FBI has no designs on a Klein investigation

September 14, 1995|By New York Times Syndicate

How much trouble is Calvin Klein really in? Not much, according to legal and media experts.

Even the Justice Department is soft-selling an FBI inquiry into whether Mr. Klein violated child-pornography laws with his recently stricken CK Jeans campaign.

"Ridiculous" is the word most often used by industry observers in reaction to news of the probe.

But the fact remains that the campaign, featuring young amateur models in provocative situations, has caught the government's eye at a time when conservative factions are flexing considerable political muscle.

Mr. Klein, perhaps the most high-profile designer in the world, is famous for tweaking the notion of sexual propriety.

He could still have, if not a criminal problem, a public-relations disaster on his hands.

The last few days have been a virtual whirlwind for the designer. On Sept. 7, he was on "Good Morning America," talking fashion and prepping for the realization of a career goal: his own elegant 20,000-square-foot boutique on Madison Avenue.

The next day, he was hit with a front-page story in the Wall Street Journal telling of an FBI "investigation" into the CK/child pornography issue.

Newspapers and TV jumped on the story over the weekend.

Some, such as the New York Times, gave the story short shrift, while New York's Daily News went Page 1.

As for his potential legal problems, John Russell, a spokesman for the Department of Justice, said it's far too early to tell if Mr. Klein is in any trouble.

Mr. Russell characterized the Wall Street Journal story as "jumping the gun."

"The story is written as such that you'd believe the Calvin Klein offices are being surrounded by FBI agents. That is not so," he said.

"The FBI has not lifted one finger on this. It is a preliminary investigation being discussed at Justice's criminal division's child-exploitation section and FBI headquarters."

"I would characterize it as an inquiry," Mr. Russell said. "When the FBI goes out and talks to witnesses, uses search warrants, seeks grand jury subpoenas, that is what I would call an investigation."

Privately, government sources said the probe is not a high priority and criminal charges appear unlikely.

Should the government choose to make a case, however, it has already determined one key fact: Some of the models were under 18, an essential component to the child-pornography laws, although sources said Mr. Klein may not have been aware of their ages.

The CK issue began to heat up publicly when the conservative American Family Association petitioned U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno.

But Mr. Russell said the Klein ads caught the Justice Department's attention soon after the campaign was launched, two weeks before the American Family Association's request.

At issue is whether the ads violated laws designed to protect children from being exploited by pornographers.

No advertisers charged

However, no pornography cases have ever been brought against a national company for its advertising.

Prosecutions have focused on cases involving homemade and underground purveyors of pornography. As such, penalties for a single offense carry a maximum 10-year prison term and $250,000 fine.

Pornography is a First Amendment issue, and a lot of leeway is generally given to even the most tasteless advertising, according to media scholars, who note the Klein ads seem to DTC mimic homemade child pornography. For instance, the ads appear to have been shot in a paneled basement of a suburban home in which the models look like they are being asked to perform.

"It's possible for an advertiser to flunk the tackiness test but still pass the legal test," said Sandy Scott, communications law professor, University of Missouri School of Journalism. "If the ads are glorifying pornography, then certainly Calvin Klein could have a problem -- but it's a public-relations problem."

Ms. Scott doubts that Mr. Klein will be prosecuted since, she said, there doesn't seem to be an out-and-out violation of the law: The Klein ads aren't explicit but rather allude to sexual behavior.

"Pornography is difficult to define," said Everette Dennis, executive director of the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center at Columbia University, excerpting former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous line on how to determine what's pornography: "I know it when I see it."

"I don't think the ads constitute kiddie porn," Mr. Dennis said. "Kiddie porn is a pretty serious allegation that usually involves pretty brutal sexual exploitation of children. The ads I have seen are certainly suggestive and have a come-hither look and demonstrate a sexual content and quality. But does this encourage explicit activity or underage sex? I don't think there is any evidence of that."

For Biergit Wassmuth, associate professor of advertising also at Missouri, the protest against the Klein ads from conservative and family groups will work in his favor since teen-agers will want to buy something that's verboten.

A mirror to society

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.