GLR September-October 2025

on a report bringing together all the evidence they had collected about Florida’s homosexuals. They hoped this report would shock and outrage citizens across the state, leading to stricter laws against homosexuals and ensuring the committee’s life and funding. Titled “Homosexuality and Citizenship in Florida: A Report of the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee,” it sought to give an “objective” account of the homosexual prob lem that Florida faced. The report contained a summary of the Florida laws and sex ual offenses, a “Glossary of Homosexual Terms and Deviate Acts” (“trade,” “queen,” “chicken,” “zoophilia,” “Pygmalion ism”), and a “Bibliography on Sexual Deviations” including more than 350 scholarly articles and books. The report noted the various theories about the cause of homosexuality but con cluded “that the Biblical description of homosexuality as an ‘abomination’ has stood well the test of time.” It stated flatly: “The homosexual’s goal and part of his satisfaction is to ‘bring over’ the young person, to hook him for homosexuality.” Al though the report noted that people typically confuse the child molester and the homosexual, it said there was an important dif ference. It claimed that victims of child molestation typically get over it very quickly and lead a normal life. (In fact, sexually abused children often become abusers themselves.) In the case of the homosexual, according to the report, the child was “a vic tim, then an accomplice, and finally himself a perpetrator of ho mosexual acts.” The goal of the pamphlet was not only to “educate” the Florida citizenry about homosexuality but, more importantly, to “shock” them and mobilize popular support to control the ho mosexual threat. While the sensationalized text went some dis tance in accomplishing this, it was the photos taken from the committee’s files that quickly caught attention. Called the “Pur

ple Pamphlet” because of the color of its cover, the title page used as its background a black-and-white photo of two men, naked to the waist, in a tight embrace and kissing on the mouth. Introducing the text was another full-page photo showing a nearly naked, blond teenage boy tied up in BDSM bondage. The report concluded with a full-page photo of a man receiving oral sex from another man in a bathroom stall. The report was released in early March 1964, with the staff director calling it “deliberately hard hitting” in order to impress the situation on the public. Two thousand copies were printed and made available for 25 cents from the governor’s office. It quickly drew public attention, but not the kind the committee had expected. Within a day of its release, legislators receiving copies called it “obscene” and “nauseating.” The Dade County state’s attorney banned the circulation of the report in the county, calling the pictures “obscene and pornographic.” The Miami Herald called it “Official Obscenity” that used taxpay ers’ money to print pornography. It demanded the resignation of every state official involved. Soon the controversy over the report caused the committee to implode. The governor called for an end to the committee, saying it “serves no purpose whatsoever.” When the legislature met the following spring, they closed it down. Headlines such as “Goodbye, Johns Committee” and “Johns Committee: A Death Few Mourned” greeted its demise. Most of its 30,000 pages of documents and photographs were destroyed. A small remainder, heavily redacted, was boxed up and put in the State Archives, to be kept sealed for 72 years. However, in 1993, bowing to pressure from Florida histori ans and the LGBT community, the state legislature opened the committee’s records to researchers and the public. Over the last 30 years, at least four books, two documentary films, seven ac ademic theses, and numerous academic and popular articles, book chapters, and YouTube videos were produced using the Johns Committee’s files. Fieseler’s is the most recent and per haps the most complete account. The “Purple Pamphlet” had its own afterlife. When it was first published, only 750 copies were released, and the bulk were later destroyed amid the uproar. Fortunately, the Guild Press, a Washington, D.C., publishing house whose books and physique magazines catered almost exclusively to a gay male audience, sent a request to the governor’s office and received a copy of the report. It then printed 10,000 copies and sold the 25-cent report for $2. The director of the press noted that “sales in Florida are quite good.”

September–October 2025

33