A former U.S. intelligence agent, Bill Lyon has gone from performing covert actions to defending overt attractions as the executive director of the adult entertainment's trade organization, the Free Speech Coalition. Lyon's crossover from one end of the political spectrum to the other is a passage more remarkable than cross-dresser Eddie Izzard's. Born in Iowa in 1937, Lyon was raised by teachers and spent most of his teen years in Illinois. He majored in philosophy at Illinois Wesleyen University, and after graduating moved to Chicago, then to the East Coast.
Lyon became FSC's executive director in 1999, and serves one-year terms at the pleasure of the Coalition's board of directors. Lyon has a WASPy, avuncular, businesslike appearance, and could pass for a Washington or corporate insider, belying stereotypes of the adult community he represents. AVN Online went to the Lyon's den - FSC headquarters in e-porn's ground zero, L.A.'s San Fernando Valley - to interview the white haired, 65-year-old free speecher.
AVN Online: Which philosopher influenced you most during college? Bill Lyon: [laughs] Immanuel Kant.
AO: After graduating, what was your work experience?
BL: For 13 years, I was involved in U.S. government intelligence work.
AO: CIA, FBI?
BL: I won't comment. After that period, I was a vice president for Unimark Corp., a political communications company, and became a lobbyist and did lots of communications work for companies like Ford, General Electric, Litton Industries, IBM, and defense contractors. I spent lots of time at Washington representing the interests of the defense industry in terms of legislation and budgeting. After moving to L.A. in the late '80s, I was marketing director for a foundation for developmentally disabled children.
AO: When you served with U.S. intelligence, was it domestic, foreign?
BL: I was involved in activities primarily outside of the U.S.
AO: Did this include covert actions?
BL: I wouldn't comment [laughs.] It's a lifetime contractual obligation that you can't talk about things you were involved in. I can safely say I became rather disenchanted with the government, the way it operated. Some of the extra-legal activities going on were very much against things I believed in.
AO: Now or at the time?
BL: It hasn't changed any. It's still going on, the same kind of things. I disagreed with a number of their policies at the time. But of course, my work was not to disagree, but to carry out things I was instructed to do.
AO: As Tennyson wrote: "Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do and die."
BL: [Laughs] That's sort of the situation. You can comment on it after you get out of the situation, but not while you're doing it.
AO: Did you know renegade CIA agent Phil Agee?
BL: No comment.
AO: Did you oppose overthrowing Chile's democratically elected leftist Pres. Allende?
BL: I certainly was not in favor of the way it was done.
AO: Tell us about your life experiences after your intelligence work?
BL: In the early 1980s, I went back to school part-time at Georgetown University to complete work on my Masters in the philosophy of law and philosophy of science, a dual major. I'm currently working on a Ph.D. degree at Georgetown; lots of things I'm writing about must be cleared with the federal government. The subject is propaganda and covert actions in Latin America as a tool of foreign policy, 1964-1987.
AO: Of course, if you expanded the timeline and included domestic clandestine operations, you might have to include the 2000 presidential election.
BL: [Laughs] I'd certainly include the war on terrorism and propaganda about weapons of mass destruction. These are exactly the kinds of things used to destabilize others' governments in the 1970s and 1980s. They were very successful, used in South America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. And those same kinds of techniques are now being used by the Bush administration to convince Americans they've got this terrible war of terrorism, they're constantly under danger of attack. It's an old technique - you keep the citizenry off-balance, constantly worried about their safety, and they don't pay any attention to what's really going on: The administration's changing the whole damn country. They've taken all kinds of rights away from people. We've got a bunch of people in government who are so beholding to certain aspects of industry that they're allowing those industries to affect the environment, get their hands on social security, etcetera. But by keeping people scared about this war on terrorism, nobody's paying serious attention to the fact that the country's going down the drain.
AO: What repercussions do the war on terrorism and the Iraq and North Korea crises have on the adult Internet?
BL: What has potentially tremendous affect are things like the PATRIOT Act, and if you watch the way the government's working, they're now building up humongous central dossiers on people, on ordinary citizens. They'll have access to everything you look at online, all the phone calls you make. This is something that [in the past] would've required going before a judge. Now, these guys are just saying we have a right to take it, because it's a war on terrorism, and everybody should be frightened to death, and we've got to give up our rights in order to catch these guys. A perfect example of this nonsense they're putting out is this business about five guys who entered the U.S. from Canada during Christmas. [Subsequently discredited as a hoax.]
AO: Is the PATRIOT Act and homeland security's cyber-snooping a cause for alarm for the FSC?
BL: It's a cause for alarm for every American citizen. I'm astonished people are going along with it. People have become so laid back about freedom, and what it means. It can be taken away so fast, so quickly, you may never be able to get it back.
AO: Are you concerned the PATRIOT Act may be used to cyber-snoop on ordinary Americans' cybersex habits?
BL: That can very easily be happening. At the least, they can be used to embarrass you, a lightweight form of blackmail. At the most, they can be used to coerce people into saying things they don't believe that can be used against the industry. Now I think there's a live and let live attitude - if adult sites aren't hurting anyone, it should be an individual's choice. Most think the PATRIOT Act has to do with the war on terrorism, but it also specifically states it has to do with criminal activity. If the Justice Department suspects what they define as criminal activity, they'd be warranted to use these techniques.
AO: Rand Corp. analysts and others claim porn sites have been used to encode terrorist messages via steganographic images.
BL: Let them show us the proof. I've never seen any specific site named.
AO: A U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq was outed as being involved in S/M sites.
BL: [Laughs] It's much ado about nothing. He's either a legitimate expert in inspecting weapons or not. That's all there is to it. Who cares what his sex life's like?
AO: Maybe Saddam will offer him millions to defect and run Iraq's dungeons?
BL: [Laughs] Maybe the Bush administration has a bunch of closet S/M guys.
AO: What do you think are the main issues and challenges facing the adult Internet in the next five years?
BL: Of course, we oppose kiddie porn and bestiality; that's illegal. Anything illegal, we oppose, although we don't support antiquated legislation, like anti-sodomy laws in Louisiana. And we'd do our best to overturn it, if it affected the industry. People engaged in sex on a loving basis can't possibly be obscene. There is danger in some areas of the adult Internet, which have to learn to take responsibility for making it difficult for children to access those sites.
AO: Instead of a dot-com, should there be a "dot-cum" designation?
BL: From the standpoint of preventing children from logging on, there's some positive things to say about a "dot-xxx." However, it's outweighed by negative things. It ghettoizes the industry. It makes it extremely easy for any ISP to instantaneously shut off all access. It sort of thwarts free speech. It behooves us in the industry to police ourselves and make sure kids can't get on our sites.
AO: What do you think about free sites with hardcore content, which anyone can log onto?
BL: They took the initial step of credit card verification, however, there's lots of sites where you can still get free peeks without processing your credit card. And when you look at Yahoo!, MSN, etcetera, you have all these groups and clubs which are totally free and require no identification. In many cases, they've pirated content from commercial sites to put on their free sites. These are the places of greatest danger. In fact, it's where I search out child porn - not the commercial sites - to send over to Adult Sites Against Child Pornography, which reports those sites to the FBI and U.S. Customs. We put up a reward of $10,000 for the apprehension and conviction of child pornographers.
AO: What else is facing e-porn?
BL: More than anything, they've got to take responsibility for spam they're putting out. There's way too much, it's going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Because people are becoming more resentful; I resent getting unrequested e-mails from people wanting me to look at pornography, and that actually have a pornographic picture. Spam is the most fearful issue to me. Unless we control our own house, someone else will. And it may be far more draconian than we'd like. We need to take a look, and realize we're jeopardizing the potential for our industry to live freely.
AO: What about pop-up ads, banners?
BL: There should be some self-regulation, so companies are careful where they put this stuff and who gets it. If it's a pop-up ad, they should be very circumspect in the ad's content. It shouldn't be explicit.
Another challenge is the situation with various credits card companies. American Express just flat refuses to accept adult. Visa now has made it much more difficult for adult sites because of the size of [the industry's] chargebacks, and the fact Visa actually comes into your merchant bank account and take that money when they feel chargebacks are due -Visa's contracts have the right to do that. Ordinarily, credit card companies talk to merchants to see what the situation is first - but with adult companies, they don't do that. Larger sites may be able to survive this; but mom and pop-type shops, it's very painful for them and many will go out of business.
AO: Other challenges for the adult Web?
BL: Broadband's certainly going to be very important. We'll see changes in the technical nature of downloads. Even with broadband, it's pretty apparent you're not going to instantly download large volumes of full movies. It just takes too damn long. I suspect we'll see formats in which individual activity's set up - you may have oral, anal, various sexual activities, which can be somewhat limited in terms of megabytes they take up, so they can be downloaded reasonably quickly. Look for boutiques of that type of content.
E-tailing will increase a lot. I'd look for lots of lingerie, sex toys, lubricants - much more than there is now.
AO: What will FSC do in the next five years regarding these problems you've cited?
BL: We're able to be far more politically effective in Washington or a state capital if I can point out things the industry's done to self regulate. It makes it less likely others will regulate things for us. We as an industry group can't police or punish people, however, the industry itself can ostracize individuals, and bar someone from joining FSC. You may have to give up certain things in order to do a majority of things you want to do.
AO: What's your interpretation of what FSC does and is?
BL: FSC's view was directed to protecting the rights of individuals in our community, our trade organization. I think I've successfully convinced people the really important thing we do is represent the rights of our consumers to have access to our products and services; the right of citizens to read, view, discuss, whatever they want to. That's what the First Amendment assures us. If we can rally our consumers they don't have to be in the closet, that this is a perfectly normal thing, and step up to the plate and say, "Hey we want to have access to this. Don't mess around with us, government!" then we'd have accomplished something.
FSC is a nonprofit, but not a charitable nonprofit. We represent members' interests in three areas: education; lobbying; and litigation support. Education is an ongoing program making the general public aware of the industry - its size, scope, etcetera, and why it has the right to operate - First Amendment information. I talk at universities - you'd be amazed how little college students know about the Bill of Rights. There's also an educational component to lobbying. Legislators get confused by other lobbying groups as to what citizens' rights are. It's the old story: The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
AO: Or the lube.
BL: [Laughs] The Religious Right's in there constantly to destroy our industry, presenting one very narrow point of view as if it's a big perspective. We have to be in there presenting the other side. Interestingly enough, the total number of conservative Christian fundamentalists in America is supposedly 30 million - almost exactly the same number of people who subscribe to adult Internet sites. I often worry if it's the same folks. [Laughs] If you include all the people who go to strip clubs, watch adult videos, etcetera, I'd guess 50 million Americans consume entertainment annually.
Most of the time, legislators won't support strictly adult legislation. It'd be political suicide, bringing down the Religious Right's wrath. It's not our job to give the names of politicians we give legal campaign contributions to - it's their job. However, many legislators support the right of the individual citizen to do these things. We work closely with legislators to tighten prosecutors' loopholes. Kat Sunlove's our legislative affairs director now; originally, she was a contract lobbyist for us in California. Kat will go to our six state chapters to train people in lobbying.
Litigation support is where a case comes up to: A) create a precedent; or B) affects the entire adult industry. That's exactly what happened in the virtual child porn case, which we fought since 1996 and recently reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where we won. The ACLU said that was the most important First Amendment decision in decades. The ACLU, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the American Library Association, People for the American Way, are also FSC allies.
AO: Will FSC play a role in the 2004 presidential campaign?
BL: Absolutely. We played a role in 2002's congressional races. We sent out 3-4 million e-mails to individuals who consume adult products, suggesting they should be very careful to vote for candidates who support the liberal view that they have the right to see these products. In keeping with our nonprofit status, particular candidates were not cited. We hope this e-mailing will be much expanded, and that by 2004 we'll have more Coalition state branches set up and will be more effective doing this.
AO: What would you say to someone who says, "You oppose spam but are spamming?"
BL: You're right. [Laughs] I won't reveal how we get the lists. But I can also say the vast majority of our members are not spamming.
AO: What about violence, urination, defecation, and fisting in e-porn?
BL: I'm not much of an understander of violence having to do with sexuality, and most FSC members avoid real violence or bloodshed in their productions. Urination, defecation, and fisting are niche markets - not my cup of tea. If it's something loving people do together, it's probably not obscene. If it's not obscene, it's not illegal.
AO: Are you the adult industry's Jack Valenti?
BL: [Laughs] I only hope I represent the adult industry as well as Jack Valenti represents movies.
AO: What percentage of your membership is from the online side of the adult industry?
BL: In terms of proportion of our budget, the Internet provides 30 percent of our budgetary needs and consumes almost 90 percent of our budgetary time, because that's where the action is now, and where the government's looking. They want to make the biggest noise when they go after people - and the Internet is the most visible thing now. I'd say 40 percent of the major Internet companies are members, including Babenet, CE Cash, Python, Cyber Entertainment.
AO: You're expending triple to defend Net interests versus what they contribute. Are cybersexers deadbeats?
BL: No. Unfortunately, many in the Internet don't see themselves as part of the adult industry, but as being "cyber-people." Their issues are exactly the same as those of adult videos and cabarets.
AO: What's FSC's annual budget?
BL: Approximately $750,000.
AO: What's your response to criticism that FSC's just a bureaucracy taking money from members to pay its staff salaries?
BL: [Laughs] It's the world's smallest bureaucracy - there's only four staffers. Kat, Bill Margold, our trade show coordinator, and a membership director/secretary. Our salaries represent 30-33 percent of our total budget.
AO: What do you think of the Internet Freedom Association?
BL: My understanding is they see themselves as a trade association for the adult Internet. Their premise that certain things are so unique to the Internet that they needed a separate organization is wrong. Things that are the same far outweigh things that are different. If IFA was simply being started to provide health insurance and travel discounts for people who have Internet companies, that wouldn't bother me. But it's of great concern to me that people who are essentially inexperienced in political communications and lobbying are trying to put together an organization that says it's going to do that. Almost all of the issues vital to the Internet are federal. You don't just go in and do it - not until you've earned your stripes. I believe IFA formed at last summer's Internext. My view is: When we start speaking with separate voices, we're almost bound to fail. It's taken FSC years to bring all segments of the adult industry together into one voice so we spoke cohesively. The largest companies on the Internet are with us. In fact, the Global Internet Association, which was formed to represent the Internet, merged into FSC over a year ago. Greg Dumas, one of iGallery's founders and now working with Python; Digital Playground's Samantha Lewis; Private USA's Mara Epstein; and Danni Ashe, are on our 13-member board. So, we really do represent the adult Internet, as well as all other segments of the adult industry. I can't emphasize how vital it is that we speak with one voice, and not speak separately.
AO: How did you become FSC's Executive Director?
BL: I responded to a classified ad, and was interviewed by a Coalition committee. Of course, I had the stereotypical views of what people in adult entertainment were like, but I had to change those views quickly because the people I met were intelligent, articulate, and successful business people.
I had no previous experience with adult at all, but I am a fervent believer in the First and Fourth amendments, and all of the damn Bill of Rights. What's made this country great is that individuals are able to do what they want to do. In some work I did in the past, I think I did things that thwarted people's free speech, and was very disappointed in myself for having done that.
AO: No regrets?
BL: Sure. Lots of regrets.
AO: So, by going from one extreme to another, are you atoning for past sins?
BL: Absolutely not. I'm a Republican; always have been. I consider myself to be a conservative Republican; I just don't consider the rest of the guys who call themselves conservative Republicans to be very honest about it. I might even go so far as to say I'm a closet libertarian. We need less law, period, and certainly not laws that infringe on citizens' individual rights. If you're in the service of your country, you're not representing your individual views.
Alex Kollantai is a frequent contributor to AVN Online.
