000 monthly over

the previous report.

When compilation of complaints began in early 1966 the number of

reported abusive calls was between 40,000 and 45,000 per month. The

number of such calls increased to between 50,000 and 55,000 per month

as of the latter part of 1966. Available 1967 figures show a range of

approximately 51,000 to 68,000 such calls per month.

A detailed breakdown of the statistics for the two most recent

months available (October and November 1967) is attached to this

statement (see p. 11), together with the total monthly figures of the

number of abusive calls for each month since the Bell System began

compiling such statistics.

It should be noted that only a small portion of the total number of

reported abusive calls were interstate in nature. During the 11-month

period in 1966 in which the Bell System compiled statistics, 512 complaints of abusive interstate calls were reported. There were 470 such

calls in the first 11 months of 1967.

S. 375 would deal not only with obscene calls, but also the anonymous call made with intent to harass, and repeated calls made solely

for the same purpose. The bill thus covers certain types of anonymous

calls which have been of increasing concern. The telephone may ring

at any hour of the day or night, to produce only a dead line when

answered. Sometimes the caller will merely breathe heavily and then

hang up. Sometimes he will utter obscenities. Recently a new and most

offensive form of harassment has been devised. Families of servicemen

are called and given false reports of death or injury, or even, hard as

it is to believe, are gloatingly reminded of the death of a son or husband in the service. S. 375 reaches all of these vicious practices.

Some remedies do exist at the present time. All States have statutes

generally prohibiting the making of various types of obscene, hara,ssmg, or annoying telephone calls. These laws, many of which are of

recent origin, should assist the efforts to solve the problem of intrastate
11

abusive calling. In addition, telephone company tariffs prohibit obscene language over the telephone or the use of telephone service in

such a manner as to harass or frighten others.

The Bell Telephone System has developed improved equipment to

determine the source of anonymous abusive calls, and has issued instructions to operating companies for close cooperation with subscribers who complain of obscene or harassing telephone calls. It is to

be hoped that such recent publicity given to this matter by the telephone company and the manner in which they will serve customers

who receive such calls will have the beneficial effect of reducing such

practices.

Although title 18 U.S.C. 875 (c) prohibits interstate communications

containing a threat of personal injury, and 18 U.S.C. 837(d) prohibits

use of the telephone to make threats of damage to certain property or

threats to persons seeking to make specified uses of such property, no

Federal law deals with the many aspects of the problem of abusive

calls. S. 375 would apply to all interstate calls and those calls made

within the District of Coumbia. Its enactment would facilitate prosecutions for interstate calls by permitting prosecution where it may be

convenient for the witnesses, since section 3237 of title 18, United

States Code, permits prosecution of offenses in any district in which

the offense is begun, is continued, or is completed.

Enforcement of a Federal criminal statute dealing with obscene

and harassing telephone calls would appropriately be the responsibility of the Department of Justice. From the standpoint of the Federal

Communications Commission's general concern m this area, we are

fully in accord with the effort to deal with this problem which is embodied in S. 375 and support its enactment.

(Data accompanying Mr. Hyde's statement follow:)

BELL TELEPHONE SYSTEM SUMMARY OF ABUSIVE CALLING 1

OCTOBER 1967

Classification

Abusive 

Number

52,334

Commercial solicitation 1,244

Misdirected 2,644

Breakdown of abusive:

Obscene 11,793

Harassing 35,655

Threatening 2,447

Interference 2,439

Disposition of abusive:

Closed after initial discussion 28,142

Closed after keeping log 13,670

Number change, no transfer 6,125

Change to nonlisted or nonpublished numbers 4,808

Requests for line identification 4,658

Lines successfully identified 943

Cases referred to security 1,140

Cases requiring disconnection by company 5

Cases resulting in court convictions 78

Cases involving intercity calling 1,189

Cases involving interstate calling 24

Total number closed 50,845

Total number pending 9,733

1 The figures shown represent actual results for October and November 1967 in all

Bell Telephone System companies.
12

NOVEMBER 1867

Classification

Abusive 

Number

51,659

Commercial solicitation 1, 195

(Misdirected 2, 605

Breakdown of abusive:

Obscene 11, 845

Harassing 34, 794

Threatening 2,436

Interference 2, 584

Disposition of abusive:

Closed after initial discussion 28, 828

Closed after keeping log 12,899

Number change, no transfer 6, 236

Change to nonlisted or nonpublished numbers 4, 902

Requests for line identification 4, 534

Lines successfully identified 877

Cases referred to security 1, 098

Cases requiring disconnection by company 4

Cases resulting in court convictions 90

Cases involving intercity calling 1,301

Cases involving interstate calling 27

Total number closed 51, 505

Total number pending 9, 817

BELL TELEPHONE SYSTEM MONTHLY SUMMARY OF ABUSIVE CALLING, 1966-67

1966 1967

January (I) 58,077

February 37, 332 60,960

March 46,023 64,906

April 42, 940 58, 828

May 45,733 56,822

June 54,027 58,151

July 54,366 60,135

August 68,193 68,343

September 56, 791 51,606

October 55, 134 52, 334

November 56, 796 51,659

December 51, 439 (2)

Total 568,774 641,821

1 Not compiled.

2 Not reported.

Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, representatives of the FCC staff have

discussed certain minor dhanges in language in the proposed statute

with committee counsel. We find the changes, as suggested by your

staff, appropriate and acceptable so far as we are concerned.

That completes my statement.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

You have no suggestion of changes you want made in the bill, S. 375?

Mr. HYDE. None other than those I have suggested. We have cooperated in the changes of certain language. I think they are technical.

We accept them as revised by the staff.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Broyhill?

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you.

It is good to see you today, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask you a very

short question concerning the equipment which the Bell Telephone

System has developed in order to determine the source of these anonymous calls. Is this equipment in general use today?

Mr. HYDE. Is this equipment in use today?

Mr. BRoymr.L. General use.
13

fr. HYDE. My information on this is very general, I must say. They

have been working on this problem ever since it became a matter of

public concern, and I know they have made extensive efforts. I believe

a representative of the telephone company is here and will be able to

give you a more satisfactory answer to your question.

Mr. BROYHILL. Mr. Chairman, one other question: If this bill, S.

375, becomes law, it will be up to the Federal Communications Commission to enforce it. Is that correct?

Mr. HYDE. No, we take the position that it will be the responsibility

of the Attorney General to enforce it. However, I would wish you to

know that in this area of our regulatory interest, and in which we

would claim some expertise, we would certainly cooperate. I think

we could be of substantial help in the enforcement of it, but prosecution as such would be the responsibility of the Attorney General.

Mr. BROYHILL. Would the Federal Communications Commission

recommend prosecution?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, in instances coming to our attention we certainly

would.

Mr. BROYHILL. Would you make investigations?

Mr. HYDE. We would assist in investigations where our expertise

would be helpful.

Mr. BROYHILL. I have no further questions.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Brotzman ?

Mr. BROTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just one question, really. I think there is a lot to be said for this

particular measure. I was wondering about the enforcement, Mr.

Chairman. This is a difficult problem and may be a difficult statute

to enforce. I am rereading your fine statement. I was wondering, for

example, how you would really catch a person who was breathing into

a telephone in an effort to harass somebody.

Mr. HYDE. It would be difficult. We believe that just the existence

of a Federal statute would be a deterrent. Also I would add this that

oftentimes there will be a pattern of this type of call, and through the

cooperation of the person who is being 'harassed, the telephone company can get information whidh2 in a number of instances, has led to

the apprehension of the person instigating the difficulty. There have

been a number of successful prosecutions in State courts.

Mr. BROTZMAN. I was going to ask you that question next. You are

quite correct that the States do have laws. Do you have anything in

your files relative to successful prosecutions across the country for

this type of statute?

Mr. HYDE. I notice in the statement whidh the representative of the

telephone company is going to present to the committee, which they

were good enough to bring to our attention, there are some statistics

on this.

In 1965, there were convictions in 358 cases.

Mr. BROTZMAN. That was 1965?

Mr. HYDE. Yes, and I believe the telephone company witness will

be able to give you a later figure.

Mr. BROTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to our chairman

that I think something like that would be valuable in the record. We

would like you to supply that to us. I would request that you do so.

Mr. HYDE. Yes.

89-578-68--3
14

Since we have had reports pursuant to our request, I should like to

give you the reports that came to the attention of the Commission.

We can give you figures.

(The following information was subsequently submitted:)

Information supplied by the Bell Telephone System showing number of convictions of abusive callers in areas served by the Bell System:

Convictions

1965 358

1966 788

1967 1, 105

Mr. BROTZMAN. You can do that. Thank you.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I note in your statement, Mr. Chairman, that the

Commission requests of the Bell Telephone System to compile statistics

on the number of calls on which they receive complaints, and you

further state that the Bell System totals about 80 percent of the

Nation's telephones.

These figures that you give, do they just relate to the Bell System?

Mr. HYDE. That is correct.

Mr. KORNEGAY. You do not have figures on the remaining 20 percent of the Nation's phones insofar as complaints?

Mr. HYDE. No, we do not. The statement that our figures relate to

Bell is correct.

Mr. KORNEGAY. As indicated by the testimony and in addition to

that, the complaints are growing at a very rapid rate.

Mr. HYDE. Yes, but I think, Mr. Chairman we should take cognizance of the fact that a lot of attention has been given to the subject

and notice that both the telephone company and regulatory agencies

are trying to do something about this might have resulted in more

people asking for assistance.

I think, too, that we ought to remember that we are dealing here

with statistics based on complaints which, of course, will not be a full

measure of the extent of this evil.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Of the extensive nature of the evil going on?

Mr. HYDE. That is right.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I interpret your statement to mean that there is a

sufficient number of evil calls to justify some action on the part of

the Commission, the Attorney General, and the Congress.

Mr. HYDE. Yes, sir; I fully agree with that. It is a very distress- ing thing. I have had some particular instances come to my attention,

and it is something that we should undertake to curtail just as far as possibly can.

Mr. KORNEGAY. I am in complete agreement with your statement,

and congratulate you and the Commission for supporting these bills

and coming here today and giving very good testimony to indicate

that we, the Congress, need to do something about it.

Mr. HYDE. Thank you very much. If we can be of any further assistance, we shall be pleased to do so.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much.

Our next witness will be Col. William A. Temple from the Department of Defense. Colonel Temple, would you come around?

If you will have a seat, we will recess the subcommittee hearings for

just about 2 minutes.

(Brief recess.)
15

Mr. KORNEGAY. The subcommittee is now back in session.

Colonel Temple, it is a pleasure to welcome you before the Subcommittee on Communications and Power, and you may at this time proceed in making the statement that you desire.

STATEMENT OF COL. WILLIAM A. TEMPLE, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS),

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Colonel TEMPLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

May I say that the statement I have to make to you is that of Brig.

Gen. William W. Berg, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Military Personnel Policy, who regrets he could not appear. I work in

his office as an assistant director for personnel management.

I will read this statement and then answer any questions you have.

Mr. KORNEGAY. You may proceed.

Colonel TEMPLE. The Department of Defense appreciates this opportunity to present its views on S. 375, which would make obscene or

harassing telephone calls in interstate or foreign commerce a Federal

offense.

The Department of Defense is concerned about the adverse effect

on the morale and welfare of our servicemen and their families of

obscene and harassing communications, particularly as they relate to

our military operations in Vietnam and elsewhere. We welcome and

support any legislation which promises our servicemen and their

families a measure of protection from these vicious and despicable

acts.

In the year preceding May of 1966 we had identified some 87 known

incidents of harassment of military families related to our military

operations overseas, mostly in connection with service in Vietnam. In

the period between May of 1966 and February of 1967 we identified an

additional 48 such incidents and in the approximate year that has

elapsed since that time we have had reports of approximately 70

additional incidents.

Here I should point out that while the bills under consideration

address themselves to telephone communications, the reported incidents that we have of harassment of service families have included

harassment by letters, post cards, telegrams and even face-to-face

visits.

The nature of these harassments has included everything from false

reports of death or injury to threats, demands for money for the Vietcong, and gloating comment on the actual death in combat of servicemen. For example, a bereaved widow of an Army sergeant killed by

enemy fire in Vietnam received an anonymous call advising her that

her husband had "got what was coming to him. A phone call to the

wife of an Air Force sergeant stationed in Vietnam said: "I know your

husband is in Vietnam and he deserves everything he gets. Before he

can come home you will be a widow."

You will note that the volume of these incidents of harassment is

not large and it has tended to drop somewhat since we first became

concerned with them. We believe that two factors have contributed to

the reduced incidence of harassment of our service families: One is the

publicity given to the Nation's outrage at these acts by congressional
16

consideration of remedial legislation during both the 89th and 90th

Congress. The other is the excellent cooperation we have received from

the commercial telephone companies in developing joint procedures to

protect service families from the perpetrators of this viciousness. The

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. has worked with us on behalf

of the entire telephone industry in developing and publicizing procedures for assisting service families who are victimized by telephonic

harassment.

While we have no way of knowing whether the small scale of the

harassment of our service families is permanent or temporary, we do

not cite it as evidence that corrective legislation is not needed. The

impact of these acts on the morale and well-being of each service member and his family directly affected is obvious, and there is a potential

for a detrimental effect for all members of our Armed Forces and their

families everywhere.

Recognizing that the overall problem of obscene and harassing communications goes far beyond the matter of harassment of service families, the Department of Defense defers to the wisdom of the Congress

on the content of specific legislation and to the views of the Department of Justice and the Federal Communications Commission on the

technical merits of particular proposals. For our part, we simply welcome any action which promises a measure of relief.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Department of Defense I thank you

and the committee for this opportunity to express our views.

We stand ready to assist in any way we can.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much, Colonel Temple. Relay our

regrets to General Berg for his inability to be here, and our appreciation for the statement you have presented in such a commendable

manner.

Mr. Broyhill.

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Colonel Temple, as the results of your investigations on these calls,

did this result in the prosecution of anyone?

Colonel TEMPLE. To my knowledge, sir, all such calls which gave

any promise of prosecution have been turned over either to the tele- phone companies, or in some cases to the Department of Justice. I

cannot state specifically whether any specific incident has resulted in a conviction. I would be happy to recheck the incidents and furnish the information.

Mr. BROYHILL. You have indicated that these known incidents have been investigated. I was curious whether any of the investigations have resulted in prosecution or whether or not you are limited under the laws as they are presently written.

Colonel TEMPLE. I might say, sir; to answer your question in part: With respect to these known incidents, one not involving telephone

harassment involved the visit of the alleged sergeant of a dead man's unit, the sergeant representing himself as being from the man's organi- zation. His purpose, apparently, was to bum accommodations from

the family, and he did so successfully for a period of about a week. His case was, we discovered, turned over to the Department of Justice,

and he was prosecuted under the statutes on the improper wearing of

the uniform.

So far as the telephonic incidents are concerned, I am not sure, sir.
17

(The following information was subsequently submitted by DOD:)

A check of all known incidents of harassment of families of servicemen discloses that in only one case was a suspect apprehended and punished. It did not

involve telephonic harassment but was the case referred to above of a man

impersonating a sergeant for the purpose of trading on the sympathies of a dead

serviceman's family.

Mr. BROYHILL. Thank you.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Brotzman ?

Mr. BROTZMAN. I have no questions of the Colonel. May I direct one

question to staff counsel?

Mr. KORNEGAY. Yes.

Mr. BROTZMAN. I notice that everyone has been reflecting that the

bill under consideration, S. 375, would apply to calls in, as the colonel

just said, interstate or foreign commerce.

Now, my question relates to this. Because of the effect on interstate

commerce of this system of communications, would this law apply to

an intrastate call of an obscene or harassing nature?

Mr. GUTHRIE. No, sir it is not intended to. This is intended only

to apply to calls within the District of Columbia, or those telephone

calls that cross State lines.

Mr. BROTZMAN. That do in fact cross State lines?

Mr. GUTHRIE. Yes,, sir. The 50 States have legislation.

Mr. BROTZMAN. Thank you.

Mr. KORNEGAY. To amplify that for the record, counsel, with the

enactment of the bills which the subcommittee has before it this morning, the entire scope would be filled so far as protecting persons against

telephone calls of an obscene and harassing nature.

Mr. GUTHRIE. Yes, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. In other words, all the States have laws and this

bill covers interstate and foreign calls, together with the District of

Columbia, and the entire spectrum of conditions would be covered?

Mr. GUTHRIE. Yes.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you.

Mr. BROTZMAN. I have no further questions.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Colonel, I want to thank you again for coming and

presenting the position of the Department of Defense.

I know of nothing at the moment more despicable than some act on

the part of an individual to harass the widows and relatives of our

servicemen, those who have been killed in Vietnam.

We appreciate very much the attention you take.

Colonel TEMPLE. We quite agree, sir. Thank you.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Our next witness is Mr. H. L. Kertz, with the

American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

STATEMENT OF HUBERT KERTZ, OPERATING VICE PRESIDENT,

AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO., APPEARING ON

BEHALF OF BELL TELEPHONE SYSTEM

Mr. KERTZ. Mr. Chairman, my name is Hubert Kertz. I am operating vice president of the American Telephone & Telegraph Co., and

I appear on behalf of the Bell Telephone System operating companies.

The Bell System is extremely concerned about the problem of abusive calls and we are doing all we can to stop them. We are pleased,
18

too, at your committee's interest in the problem, and I appreciate this

opportunity to present our views to you. We certainly welcome legislation at the Federal level along the lines proposed in the bills which are

the subject of this hearing.

The Bell System policy has always been to insure that customers

receive the best possible telephone service. When the telephone becomes

an instrument of annoyance or harassment, it is a matter of serious

concern. Removing sources of customer irritation is an integral part of

providing high-quality telephone service. In our attempt to eliminate

this problem we welcome help.

Since early 1966 we have been filing monthly reports with the Federal Communications Commission which indicate the number of customer complaints involving abusive calls received by the Bell System

and their disposition.

During March 1966, for example, about 46,000 customer complaints

were received. Subsequently, the number of such complaints received

per month increased for a while

'

reaching a high of about 68,000 in

August, but declined to about 51,000 in December of 1966. During

1967 the number of complaints again fluctuated monthly, averaging

about 58,000 per month. We believe the overall increase in the number

of complaints received by the Bell System was due, at least in part,

to our pledges of assistance made to the public during 1966 and 1967

rather than solely to an increase in the abusive calling. Of course, the

only way we can know about such calls is when they are brought to

our attention by our customers.

We consider abusive calling to be a serious problem even though the

number of complaints received each month represents only a small

fraction of the more than 10 billion calls made monthly by our customers. I shall in this statement attempt to explain the problem and

the steps we are taking to remedy it.

We really do not know exactly how much of this abusive calling is

interstate or how much is intrastate, but it is our judgment that most

of the problem is predominantly local in nature. An interstate call

may be a toll call of which there is a record in a form of a toll ticket

or the automatically recorded equivalent—or it may be a local call

such as one from Arlington. Va., to the District of Columbia. It is

only after an investigation of a complaint has been successfully completed that we are able to classify the offending calls as interstate or

intrastate.

Of the almost 700,000 complaints received during 1967 only about

500, an average of 40 per month, have so far been classified as involving interstate calling. Although this is a small percentage, we believe

Federal legislation will also have a deterring effect on potential offenders in intrastate calling and that such legislation would be of

practical advantage to us in attempting to deal with this abusive

calling problem.

Existing State and local criminal legislation is of great help to us.

In view of the fact that most abusive calling appears to be intrastate

and local in nature, we have found that in many cases appropriate

remedial action can be promptly and effectively taken by using our

procedures and tariffs and by our customers having recourse to State

and local criminal prosecutions.

At the time of my initial testimony before the Senate subcommittee
19

in May 1966, when they were considering this problem, 38 States had

statutes specifically outlawing abusive calling. Since that time the remaining 12 States have enacted similar legislation. All in all, in the

areas served by the Bell System the courts convicted 358 abusive

callers during 1965, 788 abusive callers in 1966, and 1,105 during 1967.

This, I believe, Mr. Chairman, was one of the questions you asked

Commissioner Hyde. It was 1,105 court convictions in the year 1967.

It might be appropriate at this time to review with you the procedures the Bell System is following in handling complaints about

abusive calls. We are determined to eliminate such abuse, we continue

to assume the responsibility for taking action, we are improving our

techniques, and we are mauling close contact with each victim until

the abusive calling problem is solved to his satisfaction. .

When a customer informs us that he received a call threatening

bodily harm, kidnaping, or damage to property, we develop the pertinent details and immediately refer the matter to a management person in our security organization. He is authorized to take whatever

action is necessary to deal with this type of complaint, including steps

to identify the telephone line from which the call was made. We also

suggest to the customer that he acquaint the local law enforcement

authorities with the facts, if he has not already done so.

In cases not involving threats, we take a number of steps to solve

the customer's problem. When we receive a complaint, we attempt to

bring to the customer's mind any details that might uncover clues

as to who might be making the calls. These facts also aid us in determining what further steps are appropriate to solve the customer's

problem. They also prove to be helpful in setting up the line identification procedure, if such action turns out to be necessary.

As you can understand, I would rather not discuss in detail here

all the techniques we use to identify the telephone lines from which

•abusive calls originate. Public disclosure of this information might

make it easier for annoyance callers to avoid detection.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, if I may, to explain at this time some

of the devices and the methods that we use to identify the line originating the offending calls.

Mr. KORNEGAY. We would like very much for you to do that.

Mr. KERTZ. I am going over to the easel, Mr. Chairman, and I want

to explain some facts to the committee.

What I have on this chart, if you will, is a symbolic diagram of the

telephone switching system, and for purposes of explanation here,

down in the lower left-hand corner we have a picture of a telephone

that is labeled "Annoying Party." That telephone is connected by

wires to our central office, and it goes into the central office to apiece

of equipment known as the main frame, where all the wires ternainate.

From the main frame it goes through various pieces of switching

equipment and we have labels on the chart: line frame, trunk frame,

trunk circuits, and so forth, and it shows the path the call would take,

until it goes out to another telephone labeled "Annoyed Party."

The annoying party dials the number into this switching equipment

here, and the switching equipment, which is labeled in this chart "Control Equipment and Trouble Recorder," directs the call to the other

telephone labeled "Annoyed Party."
20

In order to determine the location of any annoying party, that is, the telephone number of an annoying party, one of the devices that is used by the telephone maintenance men is to put what we call a

false trouble indication on the annoyed party's line.

Mr. KORNEGAY. False what?

Mr. KERTZ. Trouble. For instance, we may have a complaint from a

customer that says, "Every morning at 2:30 a.m. my phone rings and somebody breathes into the phone." We would put a false trouble in- dication on that, and then when the call comes through, the control in the central office finds we have a false trouble on that chart, and then it drops out the trouble chart, which we have pasted on the chart. Maybe you would like to see one of these, and I have a few you might like to look at.

Mr. KORNMAY. It looks like an IBM card.

Mr. KERTZ. Yes, sir it is a big IBM card. There is a tremendous

amount of information on this card, but the part we are interested in here in tracing this call is marked in red.

On the card there, we have marked in red pencil the called number, which is 5652. Now, course the called number is the annoyed party.

Down below that you see some writing that says "calling equipment."

Now, that information that is there allows us to determine the tele- phone number of the annoying party.

Well, in summary, this is one way of tracing a call and it is done automatically for us. They are not all quite as simple as the way I

have outlined it here but it has been effective, and we have located annoying parties with this method.

Now, we have some other devices that we use to trace these calls, and for purpose of simulation here I have a telephone here which we will call the annoyed party, and Mr. Miller there, who is helping me with this, is going to be the annoying party.

What we do, when we get a complaint from the annoyed party, we place on his premises an electronic device similar to the one you see here on the table.

I am going to ask Mr. Miller as the annoying party to call me on this telephone, and I will then describe what happens next.

Mr. Miller, please. (Phone rings.)

Now, I am connected with Mr. Miller, and he is going to annoy

me. In the normal course of events he would hang up, and I don't know who he is, or where he is calling from. But with this electronic device

on the customer's premises, there is a key on it, and I will turn the key

on and we have simulated here what happens in the central office. I will shut the key off because it is a little difficult to talk over the alarm.

That alarm tells the central office maintenance men that a call has been made to the complaining party that is, the annoyed party, and they immediately, with the tools that are at their disposal, trace the call back to the annoying party's line and they have ways of holding

onto that connection, so that even if Mr. Miller were to hang up, we would be able to trace the call.

• Now, the last part of this procedure of determining the annoying

party, of course, has to do with the prosecution and possible court action, and there you are up against the proposition of having to prove
21

something, to have some facts and figures. What we do to help out the

customer is that once we have identified the annoying party's telephone

number over there, we place on that telephone this device, similar

to this device that you see here on this table, and what this is is

a pen register, and what it does is, it records on paper tape the numbers

that are dialed by that particular telephone, in this case the annoying

party.

The idea behind this is that at 2:30 in the morning when Mr. Miller

makes this annoying call to me, when he dials my number it is recorded

on this paper tape with the time of day and the date, and we then are

able to say that that annoying call came from that telephone at that

time.

Now, to demonstrate this to you I am going to ask Mr. Miller to

dial me, again at 2:30 in the morning, and we will see if our pen

register records the number he dials. [Demonstrating.]

Mr. KERTZ. I take the receiver off the hook and I note the time that

I got the call, and then we can take this paper tape and go back and

determine what numbers Mr. Miller dialed into the equipment, and,

of course, in this particular case it is the number of that telephone.

Later on if you wish, we can come down and demonstrate this to

you as to how you count these pulses. They are just pulses on the

telephone.

Mr. BROTZMAN. I have a question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROTZMAN. Do I understand correctly that, you use this for your

own detection? And my next question is, Did you use this in any successful prosecutions?

Mr. KERTZ. Yes, sir; absolutely. We have used it in a number of the

1,000 successful court convictions that we got last year.

I have to add, Mr. Chairman, that there are other means we have for

detection, but I think these methods give you some idea of the methods

we use.

I would like to emphasize at this point there is nothing about these

devices or methods that involve any monitoring of conversations of

either the calling or the called person's telephone line. There is no

attempt whatsoever to listen to conversations. It is simply a matter of

identifying the calling line.

Over the years many different techniques have been devised to identify the lines from which anonymous and abusive calls originate. These

techniques have grown more sophisticated as our telephone switching

systems have become more complex. We are continually working on

better and quicker ways of making these line identifications and we

are adding special equipment to improve our ability to do so.

We believe that successful identification of the calling line, and the

publicity following the conviction of the annoying caller will in the

long run substantially deter abusive calling. I might add that local

law enforcement authorities have been most cooperative and extremely

helpful to our customers in investigating these cases, as evidenced by

an increase of more than 100 percent in court convictions in 1966 and a

continuing increase in such convictions during 196'T.

After there has been a line identification, the case might take either

of the following directions:

S9-578--68 4
22

We normally secure written consent from the customer who is receiving these calls when lie asks us to disclose the calling line to a law

enforcement agency to which he has reported the facts or with which

he plans to file a complaint. In any ensuing prosecution a company

representative may be a witness and may be asked to provide a chronological history of the telephone company's role in handling the matter.

As I mentioned previously, we attempt to publicize all successful prosecutions since we believe such publicity significantly deters abusive

calling.

Where the annoyed customer does not decide to take legal action we

still are in a position to take further steps. Bell System tariffs provide for the discontinuance of the telephone service of an offending

party in such cases.

In addition to the foregoing courses of action, advertising campaigns were conducted throughout the country on this subject by

A.T. & T. and the Bell companies during 1966 and 1967 and they will

be continued as necessary. This advertising clearly enunciated our

policy, including our pledge of assistance to any member of the general public within our operating areas who is a victim of such calling.

Also, Bell System officials discussed this subject on a number of national and local television shows and continue to speak about it before

law enforcement and other public groups. The Bell companies have

also been conducting an extensive employee information program outlining our policy and procedures.

Let me summarize the Bell System position on the entire matter of

abusive calling. We are deeply concerned about this problem. We are

doing all in our power to eliminate it. We think there is a need for

Federal legislation covering interstate abusive calling, and we endorse

S. 375, which was passed by the Senate on April 24, 1967, and its identical counterparts in the House—H.R. 611, H.R. 1422, H.R. 5867, H.R.

6283, H.R. 7830, and H.R. 13323 which we understand are now before

you for consideration. We, of course, stand ready to give this committee any assistance it requires.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is the end of my statement.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, Mr. Kertz, for a very fine statement, and

certainly for some very interesting and informative demonstrations.

Mr. Broyhill?

Mr. BROYHILL. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Ottinger ?

Mr. °WINGER. What significance do you think the Federal legislation would have? The figures we have from the FCC indicates that

there is a very minimal problem with respect to interstate calls. I

suppose those interstate calls would be covered by the State law.

Mr. KERTZ. The facts of the matter are, Mr. Congressman, that,

while all of the States have laws that make it illegal to do this in

intrastate there is no comparable Federal law. It is true that there

are only about 40 calls a month that we have been able to identify as

being interstate. Nevertheless, a Federal law would certainly deter

this abusive calling. This is why we endorse these bills.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Brotzman ?

Mr. BROTZMAN. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KORNEGAY. On these interstate calls that you have been able to

identify, how many of them, if you know, originated from pay telephones, as opposed to residential phones?
23

Mr. KERTZ. Well, very few, but there are interstate abusive calls

made from pay telephones, and we have—I am quite sure my memory

is correct on this—we have a court conviction in this case. We know

that there are a few of them, relatively speaking, that are made from

coin telephones, comparing the number of coin telephones to total

telephones.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Rooney, do you have any questions?

Mr. ROONEY. No, I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Kertz, let me again thank you for coming and

presenting very interesting and fascinating testimony. You and the

company are to be commended for your keen interest in this area, and

the cooperation that you have exhibited with all parties interested.

Thank you very much.

Mr. KERTZ. Thank you, sir.

Mr. KORNEGAY. The next witness is Mr. Paul Rodgers, of the

National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

Mr. Rodgers, would you come around, please. We welcome you

before the committee and you may proceed with your statement in the

way you choose.

STATEMENT OF PAUL RODGERS, GENERAL COUNSEL, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS

Mr. RODGERS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my

name is Paul Rodgers. I am the general counsel for the National

Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), formerly known as the National Association of Railroad and Utilities

Commissioners.

The NARUC is a quasi-governmental nonprofit organization

founded in 1889. Within its membership are the governmental bodies

of the 50 States and of the District of Columbia Puerto Rico, and

the Virgin Islands engaged in the regulation of utilities and carriers.

The chief objective of the NARUC is to serve the public interest

through the advancement of governmental regulation.

The members of the NARUC appreciate the opportunity you have

given me as their spokesman to make their views known on H.R. 611,

and similar bills, which propose an amendment to the Communications

Act of 1934 to impose criminal penalties on persons making obscene

or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate

or foreign commerce.

The NARUC supports the enactment of this proposed law.

We are particularly pleased that the scope of these bills is limited

to "telephone communication in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign commerce." We believe that this clearcut jurisdictional

line shows a wholesome regard for the respective responsibilities of

the Federal and State governments in solving this problem.

On February 16th of last year, when we testified before the Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate Commerce Committee on

S. 375, one of the bills now under consideration, only 38 of the 50

States had laws imposing penalties on persons making obscene or

harassing telephone calls.

The Committee on Communications of this Association on February 28th of last year, after consideration of the abusive calling prob-
24

lem, adopted a model State harassing telephone call act which closely

parallels the language of H.R. 611 and the other bills. A copy of this

model act is appended to this statement. (See p. 25.)

Chairman Ben T. Wiggins of the NARUC Committee on Communications promptly transmitted a copy of the model act to each State

regulatory commission requesting that it review the existing legislation of that State on this subject, and if found inadequate, to seek

enactment of legislation of the nature reflected by the model act.

I now understand that the remaining 12 States have adopted legislation to outlaw abusive calling.

We hope that the success with which all 50 States have responded to

this problem was due in part to the national campaign which was

launched by this association.

In view of these considerations, we believe that the enactment of

this type of legislation is an appropriate means for combating the

making of obscene and harassing telephone calls in interstate or

foreign commerce

'

and in addition would complement the comprehensive action which has been taken by the States in combating such

calls in intrastate commerce.

In closing, I wish to invite the members of this committee to call

upon me or the other members of the staff of the NARUC whenever

you need information concerning State regulation.

Thank you for your attention.

\ Fr. KORNEGAY. Thank you very much, Mr. Rodgers.

\ Fr. Broyhill?

\Fr. Ottinger ?

A Ir. Brotzman ?

Mr. BROTZMAN. No questions.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Rooney?

Mr. ROONEY. No questions.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Rodgers, as I read very hastily the Model State

Harassing Telephone Call Act, it is almost word for word the bills

that we have under consideration. Is that correct?

Mr. RODGERS. Yes.

Mr. KORNEGAY. To your knowledge, have there been any convictions

under the Model Act in the States?

Mr. RODGERS. Not to my knowledge. Thirty-eight States had specific

bills dealing with this prdblemt and the remaining 12 States had

broader bills, such as those prohibiting disturbances of the peace. In

an effort to inspire those 12 States to enact legislation and inspire the

remaining 38 to upgrade their legislation we sent this out. We have

made no followup, but the 12 States have responded.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Did those 12 States enact statutes similar or identical

with the Model Act?

Mr. RODGERS. We did not follow up by writing each State commission. If you would like, we would be happy to undertake a poll of the

50 States to see how many States adopted this act.

Mr. KORNEGAY. Do you know of any agency, public or private, that

would have information as to the form of the statute in the several

States?

Mr. RODGERS. Not unless the Bell System would. They tell me they

do.
25

Mr. KORNEGAY. The reason I ask that, in my own State of North

Carolina, I am not familiar with what the legislature has done in the

last 7 or 8 years, but up until 1960 they had a statute that made it a

misdemeanor for a male person to call a female person and use obscene

and abusive language, but a male person could call another male

person and say anything he wanted to on the telephone.

I think those laws have been updated.

I think it would be of interest to the subcommittee if, without a

great deal of difficulty, we could get information as to the laws in the

several States.

Mr. KERTZ (A.T. & T.) . We will provide that for you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. KORNEGAY. We know every State has a law, but we don't know

how much of that law in a particular State would be covered with the

same provisions or similar provisions to the Model or Uniform Act,

which is the same act that we have considered here.

Mr. KERTZ. I understand. We will provide the information.

(For the information requested, see pp. 26-49.)

Mr. KORNEGAY. Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rodgers. We appreciate your support in

this matter, and we appreciate your coming to testify.

Mr. RODGERS. Thank you.

(The Model Act referred to by Mr. Rodgers follows :)

Model State Harassing Telephone Call Act

An Act to provide criminal penalties with respect to obscene or harassing telephone calls, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the legislature of this state:

SECTION 1. Whoever by means of telephone communication in this State--

(a ) makes any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal which is obscene,

lewd, lascivious, fifthy, or indecent; or

(b) makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without

disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass

any person at the called number; or

(c) makes or causes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously

to ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

(d) makes repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues,

solely to harass any person at the called number; or

Whoever knowingly permits any telephone under his control to be used for any

purpose prohibited by this section shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned

not more than six months, or both.

SEC. 2. All laws and parts of laws in conflict with this Act are hereby repealed.
26

(The information requested of the American Telephone & Telegraph

Co. follows:)

STATUTES OF THE 50 STATES RELATING TO THE USE OF OBSCENE OR INDECENT LANGUAGE OVER TELEPHONE OR

MAKING OF THREATENING OR ANNOYING CALLS

State

Annoying Prosecute Printed

Indecent Anonymous Calls to Or Threatening where call notice of

obscene calls females harassing calls placed or statute

language calls received required in

directory

Alabama X X X X

Alaska X X X

Arizona' X X X X X

Arkansas X X X

California X X X X X

Colorado' X X X X

Connecticut X X X X

Delaware X X X

Florida X X

Georgia X X X

Hawaii X

Idaho X X X X

Illinois X X

Indiana X X X X

Iowa' X X X X X

Kansas X X X X X

Kentucky X X X

Louisiana 2 X X X X

Maine X X X X X

Maryland X X X X X

Massachusetts X X

Michigan X X

Minnesota X X X X X

Mississippi X X X

Missouri X X X X X

Montana' X X X X X

Nebraska' X X X X X

Nevada X X X X X

New Hampshire X X X X X

New Jersey X X X

New Mexico 1 X X X X X

New York X X X X

North Carolina 1 X X X X X X

North Dakota X X X X

Ohio X X X X X

Oklahoma X X

Oregon X X X X X

Pennsylvania X X . X

Rhode Island X X X X

South Carolina X X X X X

South Dakota 1 X X X X X

Tennessee X X

Texas X X X

Utah X X X X X

Vermont X X X X X

Virginias X X X X

Washington X X X X X

West Virginia X X X X X

Wisconsin X

Wyoming' X X X X X

1 Also prohibit extortion of money or other thing of value.

2 Public service commission may adopt rules authorizing telephone employees to cooperate with police.

3Telephone company may be subpenaed to supply information on above calls.

ALABAMA

CODE OF ALABAMA, 1958, TITLE 4 8 , PUBLIC UTILITIES, OFFENSES CONCERNING

TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONES

§417(3) MOLESTING, HARASSING OR THREATENING ANOTHER BY USE OF TELEPHONE; CONVEYING CERTAIN FALSE INFORMATION.—

(1) Whoever telephones another person and addresses to or about such other

person any lewd, lascivious or indecent words or language; or whoever telephones another person repeatedly for the purpose of annoying, molesting or

harassing such other person, or his or her family, shall be deemed guilty of a

misdem'eanor, and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than $500 and may
27

also be imprisoned in the county jail or sentenced to hard labor for the county

for not more than six months.

(2) Whoever telephones another person and threatens to create an explosion,

or falsely informs that some other person threatens or intends to create an explosion in any private or public building, transportation facility or place of

accommodation shall be guilty of a felony, and on conviction shall be sentenced

to imprisonment for a period of not less than one year and may also be fined

not more than $1,000.

(3) Whoever willfully imparts or conveys or causes to he imparted or conveyed any false information by use of a telephone, knowing the information to

be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to

place or cause to he placed any explosive or other destructive substance in or

upon any private or public building, transportation facility or place of accommodation, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be imprisoned

for a period of not less than one year nor more than five years, and may also

be lined not more than $1,000.

(4) Any of the above offenses may be deemed to have been committed at

either the place at which the telephone call or calls were made, or at the place

where the telephone call or calls were received. (1963, No. 587)

ALASKA

ALASKA STATUTES, TITLE 11, CRIMINAL LAW, CHAPTER 45, OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC

PEACE

SEC. 11.45.035. ILLEGAL USE OF TELEPHONES.—A person who annonymously

telephones another person repeatedly for the purpose of annoying, molesting,

abusing, through vile and obscene language, or harassing that person or his

family, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction is punishable by imprisonment in jail for not less than three months, nor more than one year, or by

a fine of not less than $1,000, or both. (§ 1, ch. 87, SLA 1965).

ARIZONA REGULAR SESSION

CHAPTER 40, LAWS 1966, HOUSE BILL NO. 211

An act relating to crimes; prohibiting the use of the telephone for the purpose

of terrifying, intimidating, threatening, harassing, annoying or offending another person, and amending title 13, chapter 3, article 6, Arizona Revised Statutes,

by adding section 13-895.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Arizona:

Section 1. Title 13, chapter 3, article 6, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended

by adding section 13-895, to read:

13-895. Use of telephone to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or

offend; punishment.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate,

threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to telephone another and use any obscene,

lewd .or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten

to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of any person. It

shall also be unlawful to attempt to extort money or other thing of value from

any person, or to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls the

peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone

call or calls were received.

B. The use of obscene, lewd or profane language or the making of a threat

or statement as set forth in this section shall be prima facie evidence of intent

to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend.

C. Any offense committed by use of a telephone as set forth in this section

shall be deemed to have been committed at either the place where the telephone

call or calls originated or at the place where the telephone call or calls were

received.

D. Any violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine or not more than

five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not to exceed one
28

year, or both. If the defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of

this section or of an offense under the laws of another state or of the United

States which would have been an offense under this section if committed in

this state, he shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars

or by imprisonment in the state prison for not to exceed two years, or both.

• Approved, March 29, 1966.

ARKANSAS

ARKANSAS STATUTES 1947, ANNOTATED, CRIMINAL OFFENSES, DISORDERLY CONDUCT

§ 41-1437. ABUSIVE OR OBSCENE TELEPHONE CALLS.—It shall be unlawful for

any person to make use of telephone facilities or equipment (1) for an anonymous

call or calls if in a manner reasonably to be expected to annoy, abuse, torment,

harass or embarrass one or more persons, or (2) for repeated calls, if such calls

are not for a lawful business purpose but are made with intent to abuse, torment,

harass or embarrass one or more persons, or (3) for any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy or indecent. (Acts

1963, No. 107, § 1, p. 305)

§ 41-1438. PENALTY.—Any person violating any of the provisions of Section

1 (41-1437) of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction

thereof shall be subject to a fine of not more than one thousand dollars

($1,000.00), or to imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. (Acts 163,

No. 107, § 2, p. 305)

CALIFORNIA

WEST'S ANNOTATED CALIFORNIA CODES, TITLE 15, PENAL CODE, CHAPTER 2 OF OTHER

AND MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES

653 M. TELEPHONE CALLS WITH INTENT TO ANNOY.— (a ) Every person who

with intent to annoy telephones another and addresses to or about such other

person any obscene language or adresses to such other person any threat to inflict

injury to the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his

family, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) Every person who makes a telephone call with intent to annoy another

and without disclosing his true identity to the person answering the telephone is,

whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call, guilty of a

misdemeanor.

(c) Any offense committed by use of a telephone as herein set out may be

deemed to have been committed at either the place at which the telephone call

or calls were made or at the place where the telephone call or calls were received.

(added 1963, c. 801, p. 1832, § 1)

COLORADO

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES 1963, CHAPTER 40, CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, ARTICLE

4, OFFENSES AGAINST UTILITIES

40-4-23. DISTURBANCE OF PEACE BY TELEPHONE.—It shall be unlawful for any

reason for any person by means or use of the telephone to disturb, or tend to

disturb the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of any person or family by repeated

and continued anonymous or identified telephone messages intended to harass

or disturb the person or family to whom the call is directed; or by a single call

or repeated calls to use obscene, profane, indecent, or offensive language or to

suggest any lewd or lascivious act over or through a telephone; or to attempt

to exort money or other thing of value from any person or family by means or

use of the telephone; or to threaten any physical violence or harm to any person

or family; or to repeatedly or continuously cause the telephone of any person or

family to ring with intent to disturb or harass such person or family; provided,

that the normal use of the telephone for the purpose of requesting payment of

debts or obligations or for legitimate business purposes shall not constitute a

violation hereof. Any violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor and punishable upon conviction by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars or by
29

imprisonment for not more than ninety days in the county jail, or by both such

fine and imprisonment. (Laws 1963, p. 300, § 1)

CONNECTICUT

GENERAL STATUTES OF CONNECTICUT, 1958, CHAPTER 943, OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC

PEACE AND SAFETY

SEC. 53-174a. INDECENT OR HARASSING TELEPHONE CALLS.—Any person who, by

telephone under jurisdiction of the public utilities commission, addresses another

in or uses indecent, or obscene language, or who telephones another repeatedly for

the purpose of annoying, threatening or harassing him, shall be fined not more

than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both. Such

offense may be deemed to have been committed either at the place where the

telephone call was made or at the place where it was received. The court may

order any person convicted under this act to be examined by one or more competent psychiatrists. (1963, P.A. 182)

DELAWARE, REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 379, 1966 NEW LAWS, P. 13

An Act to amend Section 758, Chapter 3, Title 11, Delaware Code, relating to

disturbing privacy by use of telephone facilities or equipment.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Delaware: ( two-thirds

of all the members elected to each House concurring therein)

Section 1: Section 758, Chapter 3, Title 11, Delaware Code, is amended to read

as follows:

Section 758. Disturbing privacy by use of telephone facilities or equipment;

jurisdiction.

(a) Whoever makes use of telephone facilities or equipment and therein communicates language, suggestions or proposals which are obscene, profane, vulgar,

lewd, lascivious, or indecent in a manner reasonably to be expected to annoy,

abuse, torment, or embarrass another, or whoever anonymously telephones another person repeatedly for the purpose of annoying, molesting or harassing

such other person or his or her family, shall be fined not more than $200 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) Justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction of offenses under this section.

Approved, February 23,1966

NOTE.—Italic denotes amendatory language added to Section 758.

FLORIDA

FLORIDA STATUTES ANNOTATED, CHAPTER 365, RAILROADS AND OTHER UTILITIES

§ 365.16 USE OF OBSCENE OR INDECENT LANGUAGE OVER TELEPHONE.—

(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to use any words or language of a

lewd, lascivious or indecent character, nature or connotation over any telephone.

Any person violating these provisions shall be fined not more than five hundred

dollars or imprisoned in the county jail for a period not exceeding six months,

or both.

( 2) After the ninetieth day following the effective date of this• Act, every

telephone directory thereafter published for distribution to the members of the

general public shall contain a notice which explains this law, such notice to be

printed in type which is no smaller than the smallest type on the same page and

to be preceded by the word "WARNING". The provisions of this section shall

not apply to directories solely for business advertising purposes, commonly known

as classified directories. (Laws 1963, C. 63-51, §§ 1, 2)
30

GEORGIA

CODE OF GEORGIA ANNOTATED, TITLE 26, CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

§ 26-6303 (387 P.C.). USING ABUSIVE OR OBSCENE LANGUAGE.—Any person who

shall, without provocation, use to or of another, and in his presence, or by telephone, opprobrious words or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the

peace, or who shall, in like manner, use obscene and vulgar or profane language

in the presence of, or by telephone to, a female, or any person who shall communicate to any virtuous female within this State by writing or printing any

obscene or vulgar language or improper proposals, or by indecent or disorderly

conduct in the presence of females on passenger cars, street cars, or other places

of like character, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(1) In every telephone directory distributed to the general public in this State

after January 1, 1964, in which are listed the call numbers of any telephone

located within this State, except such as are distributed solely for business

advertising purposes, commonly known as classified telephone directories, there

shall be printed in type not smaller than the smallest type appearing on the

same page, a notice, preceded by the word "warning" printed in type at least

as large as the largest type on the same page, setting forth the substance of said

Code Section. (Amended Laws 1963, pp. 455, 456)

HAWAII

REVISED LAWS OF HAWAII 1955, CHAPTER 302

§ 302-2. OBSCENE OR LASCIVIOUS LANGUAGE OVER TELEPHONE; PENALTY.—Any

person who uses, utters or speaks any obscene or lascivious language over any

telephone line shall be fined not more than $100, or imprisoned not more than three

months, or both [L. 1921, c. 80, s. 1; R. L. 1925, s. 4482; R. L., 1935, s. 6141;

R. L. 1945, s. 11541.]

IDAHO

IDAHO CODE, TITLE 18, CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, CHAPTER 67, TELEGRAPH AND

TELEPHONE COMPANIES

§ 18-6710. USE OF TELEPHONE TO ANNOY OR OFFEND BY LEWD OR PROFANE LANGUAGE OR THREATS—PENALTIES.—Eyery person who with intent to annoy Or offend

telephones another and addresses to or about such person any obscene, lewd or

profane language, or addresses to such other person any threat to inflict injury to

the person or property of the person addressed or any member of his family, is

guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to a

term of not to exceed one year in the county jail. Upon a second or subsequent

conviction, the defendant shall be deemed guilty of a felony and shall be sentenced

to a term of not to exceed three years in the state penitentiary.

The use of obscene, lewd or profane language or the making of a threat shall

be prima facie evidence of intent to annoy or offend. (1965, Ch. 298, §1, p. 787)

§ 18-6711. USE OF TELEPHONE TO TERRIFY, INTIMIDATE, HARASS OR ANNOY BY

FALSE STATEMENTS—PENALTIES.—Every person who telephones another and

knowingly makes any false statements concerning injury, death, disfigurement,

Indecent conduct or criminal conduct of the person telephoned or any member of

his family, with intent to terrify, intimidate, harass or annoy the called person,

is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to a

term of not to exceed one year in the county jail. Upon a second or subsequent

conviction of the violations of the provisions of this section, the defendant shall

be deemed guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to

a term of not to exceed three years in the state penitentiary.

The making of a false statement as herein set out shall be prima fade evidence

of intent to terrify, intimidate, harrass or annoy. (1965, Ch. 298, § 2, p. 787)

§ 18-6712. PLACE OF OFFENSE.—Any offense committed by use of a telephone as

herein set out may be deemed to have been committed at either the place at

which the telephone call or calls were made or at the place where the telephone

call or calls were received. (Laws 1965, Ch. 298, § 3, p. 7871
31

ILLINOIS

SMITH -H CHO ILLINOIS STATUTES ANNOTATED, CRIMINAL CODE OF 1961, ARTICLE 26,

DISORDERLY CONDUCT

§ 26-1. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE.—

(a) A Person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly—

(1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to alarm or disturb

another and to provoke a breach of the peace; or

(2) With intent to annoy another, makes a telephone call, whether or not

conversation thereby ensues; or

(3) Transmits in any manner to the fire department of any city, town

or village a false alarm of fire, knowing at the time of such transmission

that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such fires exists; or

(4) Transmits in any manner to another a false alarm to the effect that

a bomb or other explosive of any nature is concealed in such place that its

explosion would endanger human life, knowing at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for believing that such a bomb

or explosive is concealed in such place; or

(5) Transmits in any manner to any peace officer, public officer or public

employee a report to the effect that an offense has been committed, knowing

at the time of such transmission that there is no reasonable ground for

believing that such an offense has been committed.

(b) Penalty. A person convicted of a violation of Subsection 26-1 (a) (1) or

(a) (2) shall be fined not to exceed $500. A person convicted of a violation of

Subsection 26-1 (a) (3), (a) (4) or (a) (5) shall be fined not to exceed $500 or

imprisoned in a penal institution other than the penitentiary not to exceed 6

months, or both, (1961, July 28, Laws 1961, p. 1983, 1963, Aug. 2, Laws 1963,

p.2166, § 1, p.2170, § 1)

SMITH-HURD ILLINOIS STATUTES ANNOTATED (1964 CUM. SUPP. ) , CHAPTER 134—

TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE COMPANIES

§ 16.4 TRANSMISSION OF OBSCENE MESSAGES PROHIBITED.—Any person in this

State who sends messages or uses language or terms which are obscene, lewd

or immoral with the intent to offend by means of or while using a telephone or

telegraph facilities, equipment or wires of any person, firm or corporation engaged in the transmission of news or messages between states or within the

State of Illinois is guilty of a misdemeanor. The use of language or terms

which are obscene, lewd or immoral is prima facie evidence of the intent to

offend, 1957. May 29, Laws 1957, p. 304, § 1.

§ 16.5 PENALTIES.—Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Act

shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $300 or confinement in the county Jail for a period not to exceed 6 months or both. 1957, May

29, Laws 1957, p. 304, § 2.

INDIANA

BURNS INDIANA STATUTES ANNOTATED (1961 CUM. SUPP. ) , CHAPTER 49,

MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES

10-4941. ANNOYING, MOLESTING OR HARASSING ANOTHER OR INDECENT LANGUAGE BY TELEPHONE CALLS.—Whoever telephones another person and addresses

to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious or indecent words or language;

or whoever telephones another person repeatedly for the purpose of annoying,

molesting or harassing such other person, or his or her family, shall be deemed

guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined in any sum not

exceeding five hundred dollars [$500.001, to which may be added imprisonment

In the county Jail not exceeding six [6] months: Provided, That any offenses

committed by the use of a telephone as herein set out may be deemed to have

been committed at either the place at which the telephone call or calls were

made, or at the place where the telephone call or calls were received.

10-4945. MAKING OF THREAT OF EXPLOSION IN PRIVATE OR PUBLIC BUILDING

OR PLACE OF ACCOMMODATION BY TELEPHONE CALLS—PENALTY.—Whoever telephones another person and threatens to create an explosion, or falsely informs
32

that some other person threatens or intends to create an explosion, in any private

or public building, transportation facility or place of accommodation shall be

guilty of a felony, and on conviction shall be sentenced to imprisonment in the

state prison for a period of not less than one [1] year nor more than five [5]

years to which may be added a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars

[$1,000.00] : Provided, That any offenses committed by the use of a telephone

as herein set out may be deemed to have been committed at either the place

at which the telephone call or calls were made, or at the place where the telephone call or calls were received.

10-4946. IMPARTING FALSE INFORMATION CONCERNING PLACING OF EXPLOSIVE

IN PRIVATE OR PUBLIC BUILDING OR PLACE OF ACCOMMODATION BY TELEPHONE

CALLS—PENALTY.—Whoever willfully imparts or conveys or causes to be imparted or conveyed any false information by use of a telephone, knowing the

information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made

or to be made, to place or cause to be placed any explosive or other destructive

substance in or upon any private or public building, transportation facility or

place of accommodation, shall be guilty of a felony, and, upon conviction, shall

be imprisoned for a period of not less than one [1] year nor more than five [5]

years, to which may be added a fine of not to exceed one thousand dollars

[$1,000] ; Provided, That any such offense may be deemed to have been committed at either the place where the telephone call or calls were made, or at

the place where the telephone call or calls were received. [L. 1961, c. 249, off.

7-6-61. Leg. hist. repeals Acts 1957, c. 61, § 1.]

IOWA

( 1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, P. 165) , APPROVED MAY 26, 1967

An act relating to the use of the telephone for the purpose of terrifying,

intimidating, threatening, harassing, annoying or offending another person, and

providing a punishment therefor.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Iowa:

SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to telephone another and use any obscene,

lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to

inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of any person. It shall

also be unlawful to attempt to extort money or other things of value from any

person, or to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls the peace,

quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call

or calls were received.

SEC. 2. The use of obscene, lewd or profane language or the making of a threat

or statement as set forth in this Act shall be prima facie evidence of intent to

terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend.

SEC. 3. Any offense committed by use of a telephone as set forth herein shall

be deemed to have been committed at either the place where the telephone call

or calls originated or at the place where the telephone call or calls were received.

SEC. 4. Any violation of this Act shall be punishable by a fine of not more

than five hundred (500) dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not to

exceed one (1) year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

KANSAS

1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, PAGE 241, APPROVED APRIL 12, 19 6 7

An act prohibiting the use of vulgar, profane, obscene, or indecent language

and harassment or intimidation over a telephone, or permitting the use of a

telephone for such purpose, or the playing of recordings without the identification thereof, and providing penalties for the violation thereof and also requiring

the publication of this act in telephone directories.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:

SECTION 1. Every person who shall, except for a lawful business purpose, by

means of telephone communication—

(a) make any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal which is obscene,

lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent; or
33

(b) make a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without

disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass

any person at the called number; or

(c) make or cause the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to

ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

(d) make repeated telephone calls, during which conversation ensues,

solely to harass any person at the called number; or

(e) play any recording on a telephone when such number is dialed unless

the group or individual shall identify itself or himself and state that it is

a recording;

and every person who shall knowingly permit any telephone under his control to

be used for any such purpose, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a

fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand

dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment for not more than twelve months in the

county jail, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

SEC. 2. After the effective date of this Act, every telephone directory published

for distribution to the members of the general public shall contain a notice setting forth the provisions of this Act. Such notice shall be printed in type which

is no smaller than any other type on the same page and shall be preceded by the

word, "Warning."

SEC. 3. This '''Act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication

in the statute book.

KENTUCKY

REGULAR SESSION, HOUSE BILL NO. 842

An Act relating to lewd, lascivious, indecent or obscene language, suggestion

or proposals over the telephone.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to make use of telephone facilities or equipment for the purpose of communicating language, suggestions or

proposals which are obscene, profane, lewd, lascivious or indecent in a manner

reasonably to be expected to annoy, abuse, harass, torment or embarrass another.

SEC. 2. Any person violating any of the provisions of Section 1 of this Act

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof 'shall be 'subject

to a fine of not less than $50.00 nor more than $1,000, or to imprisonment for not

more than one year or both.

SEC. 3. After the ninetieth day following the effective date of this Act, every

telephone directory thereafter published for distribution to members of the general

public shall contain a notice which explains this law, such notice to be printed

in type which is no smaller than the smallest type on the same page, and to be

preceded by the word "Warning". The provisions of this section shall not

apply to directories solely for business advertising purposes, commonly known as

classified directories.

Approved, March 24, 1966.

LOUISIANA

ACT 304, LAWS 1966 ( APPROVED JULY 15, 1966) [1966 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION,

PAGE 895]

An act to amend and re-enact Section 285 of Title 14 of the Louisiana Revised

Statutes of 1950, relative to the use of the telephone to prohibit obscene, threatening, harassing and like calls, whether or not conversation ensues, to prohibit

intentionally interfering with the service of others, to knowingly permit any such

use, to provide for venue and a penalty for violation.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:

SECTION 1. Section 285 of Title 14 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950

Is hereby amended and re-enacted to read as follows:

SEC. 285. Use of obscene, indecent or threatening language in telephone conversation ; penalty—

A. No person shall—

(1) Engage in or institute a telephone call, telephone conversation, or

telephone conference, with another person, anonymously or otherwise, and
34

therein use obscene, profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language,

or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature or threaten any

Illegal or immoral act with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass another

person; or

(2) Make repeated telephone communications anonymously or otherwise,

In a manner reasonably expected to annoy, abuse, torment, harass, embarrass or offend another, whether or not conversation ensues; or

(8) Make a telephone call and intentionally fail to hang up or disengage

the connection; or

(4) Knowingly permit any telephone under his control to be used for any

purpose prohibited by this Section.

B. Any offense committed by use of a telephone as set forth in this Section

shall be deemed to have been committed at either the place where the telephone

call or calls originated or at the place where the telephone call or calls were

received.

C. Whoever violates the provisions of this Act shall be fined not more than

$5,000.00, or be imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

Sm. 2. If any provision or item of this Act or the application thereof is held

Invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications of

this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision, item or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are hereby declared severable.

SEC. 3. All laws or parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

WEST'S LOUISIANA STATUTES ANNOTATED, TITLE 45, PUBLIC UTILITIES Sz CARRIERS,

PART V, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

SEC. 1166. TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES; SERVICE; POWERS OF COMMISSION.—

*

B. The commission may promulgate such rules as are necessary to authorize

all persons engaged in doing a telephone business to cooperate with police in the

interception of indecent telephone calls and the apprehension of those persons

making them. The commission shall not make any rules or regulations under the

provisions of this subsection which conflict with the federal wire tapping laws

or with federal regulations made under such laws. [Added Acts 1962, No. 314,

§1.1

MAINE

REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED 1964, TITLE 17, CRIMES, CHAPTER 121, THREATS AND

EXTORTION

§ 3703. MALICIOUS VEXATION BY PERSONS OVER 16.—Whoever having attained

his 16th birthday willfully and wantonly or maliciously vexes, irritates, harasses

or torments any person in any way, after having been forbidden to do so by any

sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable, police officer or justice of the peace, and whoever without reasonable cause or provocation willfully and wantonly or maliciously vexes, irritates, harasses or torments any person by communications to or

conversation with such person over or by means of any telephone, when such

offense is of a high and aggravated nature, shall be deemed guilty of a felony

and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine or not more than $500 or

by imprisonment for not more than 2 years; but when such offense is not of a

high and aggravated nature, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on

conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100 or by imprisonment for not more than 11 month. (R. S. 1954 c. 130, § 29; 1963, c. 331

§5)

CHAPTER 176, PUBLIC LAWS 1967 (1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, P. 221)

APPROVED APRIL 11, 1967

An Act prohibiting annoying telephone calls.

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Maine, as follows:

Revised Statutes, Title 17, Section 3704, additional. Title 17 of the Revised

Statutes is amended by adding a new section 3704, to read as follows:

SEC. 3704. ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALLS PROHIRITED.—Whoever willfully and
35

wantonly or maliciously uses a telephone facility to transmit to another any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent; any threat to injure the person or property of any person; or repeated

anonymous telephone calls, whether or not conversation ensues, which disturb

the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person, shall be punished by a fine of

not more more than $500 or by imprisonment for not more than 11 months, or

by both.

Use of a telephone facility under this section shall include all use made of

such a facility between the points or origin and reception. Any offense under

this section is a continuing offense and shall be deemed to have been committed

at either the place or origin or the place of reception.

MARYLAND

MARYLAND CODE ANNOTATED (1967 ) , ARTICLE 27. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

§ 151A. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if, knowing the statement or

rumor to be false, he circulates or transmits to another or others, with intent

that it be acted upon, a statement or rumor, written, printed, or by word of

mouth, concerning the location or possible detonation of a bomb or other explosive. An offense under this section committed by the use of a telephone may be

deemed to have been committed either at the place at which the telephone call

or calls were made or at the place at which the telephone call or calls were

received.

A person convicted of violating this section is subject to a fine not exceeding

one thousand dollars ($1,000.) or to imprisonment for not exceeding one year,

or to both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the Court. This section does not apply to any statement or rumor made or circulated by an officer,

employee, or agent of a bona fide civilian defense organization or agency, if made

in the regular course of his duties with that organization or agency. L. 1963,

c. 395.

ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND ( CUM. SUPP. 1961) ART. 27. CRIMES AND

PUNISHMENTS, TELEPHONE MISUSE

§ 555A. UNLAWFUL USE OF TELEPHONE.—It is unlawful for any person to make

use of telephone facilities or equipment (1) for an anonymous call or calls if in

a manner reasonably to be expected to annoy, abuse, torment, harass, or embarrass one or more persons; (2) for repeated calls, if with intent to annoy,

abuse, torment, harass, or embarrass one or more persons; or (3) for any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or

indecent. Any person violating any one of the provisions of this section is guilty

of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to a fine of not

more than $500.00 or to imprisonment for not more than twelve months, or

both, in the discretion of the court. [L. 1961, c. 165, eff. 6-1-61.]

MASSACHUSETTS

MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS ANNOTATED, CHAPTER 269, CRIMES AGAINST

PUBLIC PEACE

§ 14A. ANNOYING TELEPHONE CALLS. —Whoever telephones another person, or

causes any person to be telephoned to, repeatedly, for the sole purpose of harassing, annoying or molesting such person or his family, whether or not conversation ensues, or whoever telephones a person of the female sex, or repeatedly

telephones a person of the male sex, and uses indecent or obscene language to

such person, shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by

Imprisonment for not more than three months, or both. ( Stat. 1964, c. 668; 1965

S.B. 1013)
36

MICHIGAN

MICHIGAN STATUTES ANNOTATED, TITLE 28, CRIMES, CHAPTER 28, DISORDERLY PERSONS

§ 28.364. DEFINITION; SECOND OFFENDERS.—

SEC. 167. Any person of sufficient ability, who shall refuse or neglect to support

his family; any common prostitute; any window peeper; any person who engages in an illegal occupation or business; any person who shall be drunk or

intoxicated or engaged in any indecent or obscene conduct in any public place;

any vagrant; any person found begging in a public place; any person found

loitering in a house of ill-fame or prostitution or place where prostitution or

lewdness is practiced, encouraged or allowed; any person who shall knowingly

loiter in or about any place where an illegal occupation or business is being conducted; any person who shall loiter in or about any police station, police headquarters building, county jail, hospital, court building or any other public building or place for the purpose of soliciting employment of legal services or the

services of sureties upon criminal recognizances ; any person who shall be found

jostling or roughly crowding people unnecessarily in a public place; any person

who telephones any other person or causes any other person to be telephoned

and uses any vulgar, indecent, obscene, threatening or offensive language, or

suggesting any lewd or lascivious act over any telephone, shall be deemed a

disorderly person. When any person, who has been convicted of refusing or neglecting to support his family under the provisions of this section, is then charged

with subsequent violations within a period of 2 years, such person shall be prosecuted as a second offender or third and subsequent offender as provided in

section 168 of this act, if the family of such person is then receiving any form of

public relief or support. (Laws 1964, S.B. 1313, P.A. 144)

MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA STATUTES ANNOTATED, CHAPTER 609, CRIMINAL CODE OF 1963, CRIMES

RELATING TO COMMUNICATION

609.79 MAKING ANONYMOUS TELEPHONE CALL.—

Subdivision 1. Whoever, without disclosing his identity and with intent to

alarm or annoy another, makes a telephone call, whether or not conversation

ensues, may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 90 days or to payment of a fine of not more than $100.

Subdivision 2. The offense may be prosecuted either at the place where the

call is made or where it is received. (Laws 1961, c. 240, Laws 1963, c. 753)

MISSISSIPPI

MISSISSIPPI CODE 1942 ANNOTATED, CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS

§ 2291.5. PROFANE AND INDECENT LANGUAGE OVER TELEPHONE.—It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to use any profane, vulgar, indecent, threatening, obscene or insulting language over any telephone. Any person who shall be

convicted of the violation of this law shall be fined not more than Five Hundred

Dollars ($500.00) or imprisoned in the county jail not more than six (6) months,

or both such fine and imprisonment, or imprisoned in the State Penitentiary for

not more than two (2) years. Any person violating this law may be prosecuted

in the county where such conversation or language originates in case such conversation originates in the State of Mississippi. In case it originates outside of

the State of Mississippi then such person shall be prosecuted in the county to

which it is transmitted. ( Amended Laws 1964, c. 351)

MISSOURI

1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSIONS, PAGE 479, APPROVED AUGUST 1, 1967

An act relating to malicious telephone calls, with penalty provisions.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:

SECTION 1. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to--
37

(1) make a telephone call during which he makes any comment, request,

suggestion, or proposal that is lewd and lascivious; or

(2) make a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, without

disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass

any person at the called number; or

(3) make or cause the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously to

ring, with intent to harass any person at the called number; or

(4) individually or in conspiracy or concerted action with other persons

make repeated telephone calls, during which a conversation ensues, solely to

harass any person at the called number.

2. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly permit any telephone under

his control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this Section.

3. Any person who violates the provisions of this Act is guilty of a misdemeanor

and shall, upon conviction, be punished by confinement in the county jail for not

more than one year or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or both such

fine and confinement.

SEC. 2. Any offense committed by use of a telephone as set forth in the foregoing Section shall be deemed to have been committed at either the place where

the telephone call or calls originated or at the place where the telephone call or

calls were received.

MONTANA

[1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, PAGE 75] ('OUSE BILL NO. 188) (APPROVED

FEBRUARY 11, 1967)

An Act making it a criminal offense to use a telephone either to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend another by the use of obscene, lewd or

profane language or the suggestion of a lewd or lascivious act or by threat of

injury to person or property, or to attempt to extort money or property from

another, or to disturb another by repeated anonymous calls, and providing penalties therefor; providing for prosecution of such offenses at either the place where

the telephone call or calls originated or where they were received; and repealing

all acts and parts of acts in conflict therewith.

Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of Montana:

SECTION 1. (1) It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate,

threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to telephone another and use any obscene,

lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to

inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of any person. It is also

unlawful to use a telephone to attempt to extort money or other thing of value

from any person, or to disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls the peace,

quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or

calls were received.

(2) The use of obscene, lewd or profane language or the making of a threat

or lewd or lascivious suggestion shall be prima fade evidence of intent to terrify,

intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend.

(3) Any offense committed by use of a telephone in the manner set forth in

this section shall be deemed to have been committed at either the place where

the telephone call or calls originated or at the place where the telephone call

or calls were received, and when an offense under this section is committed by

making a telephone call or calls in one county which is or are received in another

county, the jurisdiction is in either county.

(4) Any violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding

five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months, or by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding

five (5) years.

SEC. 2. Every person who telephones another and knowingly makes any false

statements concerning injury, death, disfigurement, indecent conduct or criminal

conduct of the person telephoned or any member of his family with intent to

terrify, intimidate, harass or annoy the called person is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Any offense by use of a telephone is herein set out may be deemed to have been

committed at the place at which the telephone call or calls were made or at

the place where the telephone call or calls were received.

SEC. 3. All acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
38

NEBRASKA

1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, PAGE 855, APPROVED JUNE 6, 1967

An Act relating to crimes and punishments; to make certain acts with a

telephone unlawful as prescribed; and to provide penalties

Be it enacted by the People of the State of Nebraska:

SECTION 1. Any person who, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass,

annoy or offend, (1) telephones another anonymously, whether or not conversation ensues, and disturbs the peace, quiet and right of privacy of any person

at the place where the calls are received, (2) telephones another and uses indecent, lewd, lascivious, or obscene language or suggests any indecent, lewd,

or lascivious act, (3) telephones another and threatens to inflict injury to any

person or the property of any person, (4) intentionally fails to disengage the

connection, or (5) telephones another and attempts to extort money or other

thing of value from any person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall,

upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred

dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than ninety days,

or by both such fine and imprisonment.

The use of indecent, lewd or obscene language or the making of a threat or

lewd suggestion shall be prima facie evidence of intent to terrify, intimidate,

threaten, harass, annoy or offend.

The offense shall be deemed to have been committed either at the place where

the call was made or where it was received.

NEVADA

[1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, PAGE 53J CHAPTER 49, LAWS 1967 ( ASSEMBLY

BILL NO. 92) APPROVED FEBRUARY 22, 1967

An Act to amend chapter 201 of NRS, relating to crimes against decency and

morals, by adding a new section providing a penalty for the making of anonymous

obscene, threatening or annoying telephone calls and providing other matters

properly relating thereto.

The People of the State of Nevada, represented in Senate and Assembly, do

enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Chapter 201 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new

section which shall read as follows:

1. Any person who willfully makes a telephone call without disclosing his

true identity and addresses any obscene language, representation or suggestion

to or about any person receiving such call or addresses to such other person

any threat to inflict injury to the person or property of the person addressed or

any member of his family is guilty of a misdemeanor.

2. Every person who makes a telephone call with intent to annoy another and

without disclosing his true identity to the person answering the telephone is,

whether or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call, guilty of a

misdemeanor.

3. Any violation of subsections 1 and is committed at the place at which the

telephone call or calls were made and at the place where the telephone call or

calls were received, and may be prosecuted at either place.

SEC. 2. This act shall become effective upon passage and approval.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

[1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, PAGE 85] CHAPTER 104, LAWS 1967, APPROVED

MAY 11, 1967, EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 1967

An Act to make it unlawful to use telephone facilities to abuse or annoy

others.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court

convened:

1. MALICIOUS INJURY.—Amend RSA 572 by inserting after section 38-a (supp)
39

as inserted by 1955. 235:1 and amended by 1957, 31 :1, the following new section:

572 ;38—b Abusing or Obscene Telephone Calls.

I. It is unlawful for any person to make use of telephone equipment—

(a) For an anonymous call if in a manner reasonably to be expected to

annoy, abuse, harass, disturb the peace or right of privacy of, or embarrass

another person, whether or not conversation follows; or

(b) For repeated calls, if made with the intent to annoy, abuse, torment,

harass, disturb the peace or right of privacy of, or embarrass another person,

whether or not conversation follows; or

(c) To make any comment, request, suggestion, or proposal which is

obscene, lewd, lascivious, or indecent to another person;

(d) To threaten to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of another; or

(e) With the intent to terrify or intimidate or threaten another person.

II. Any offense committed by the use of a telephone as set forth in this section

may be deemed to have been committed either at the place where telephone call

originated or at the place where the telephone call was received.

III. The use of obscene, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language as made unlawful by Paragraph I of this section is prima facie evidence of intent to annoy,

abuse, torment, harass, disturb the peace or right of privacy of, or to embarrass,

or to terrify, or intimidate or threaten another person.

IV. Any person violating any of the provisions of this section is guilty of a

misdemeanor, and upon conviction, is subject to a fine of not more than two hundred dollars or to imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, in the

discretion of the court, provided that if the telephone that is receiving the call

is used as an emergency telephone to receive calls for pollee, medical or ambulance aid, for giving or receiving a fire alarm, or for civil defense use, the

person found guilty may be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred

dollars OT by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.

2. EFFECTIVE DATE.—This act shall take effect sixty days after its passage.

NEW JERSEY

NEW JERSEY STATUTES ANNOTATED, TITLE 2A, ADMINISTRATION OF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CHAPTER 170, DISORDERLY PERSONS GENERALLY

2A: 170-29. OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE; MOLESTING OR INTERFERING WITH

PERSON1. Any person who utters loud and offensive or profane or indecent language

in any public street or other public place, public conveyance, or place to which

the public is invited; or

2. Any person who in any place, public or private—

a. Addresses or makes audible and offensive remarks to or concerning

any passing person; or

b. Obstructs, molests or interferes with any person lawfully therein; or

3. Any person who telephones another and addresses to such person any

profane, lewd, lascivious, indecent or disgusting remarks; or

4. Any person who repeatedly telephones another for the purpose of annoying

or molesting such person—

Is a disorderly person.

Any offense committed under paragraphs 3 or 4 of this section may be deemed

to have taken place at either the place at which the telephone call was made or

the place at which the telephone call was received. As amended L. 1965, c. 172, § 1.

NEW MEXICO

[1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, PAGE 743] CHAPTER 120, LAWS 1967 (APPROVED

MARCH 24, 1967)

An act relating to crimes; prohibiting the use of the telephone to extort,

threaten, harass or offend; prescribing penalties and venue; amending section
40

40A-20-1 New Mexico Statutes Annotated, 1953 Compilation (being Laws 1963,

Chapter 303, Section 20-1) ; and enacting a new section 40A-20-8 New Mexico

Statutes Annotated, 1953 Compilation.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of New Mexico:

SECTION 1. [Statutory provisions relating to the crime of disorderly conduct

were amended].

SECTION 2. A new Section 40A-20-8 New Mexico Statutes Annotated, 1953

Compilation, is enacted to read:

T40A-20-8. USE OF TELEPHONE TO TERRIFY, INTIMIDATE, THREATEN, HARASS,

ANNOY, OR OFFEND--PENALTY.—

A. It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate,

threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to telephone another and use any obscene,

lawd or profane language or suggest any lewd, criminal or lascivious act, or

threaten to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of any

person. It shall also be unlawful for any person to attempt by telephone to extort

money or other thing of value from any other person, or to otherwise disturb by

repeated annonymous telephone calls the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any

other person at the place where the telephone call or calls were received, or to

maliciously make a telephone call, whether or not conversation ensues, with

intent to annoy or disturb another, or to disrupt the telecommunications of

another.

B. The use of obscene, lewd or profane language or the making of a threat or

statement as set forth in Subsection A shall be prima facie evidence of intent to

terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend.

C. Any offense committed by use of a telephone as set forth in this section

shall be deemed to have been committed at either the place where the telephone

call or calls originated or at the place where the telephone call or calls were

received.

NEW YORK

M'KINNEY'S CONSOLIDATED LAWS OF NEW YORK ANNOTATED, REVISED PENAL LAW,

EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER I, 1907

TITLE N—OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER, PUBLIC SENSIBILITIES, AND THE RIGHT

TO PRIVACY

ARTICLE 2 4 0—OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

§ 240.30. AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT—

A person is guilty of aggravated harassment when, with intent to harass,

annoy or alarm another person, he:

1. Communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or

by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner

likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or

2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication.

Aggravated harassment is a class A misdemeanor.

§ 240.50 FALSELY REPORTING AN INCIDENT—

A person is guilty of falsely reporting an incident when, knowing the information reported, conveyed or circulated to be false or baseless1. Initiates or circulates a false report or warning of an alleged occurrence or

impending occurrence of a fire, explosion, crime, catastrophe or emergency

under circumstances in which it is not unlikely that public alarm or inconvenience

will result; or

2. Reports, by word or action, to any official or quasi-official agency or organization having the function of dealing with emergencies involving danger to life or

property, an alleged occurrence or impending occurrence of a fire, explosion or

other catastrophe or emergency which did not in fact occur or does not in fact

exist; or

3. Gratuitously reports to a law enforcement officer or agency (a) the alleged

occurrence of an offense or incident which did not in fact occur; or (b) an

allegedly impending occurrence of an offense or incident which in fact is not

about to occur; or (c) false information relating to an actual offense or incident

or to the alleged implication of some person therein.

Falsely reporting an incident is a class B misdemeanor.
41

§ 70.15 SENTENCES OF IMRISONMENT FOR MISDEMEANORS AND VI0LATION1. Class A misdemeanor.—A sentence of imprisonment for a class A misdemeanor shall be a definite sentence. When such a sentence is imposed the term

shall be fixed by the court, and shall not exceed one year.

2. Class B misdemeanor.—A sentence of imprisonment for a class B misdemeanor shall be a definite sentence. When such a sentence is imposed the

term shall be fixed by the court, and shall not exceed three months.

NORTH CAROLINA

(1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, P. 640)

CHAPTER 833, LAWS 1967

RATIFIED JUNE 20, 1967

AN ACT To rewrite G.S. 14-196, relating to the use of profane, indecent or

threatening language over the telephone and annoying another by repeated

telephoning or making false statements over the telephone.

The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact:

SECTION 1. G.S. 14-196, is hereby rewritten to read as follows:

SECTION 14-196. Using profane, indecent or threatening language to any person

over the telephone; annoying or harassing by repeated telephoning or making

false statements over the telephone.— ( a ) It shall be unlawful for any person—

(1) To use in telephonic communications any words or language of a

profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious or indecent character, nature or connotation; -

(2) To use in telephonic communications any words or language threatening to inflict bodily harm to any person or physical injury to the property

of any person, or for the purpose of extorting money or other things of value

from any person;

(3) To telephone another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues,

for the purpose of abusing, annoying, threatening, terrifying, harassing or

embarrassing any person at the called number;

(4) To make a telephone call and fail to hang up or disengage the connection with the intent to disrupt the service of another;

(5) To telephone another and to knowingly make any false statement

concerning death, injury, illness, disfigurement, indecent conduct or criminal

conduct of the person telephoned or of any member of his family or household with the intent to abuse, annoy, threaten, terrify, harass, or embarrass;

(6) To knowingly permit any telephone under his control to be used for

any purpose prohibited by this section.

(b) Any of the above offenses may be deemed to have been committed at either

the place at which the telephone call or calls were made or at the place where

the telephone call or calls were received..

(c) Anyone violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a fine or imprisonment, or both, in the discretion of the court.

SEC. 2. If any provision or item of this Act or the application thereof is

invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions, items or applications

of this Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision, item or application, and to this end the provisions of this Act are hereby declared severable.

SEC. 3. G. S. 14-196, 1, G. S. 14-196,2-and all laws and clauses of laws in

conflict with this Act are hereby repealed.

SEC. 4. This Act shall be in force and effect from and after its ratification.

NORTH DAKOTA

[1.967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, P. 127] ( SENATE BILL NO. 128) , APPROVED

FEBRUARY 28, 1967

An act to create and enact section 8-10-07.1 of the North Dakota Century

Code, relating to harassing telephone calls.
Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the State of North Dakota:

SECTION 1. Section 8-10-07.1 of the North Dakota Century Code is hereby

created and enacted to read as follows:

8-10-07.1 TELEPHONE CALLS WITH INTENT TO ANNOY—MISDEMEANOR.—Any offense committed by use of a telephone as herein set out may be deemed to have

been committed at either the place at which the telephone call or calls were made

or at the place where the telephone calls were received, and any person shall be

guilty of a misdemeanor who1. With intent to annoy, harass, terrify, intimidate, or offend, telephones

another and addresses to such other person any threat to inflict injury to

any person or property of any person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; or

2. Makes a telephone call with intent to annoy another or without disclosing his true identity to the person answering the telephone, whether

or not conversation ensues from making the telephone call, is guilty of a

misdemeanor.

OHIO

PAGE'S OHIO REVISED CODE (1959 SUPP. ) TITLE 49

§ 4931.31 THREAT OR HARASSMENT IN TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION PROHIBITED

DIRECTORY NOTICE.—

No person shall, while communicating with any other person over a telephone,

threaten to do bodily harm or use or address to such other person any words or

language of a lewd, lascivious, or indecent character, nature, or connotation

for the sole purpose of annoying such other person; nor shall any person telephone any other person repeatedly or cause any person to be telephoned repeatedly for the sole purpose of harassing or molesting such other person or his

family.

Any use, communication, or act prohibited by this section may be deemed to

have occurred or to have been committed at either the place at which the telephone call was made or was received.

Every telephone directory distributed to the general public in this state which

lists the calling numbers of telephones of any telephone exchange located in

this state shall contain a notice which explains the offenses provided for in this

section, such notice to be printed in type which is not smaller than the general

body of the other type on the same page and to be preceded by the word "warning"

printed in type with at least equal prominence as the headings of other regulations

or information on the same page; provided, that the provisions of this section

shall not apply to those directories distributed solely for business advertising

purposes, commonly known as classified directories, nor to any telephone directory distributed or for which copy has been sent to the printer or is in the process

of printing or distribution to the general public prior to the effective date of this

section.

Any person, firm, or corporation providing telephone service which distributes

or causes to be distributed in this state one or more copies of a telephone directory

which is subject to the provisions of this section and which willfully omits the

notice herein provided for shall be deemed guilty of a violation of this section.

§ 4931.99 PENALTIES.—

*

(H) Whoever violates section 4931.31 of the Revised Code shall be fined not

more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

OKLAHOMA

OKLAHOMA STATUTES 1961, TITLE 21, CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS

§ 1021. INDECENT EXPOSURE—INDECENT EXHIBITION—OBSCENE OR INDECENT

WRITINGS, PICTURES, ETC.—Every person who willfully and lewdly either—

*

(4) makes, prepares, cuts, sells, gives, loans, distributes, or keeps for sale, or

exhibits any disc record, metal, plastic or wax, wire or tape recordings or any

other kind of sound recording of any obscene or indecent language, poetry, songs

or speaks any words by means of a telephone to any female person which would
43

be offensive to decency or is calculated to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or

acts, or any other communicable words, such as is offensive to decency, or is

adapted, to excite to vicious or lewd thoughts or acts, is guilty of a felony and

upon conviction therefor shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of not less

than Ten Dollars ($10.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or

by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ten (10) years,

or both such fine and imprisonment. (Laws 1961, p. 230 § 1)

OREGON

CHAPTER 109, LAWS 1967 (1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, P. 103) APPROVED

APRIL 3, 1967

An Act Relating to obscene, harassing and other prohibited telephone calls;

and providing penalties.

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

SECTION 1. (1) Any person who by means of telephone communication—

(a) Makes any comment, request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene

or lewd or lascivious and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten or harass

any person at the called number; or

(b) Makes a telephone call whether or not conversation ensues, with or

without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse threaten or

harass any person at the called number; or

(c) Makes or climes the telephone of another repeatedly or continuously

to ring, with intent to annoy or harass any person at the called number; or

(d) Makes repeated telephone calls during which conversation ensues,

solely to annoy or harass any person at the called number;

shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than one year in the

county jail or penitentiary, or both.

(2) Whoever knowingly permits any telephone under his control to be used

for any purpose prohibited by subsection (1) of this section shall be fined not

more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

SEC. 2. Any offense committed by use of the telephone as herein set out may

be deemed to be committed either at the place from which the telephone call was

made or at the place where the telephone call was received.

PENNSYLVANIA

PURDON'S PENNA. STATUTES ANNOTATED, TITLE 18, CRIMES AND OFFENSES

§ 4414.1 MALICIOUS USE OF TELEPHONES.—Whoever telephones another person

and addresses to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious or indecent

words, language, suggestion or proposal, or solicitation to engage in fornication

or any other immoral act, or whoever telephones another person repeatedly for

the purpose of annoying, molesting or harassing such other person or his or her

family, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined in any

sum not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500), or undergo imprisonment for

not more than one (1) year, or both: Provided, That any offense committed by

the use of a telephone, as herein set out, may be deemed to have committed at

either the place at which the telephone call or calls were made or at the place

where the telephone call or calls were received. (1939. P.L. 872; 1959 § 414.1,

1965 H.B. 1018)

RHODE ISLAND

GENERAL LAWS OF RHODE ISLAND-1956, TITLE II, CRIMINAL OFFENSES, CHAPTER

35, PUBLIC UTILITIES

§ 11-35-17. CRANK, OBSCENE TELEPHONE CALLS; PUNISHMENT.—Whoever shall

telephone any person repeatedly or cause any person to be telephoned repeatedly

for the sole purpose of harassing, annoying, or molesting such other person or

his family, whether or not conversation ensues; or whoever shall telephone any

person for the purpose of using any threatening, vulgar, indecent, obscene or

immoral language over the telephone, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall
44

be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) or by imprisonment for not more than one (1) year or both.

§ 11-35-18. EXPLOSIVES OR OTHER DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE OR CONTRIVANCE;

FALSE REPORTS AS TO LOCATION; PUNISHMENT.—Whoever, knowing the same

to be false, transmits or causes to be transmitted to any person by telephone or

other means a communication falsely reporting the location of any explosive

or other dangerous substance or contrivance thereby causing anxiety, unrest,

fear, or personal discomfort to any person or group of persons, shall be guilty

of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment at the adult correctional institution for not more than ten (10) years or by a fine of not more than one

thousand dollars ($1,000) or by both such fine and imprisonment.

§ 11-35-19. PROSECUTION.—The crimes described in sections 11-35-17 and 11-

35-18 may be prosecuted and punished in the territorial jurisdiction in which

the communication originates or is received. (Added Laws 1965, S.B. 92)

SOUTH CAROLINA

1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, PAGE 361, RATIFICATION NO. 602, LAWS 1967,

APPROVED JUNE 28, 1967

An Act to amend sections 16-552 and 16-552.1, Code of Laws of South Carolina,

1962, relating to the sending of obscene messages to a woman and to using indecent

language over the telephone, so as to further provide therefor.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. Section 16-552, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962, is amended on

line three by inserting ", except by telephone," between "soever" and "communicate". The Section when amended shall read as follows:

SEC. 16-552. Any person who shall anonymously write, print or by any other

manner or means whatsoever, except by telephone, communicate, send or deliver

to any woman or woman child within this State any obscene, profane, indecent,

vulgar, suggestive or immoral message shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon

conviction, shall be punished in the discretion of the court.

SEC. 2. Section 16-552.1, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1962, relating to using

indecent language over the telephone, is amended by striking it in its entirety and

inserting in lieu thereof the following so as to make it unlawful to use profane

languagle over the telephone, to telephone repeatedly, and to fail to hang up a

telephone:

SEC. 16-552.1. It shall be unlawful for any person anonymously or otherwise:

(1) to use in a telephonic communication any words or language of a profane,

vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or an indecent nature, or to threaten in a telephonic communication any unlawful act with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass

another person, or to communicate or convey by telephone an obscene, vulgar,

indecent, profane, suggestive, or immoral message to another person; (2) to telephone another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of

, annoying or harassing another person or his family; (3) to make a telephone call

and intentionally fail to hang up or disengage the connection, for the purpose of

interfering with the telephone service of another; (4) to telephone another and

make any false statements concerning either the death or injury of any member

of the family of the person who is telephoned, with the intent to annoy, frighten

or terrify that person; or (5) knowingly to permit any telephone under his control

to be used for any purpose prohibited by this Section.

Any person violating either items (1), (2) or (4) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished in the discretion of the court;

and any person violating either items (3) or (5) shall be guilty of a misdemeanor

and, upon conviction, shall be subject to a fine of not more than one hundred

dollars or imprisonment for not more than thirty days.

SEC. 3. If any portion of this Act is declared to be unconstitutional or is found

to be in conflict with any other provision of law, such determination shall not

affect any remaining portions.

SEC. 4. All provisions of Sections 16-552 and 16-552.1, Code of Laws of South

Carolina, 1962, shall remain in full force and effect insofar as they apply to and

support prosecution for any violation thereof occurring prior to the effective date

of this Act.

SEC. 5. This Act shall take effect upon approval by the Governor.

§ 16-552. VENUE FOR PROSECUTION UNDER § 16-552.1.—Thnue for prosecution

'pursuant to the provisions of this act shall be either in the county wherein the
45

telephonic communication originated or the county where it was received. (1961

(52) 451)

SOUTH DAKOTA

[1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, P. 81] (SENATE BILL NO. 97) APPROVED

MARCH 6, 1967

An act making it unlawful to use a telephone for purposes of terrorizing,

threatening, harassing, or annoying another person or for the purpose of extorting money or other things of value from any person, or knowingly permit the

use of a telephone for any of such purposes.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of South Dakota:

SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to use a telephone for any

of the following purposes:

(a) To call another person with intent to terrorize, intimidate, threaten,

harass, or annoy such person by using any obscene or lewd language or by suggesting any lewd or lascivious act.

(b) To call another person with intent to threaten to inflict physical harm

or injury to any person or property.

(c) To call another person with intent to extort money or other things of value.

(d) To call another person with intent to disturb any person by repeated

anonymous telephone calls or intentionally failing to replace the receiver or

disengage the telephone connection.

It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly permit any telephone under

his control to be used for any purposes prohibited by this Act.

SEC. 2. The use of obscene or lewd language or the making of a threat or

lewd suggestion or the failure to replace the telephone receiver as set forth in

this Act shall be prima facie evidence of the intent to terrorize, intimidate,

threaten, harass, annoy or disturb another person.

SEC. 3. Any offense committed by use of a telephone as set forth in this Act

shall be deemed to have been committed at either the place where the telephone

call or calls originated or at the place where the telephone call or calls were

received.

SEC. 4. Any violation of this Act shall be punishable by a fine of not more than

five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year

or by both such fine and imprisonment.

SEC. 5. If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the constitutionality of the remainder of the Act and applicability thereof to other persons and

circumstances shall not be affected hereby, and to this end, the provisions of

this Act are hereby declared severable.

SEC. 6. Whereas, this Act is necessary for the immediate support of the state

government and its existing institutions, an emergency is hereby declared to

exist and this Act shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and

approval.

TENNESSEE

TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED (1959 CUM. SUPP.)

39-3002. TELEPHONE CONVERSATION-LEWD, OBSCENE OR LASCIVIOUS REMARKSPENALTY.-It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to communicate to

another within this state by means of telephonic conversation, any lewd, obscene

or lascivious remarks, suggestions or proposals manifestly intended to embarrass,

disturb or annoy the person to whom the said remarks, suggestions or proposals

are made.

Any person or persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of

a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof be fined not more than one thousand

dollars ($1,000) and in the discretion of the court shall be confined in the county

jail or workhouse for some period of time less than one (1) year. [Acts 1957,

ch. 360, §§ 1,2.]
46

TEXAS

VERNON'S PENAL CODE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS ANNOTATED

Article 476. PROFANE LANGUAGE OVER TELEPHONE.—Whoever uses any vulgar,

profane, obscene, or indecent language over or through any telephone or whoever uses any telephone in any manner with intent to harass, annoy, torment,

abuse, threaten or intimidate another, except if such call be for a lawful business purpose, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be fined not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than One Thousand

Dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than one (1) month nor more than twelve (12) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (Acts 1909, p. 87, Laws 1965, H.B. 391)

UTAH

[1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, PAGE 19.] ( HOUSE BILL NO. 10) ( APPROVED

FEBRUARY 16, 1967)

An Act relating to crimes; prohibiting the use of the telephone for the purpose

of terrifying, intimidating, harassing, or offending another person.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Utah:

SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person with intent to threaten, frighten,

annoy or offend another to anonymously telephone another and (1) address to

or about such person any obscene, lewd or profane language or to suggest any

lewd or lascivious act or to address to such other person any threat to inflict Injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person addressed or any

member of his family, or (2) to disturb the peace, quiet or right of privacy of

any person at the place where the telephone call or calls are received by repeated

anonymous or unidentified calls whether or not conversation ensues.

The use of obscene, lewd or profane language or the making of a threat shall

be prima facie evidence of intent to annoy or offend.

SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person to anonymously telephone another

and knowingly make any false statement concerning injury, death, disfigurement,

Indecent conduct or criminal conduct of the person telephoned or any member of

his family with intent to terrify, intimidate, harass or annoy.

The making of a false statement as herein set out shall be prima fade evidence of intent to terrify, intimidate, harass or annoy.

SEC. 3. Any offense committed by use of a telephone as herein set out may be

deemed to have been committed at either the place at which the telephone call

or calls were made or at the place where the telephone call or calls were received.

SEC. 4. Any person who violates any provision of this Act shall on first conviction be fined not more than $299.00 or be imprisoned in the county jail for not

more than six months, or both, and upon a subsequent conviction for violation of this Act, the offender shall be fined not more than $1,000.00 or be imprisoned in

the state prison for not more than three years, or both.

'SEc. 5. The provisions of this Act are hereby declared to be severable. If any

of its sections, provisions, exceptions, sentences, clauses, phrases or parts are adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or void, the

remainder of this Act shall continue in full force and effect, it being the legisla- tive intent, now hereby declared, that this Act would have been adopted even if such unconstitutional or void matter had not been included therein.

•IM111•1111•11•M•

VERMONT

(1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, PAGE 239) APPROVED APRIL 15, 1967

An Act to prohibit use of telephones to terrify, Intimidate, threaten, harass

or annoy.

It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Vermont:

Section 1. Section 1027 is added to 13 V.S.A. to read:

SECTION 1027. DISTURBING PEACE BY USE OF TELEPHONE.— ( a ) A person who,

with Intent to terrify, Intimidate, threatent, harass or annoy, telephones another

and (1) makes any request, suggestion or proposal which is obscene, lewd,
47

lascivious or Indecent; (ii) threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the

person or property of any person; (iii) disturbs, or attempts to disturb, by repeated anonymous telephone calls, whether or not conversation ensues, the peace,

quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or

calls are received shall be fined not more than $250.00 or be imprisoned not

more than three months or both. If the defendant has previously been convicted

of a violation of this act or of an offense under the laws of another state or of

the United States which would have been an offense under this act if committed

In this state, he shall be fined not more than $500.00 or imprisoned for not more

than six months, or both.

(b) An intent to terrify, threaten, harass or annoy may be inferred by the trier

of fact from the use of obscene, lewd, lascivious or indecent language or the

making of a threat or statement or repeated anonymous telephone calls as set

forth in this act and any trial court may in its discretion include a statement to

this effect in its jury charge.

(c) An offense committed by use of a telephone as set forth in this act shall be

considered to have been committed at either the place where the telephone call or

calls originated or at the place where the telephone call or calls were received.

SEcrrIoN 2. SEVERABILITY.—The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be

severable. If any of its sections, provisions, sentences, clauses, phrases or parts

are adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or void,

the remainder of this act shall continue in full force and effect, it being the

legislative intent that this act would have been adopted even if the unconstitutional or void matter had not been included therein.

VIRGINIA

CODE OF VIRGINIA, 1950, TITLE 18. CRIMES AND 01'k E.NSES GENERALLY, ARTICLE 4.

MISCELLANEOUS OITENSES

§ 18.1-238. USE OF PROFANE, THREATENING OR INDECENT LANGUAGE OVE31 TELEPHONE; DUTY OF TELEPHONE CO3.1PANIE5.—If any person shall curse or abuse

anyone, or use vulgar, profane, threatening or indecent language over any telephone in this State, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be prosecuted

either in the county or city from which he called or In the county or city in which

the call is received. It shall be the duty of each telephone company in this State

to furnish immediately in response to a subpoena issued by a court of record

such information as it, its officers and employees, may possess which, in the

opinion of the court, may aid in the apprehension of persons suspected of

violating the provisions of this section. Any telephone company or any officer

or employee thereof who shall fail to refuse to furnish such information when so

requested, may be fined not more than one hundred dollars. (Code 1950, § 18-115;

1960, c. 358; 1964, c. 577.)

§ 18.1-238.1. GIVING CERTAIN FALSE INFORMATION TO ANOTHER BY TELEPHONE.—

If any person maliciously advised or informs another over any telephone in this

State of the death of, accident to, injury to, illness of, or disappearance of some

third party, knowing the same to be false, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(1962, c. 225.)

§ 18.1-238.2 CAUSING TELEPHONE To RING WITH INTENT To ANNOY; PUBLICATION OF SECTION IN TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES REQUIRED.—Any person who, without intent to converse but with intent to annoy any other person, causes any

telephone not of his own to ring shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person

who permits or condones the use of any telephone under his control for such

purpose also shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Every such company shall print

this section in its telephone directories hereafter issued. (1962, c. 495.)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

[1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, P. 231 (CHAPTER 16, LAWS 1967)

( SENATE BILL NO. 77) APPROVED MARCH 7, 1967

An act relating to telephone calls; and prescribing a penalty for making calls

of an obscene, threatening or harassing nature.
48

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Washington:

SECTION 1. Every person who, with intent to harass, intimidate, torment or

embarrass any other person, shall make a telephone call to such other person—

(1) Using any lewd, lascivious, profane, indecent, or obscene words or

language, or suggesting the commission of any lewd or lascivious act: or

(2) anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour,

whether or not conversation ensues; or

(3) threatening to inflict injury on the person or property of the person

called or any member of his family; or

(4) without purpose of legitimate communication; shall be guilty of a

misdemeanor.

SEC. 2. Any person who knowingly permits any telephone under his control

to be used for any purpose prohibited by section 1 shall be guilty of a

misdemeanor.

SEC. 3. Any offense committed by use of a telephone as set forth in section 1

of this act may be deemed to have been committed either at the place from

which the telephone call or calls were made or at the place where the telephone

call or calls were received.

SEC. 4. If any portion of this act is held to be unconstitutional or void, such

decision shall not affect his validity of the remaining parts of this act.

WEST VIRGINIA

1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, PAGE 239 (HOUSE BILL NO. 540) [APPROVED

MARCH 17, 1967, TO TAKE Ekk LCT 90 DAYS FROM PASSAGE ON MARCH 10, 1967]

An act to amend and re-enact section sixteen, article eight, chapter sixty-one

of the code of West Virginia, one thousand nine hundred thirty-one, as amended,

relating to the penalty for profanity, obscene, indecent or vulgar language, annoying, abusive, tormenting, harassing or embarrassing call or calls or threats over

the telephone.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia, That section sixteen, article

eight, chapter sixty-one of the code of West Virginia, one thousand nine hundred

thirty-one, as amended, be amended and re-enacted to read as follows:

ART. 8. Crimes Against Chastity, Morality and Decency.

SEC. 61-8-16. Profanity, obscene, indecent, or vulgar language, annoying,

abusive, tormenting, harassing, or embarrassing call or calls, or threats over

telephone; penalty.

If any person shall make use of any telephone facility or equipment for, (1)

placing any anonymous call or calls in a manner which could reasonably be

expected to annoy, abuse, torment, harass or embarrass any person, (2) profanely cursing, swearing at or abusing another, or using profane, obscene,

indecent or vulgar language, or (3) threatening to commit a crime against any

person, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Any offense committed under this section may be deemed to have taken

place at the place at which the telephone call was made or placed, or the place

at which the telephone call was received.

Any person convicted of an offense hereunder, shall be punished by a fine

or not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for

not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

WISCONSIN

WISCONSIN STATUTES, CHAPTER 947

947.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.—Whoever does any of the following may be fined

not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than 30 days:

* * * * * * *

(2) With intent to annoy another, makes a telephone call, whether or not

conversation ensues.
49

WYOMING

[1967 NEW LAWS, REGULAR SESSION, PAGE 95] CHAPTER 98, LAWS 1967 (HOUSE BILL

NO. 5) , APPROVED FEBRUARY 10, 1907

An Act relating to the use of telephone equipment and making it unlawful

and a misdemeanor to use such equipment for certain purposes, and providing

a penalty for violations and providing for an effective date.

Be it enacted by the legislature of the State of Wyoming:

SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person using a fictitious name, name of

another or anonymously with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy

or offend to telephone another and use any obscene, lewd or profane language

or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict injury or physical

harm to the person or property of any person. It shall also be unlawful to

attempt to extort money or other thing of value from any person, or to otherwise

disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls the peace, quiet or right of

privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or calls were received.

SEC. 2. Any offense committed by use of a telephone as set forth in this section

shall be deemed to have been committed at either the place where the telephone

call or calls originated or at the place where the telephone call or calls were

received.

SEC. 3. Any person violating any of the provisions of this Act shall be deemed

guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a

fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment in

the county jail for a period not to exceed one (1) year, or by both such fine and

imprisonment.

SEC. 4. This act shall be in force and effect from and after its passage.

Mr. ' KORNEGAY. Is there anybody else in the hearing room who

desires to be heard on the bills that the subcommittee has under consideration?

If nobody else wishes to be heard, do any of the members of the

subcommittee have any statements they desire to make at this time?

With that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.

(The following material was submitted for the record:)

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. WILSON, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION,

THE AMERICAN LEGION

Chairman Macdonald, gentlemen of this important Subcommittee. The American Legion welcomes this opportunity to support S. 375. As an organization

comprised exclusively of men and women who fought to preserve this nation

In time of war, we are concerned with this legislation which would serve to

curb practices alien to our way of life.

In 1965, based on complaints from many sections of the United States, representatives of The American Legion testified in suport of Senate bill 2351. We,

and others who were repelled by these vile practices, had high hopes this legislation would be swifty approved. Unfortunately, such was not the case. We

appeared again last year before the Senate subcommittee in favor of S. 375.

The testimony I offer today is based on a mandate adopted by our National

Convention, Resolution 311, unanimously adopted by delegates representing

the more than 21/2 million 'members of The American Legion. The full text

of the resolution reads:

"Whereas there has been an outbreak of vicious, outrageous telephone calls

harassing and threatening widows and relatives of servicemen killed in Viet

Nam; and

"Whereas The American Legion is an organization comprised exclusively of

veterans who served during wartime and therefore have a deep understanding

of the effect of harassment on the families of servicemen; and

"Whereas The American Legion wholeheartedly supports the American

position in Viet Nam to curtail the spread of communism throughout the "Free

World ;" and
50

"Whereas there is presently a bill before the Congress designed to protect

the morale and efficiency of members of the Armed Forces by making it a

federal offense for anyone to make threats or harass members of the Armed

Forces, their wives, widows or families: Now, therefore, be it

"Resolved by The American Legion in National Convention assembled in

Washington, D.C., August 30, 31, September 1, 1966, That we support such legislation and urge its immediate passage by the Congress."

In cases falling within the purview of this proposed legislation, we are dealing

with sick, deranged or depraved individuals in most instances. However, as the

number of American servicemen fighting in Viet Nam grows, so grows the extent

of harassment of their families which leads to the inevitable conclusion that

mental cruelty to the dependents of members of our Armed Forces is as much a

part of war as guns, bullets and bombs. It also follows that among the sick, the

nuts and the pacifists, there are dedicated communists as well.

Psychological warfare against troops is not new. During World War II, it

was used by the Germans and Japanese. But the harassment of the wives,

children, mothers and fathers of soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen sets a

new low in cruelty and barbarism. As you might presume, our primary interest

in S. 375 is the protection of the families of servicemen, particularly those

defending freedom in Viet Nam.

I cannot emphasize too strongly how important The American Legion feels

this legislation is. May I assure you that it has the unequivocal support of our

organization. If any changes were to be made, my recommendation would be

that the penalties be made more severe.

I thank you.

U.S. INDEPENDENT TELEPHONE ASSOCIATION,

Washington, D.C., February 6, 1968.

Hon. HARLEY 0. STAGGERS,

Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR CHAIRMAN STAGGERS: For the record, the U.S. Independent Telephone

Association (USITA) encourages the passage of legislation providing for punishment of those who make obscene or harassing telephone calls. Your Committee

has under consideration S. 375, H.R. 611 and similar bills which would prohibit

such calls in interstate commerce. On these bills your Committee received testimony last week from Vice President Kertz of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and officials of government.

The USITA represents the Independent, non-Bell, segment of the telephone

industry. Although about one fifth the size of the Bell System in numbers of

telephones, the Independents serve more than half the geographical area of

the nation. There are Independent telephones in 48 of the 50 states, including

Hawaii and Alaska which are totally Independent.

Representative Kornegay in his questioning of Mr. Hubert Kertz of the AT&T

Company developed that the testimony then being given concerned only 80

percent of the country's total telephones. There was the implied question as to

the attitude of the other 20 percent, the Independents. We would like to answer

that question.

iWhen S. 375 was before the 'Subcommittee on Communications of the Senate

Commerce Committee, I testified (February 16, 1967) as to the position of the

USITA. I said: "Our Association fully supports the endeavors of this Committee in attempting to obtain federal legislation to make it a crime to originate

obscene or harassing telephone calls." I added, "Like all trade associations we

operate by policy declaration of our Board of Directors." Our directive is as

follows:

"The USITA supports the concept that federal and state legislation should

provide penalties for the origination of obscene or harassing telephone calls both in interstate and intrastate commerce. Since there is no federal legislation on

the subject and since not all states have such legislation, the Association urges

legislative action by the federal and appropriate state governments."

Today I am happy to note that state legislation has been enacted in the 12 States

that were without legislation at the beginning of 1967. We now need legislation

only for interstate calls (and for the District of Columbia which Is served exclusively by a Bell System affiliate). Enactment of S. 375 will close the last

loophole.
4

51

Like the Bell System, our companies use devices or methods to apprehend the

originator of obscene or abusive telephone calls. These techniques do not involve

monitoring of conversations but are aimed at the identification of the calling number. Prosecution is the responsibility of law enforcement authorities to whom we

provide the details of our investigation's.

Complaints of abusive calling are of considerable concern to our companies.

This is because our customers view such calling with great alarm. Discouragement of anonymous calling requires prompt and effective action in order that the

telephone remain an instrument of great utility and not a tool for anonymous

abuse of persons.

You now may be sure that the entire telephone industry, Independent and

Bell, encourages the enactment of S. 375 at an early date. If we can be of any

assistance to the Committee please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM C. Mow, Executive Vice President.

(Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.)