Red Rose Prosecution: Obscenity?

[Selena_Kitt]

They're taking it to trial.

Obscenity Prosecution: Do You Know It When You Read It?

 

[rgraham666]

I wonder if Karen Scott will be one of the prosecutors.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I wonder if Karen Scott will be one of the prosecutors.

ROFLMAO!!!!

OMG I so needed that laugh...

Rob...

 

[Guest]

edited

 

[Liar]

One of the things I hate about defending free speech, is having to side with the child porn people.

I was thinking about this lately. soon it will be difficult to find even mention of child abuse anywhere, because of this sort of prosecution.

If I recall correctlty, one of the reasons that child abuse occurs is that the attacker isolates the victim. Makes the victim feels like he is the only "dirty" one. Now, if we again won't be able to talk about it,describe, whathever, how will a victim even know they are being abused?

Will he child pornography laws bring the veil over child abuse again?

I hope I made sense

Maharat

You did.

Child pornography is not about publicing obscene material. Child pornography starts with sexual abuse, or let's be frank, the rape, of a child. And taking and spreading film and pictures of this rape is to extend the abuse. That is the crime, not the spreading of obscene material. To make it easy, I think anyone involved in actual child porn distribution should be charged with rape. That would make it clear what thedeed is really about.

Written child rape fantasies, drawn paintings, or even re-enactments with consentual actors (as long as no other laws are broken), does not fall under that category.

It disgusts me when someone doing the latter are brought to either prosecution or media attention (or both), and people start flinging the words "child porn" around in the same context. Because by doing so, they are equalling what the child was subjected to, with a victimless pseudo-crime.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

So she was abused as a child and wrote about it. Okay.
So there are scenes in the story that are quite explicit. Okay
So she took her stories and passed them around amoung her friends. Okay.
Then she posts her story in the public domain knowing that kiddy porn is not an acceptable catagory of literature. Bingo!

I'm not sure if this woman is just stupid or this is some phony excuse to try and get away with it.

I suspect the latter. If it smells like horseshit, don't step in it.

 

[Pure]

this is an obscenity case, not a porn case. that's because it's written material.

unlike child porn, a crime was not committed *in order to make it [the story of the events depicted]*.
(though the lady may be recounting a crime, or fictionalized version of it.).

note this is the kind of thing that worries the lit owners, were they NOT to have a rule about ch'n.
---

apropos of jenny's posting and some others:

jenny Then she posts her story in the public domain knowing that kiddy porn is not an acceptable catagory of literature. Bingo!

------

 

[Liar]

this is an obscenity case, not a porn case. that's because it's written material.

unlike child porn, a crime was not committed *in order to make it*.
(though the lady may be recounting a crime, or fictionalized version of it.).

note this is the kind of thing that worries the lit owners, were they NOT to have a rule about ch'n.

My point exactly. Which is why it irks me that whenever it happens, people start mentioning child porn (even that article does), as if it was even in the same ballpark. As if it was even on the same planet.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

My point exactly. Which is why it irks me that whenever it happens, people start mentioning child porn (even that article does), as if it was even in the same ballpark. As if it was even on the same planet.

If they rule against this women, it puts it right in the same neighborhood...

 

[keeblercrumb]

There is something strangely ironic about all this....

To consider sexual child abuse... "prurient" for legal "obscenity" purposes , it seems to me you have to find it... well.... prurient. Presumably the author did not find it "prurient" to have been abused as a child.... unlike the people who would send her to jail who obviously found the stories to be sexually arousing and therefore "prurient"..... Hmmm.

Am I missing something here? Just curious....

-KC

 

[Pure]

roth decision

is the key one, re obscenity.

through a number of contortions, brennan argued that 'obscenity' wasn't the sort of 'free speech' the founders wanted to protect in the first amendment.

besides being 'prurient' and 'offensive' it was utterly without [ideas that had any] 'social importance'

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0476_ZO.html

{{the dissent by Douglas, arguing that offense to the community or impurity of thought cannot be a valid standard is at

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0476_ZD.html }}




[start excerpt Brennan opinion for the majority]

The dispositive question is whether obscenity is utterance within the area of protected speech and press. [n8] Although this is the first time the question has been squarely presented to this Court, either under the First Amendment or under the Fourteenth Amendment, expressions found in numerous opinions indicate that this Court has always assumed that obscenity is not protected by the freedoms of speech and press. Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 736-737; United States v. Chase, 135 U.S. 255, 261; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281; Public Clearing House v. Coyne, 194 U.S. 497, 508; Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308, 322; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 716; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572; Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 158; Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 510; Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 266. [n9] [p482]

The guaranties of freedom of expression [n10] in effect in 10 of the 14 States which by 1792 had ratified the Constitution, gave no absolute protection for every utterance. Thirteen of the 14 States provided for the prosecution of libel, [n11] and all of those States made either blasphemy or profanity, or both, statutory crimes. [n12] As early as [p483] 1712, Massachusetts made it criminal to publish "any filthy, obscene, or profane song, pamphlet, libel or mock sermon" in imitation or mimicking of religious services. Acts and Laws of the Province of Mass. Bay, c. CV, § 8 (1712), Mass.Bay Colony Charters & Laws 399 (1814). Thus, profanity and obscenity were related offenses.

In light of this history, it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance. This phrasing did not prevent this Court from concluding that libelous utterances are not within the area of constitutionally protected speech. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 266. At the time of the adoption of the First Amendment, obscenity law was not as fully developed as libel law, but there is sufficiently contemporaneous evidence to show that obscenity, too, was outside the protection intended for speech and press. [n13] [p484]

The protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people. This objective was made explicit as early as 1774 in a letter of the Continental Congress to the inhabitants of Quebec:

The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honourable and just modes of conducting affairs.

1 Journals of the Continental Congress 108 (1774).

All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance -- unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion -- have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. [n14] But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. This rejection for [p485] that reason is mirrored in the universal judgment that obscenity should be restrained, reflected in the international agreement of over 50 nations, [n15] in the obscenity laws of all of the 48 States, [n16] and in the 20 obscenity laws enacted by the Congress from 1842 to 1956. [n17] This is the same judgment expressed by this Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-572:

. . . There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene. . . . It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . .

(Emphasis added.) We hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press. [end excerpt]

 

[cantdog]

Well, if the defense is telling us the real skinny, it'll go away. Not even a test case.

 

[cantdog]

There was a guy in new hampshire one election year who dressed as a giant penis and campaigned for president. At least with me, he told people, you know you're gonna get screwed. He was a clown by profession. They busted him for obscenity.

 

[Frank Noir]

So she was abused as a child and wrote about it. Okay.
So there are scenes in the story that are quite explicit. Okay
So she took her stories and passed them around amoung her friends. Okay.
Then she posts her story in the public domain knowing that kiddy porn is not an acceptable catagory of literature. Bingo!

I'm not sure if this woman is just stupid or this is some phony excuse to try and get away with it.

I suspect the latter. If it smells like horseshit, don't step in it.

An "acceptable category" of literature? Whatever happened to freedom of expression?

Okay. I post graphic rape stories in the public domain. Why would that be more "acceptable" than kiddy porn? And does that make me as stupid or phony as my unfortunate colleague here?

Don't get Lit's rules confused with some international standard. On www.asstr.org (to name but one), anything goes.

 

[Pure]

almost all sex writing is legal in the states. the types being prosecuted are, in general, often child sex, and in this case, further, violent child sex. they're picking the most offensive.

bonf Whatever happened to freedom of expression?

see Roth, in post #11 above. the first amendment, according to the SC, does NOT protect obscene stuff, part of the definition of which is that the sexual material is just 'prurient' (arousing) and has no social value.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Much as I hate to speak up for this woman, I feel I must. As far as I can see, she is one of the Communists that the Nazis are coming for first.

 

[Frank Noir]

Much as I hate to speak up for this woman, I feel I must. As far as I can see, she is one of the Communists that the Nazis are coming for first.

My thoughts exactly.

(Except I don't hate speaking up for her - I'm slowly, but surely turning into a freedom of speech geek...)

 

[Pure]

for a real 'free speech' view, see the Douglas dissent in Roth. url:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0476_ZD.html

HOWEVER, in the Brennan majority, note that 'free speech' has always been limited, since before the US constitution. it's one of those 'now you see it, now you don't' features of the constitution. historically, the earliest Americans definitely did NOT believe in it, else they would not have placed laws against blasphemy on the books--- some of which are still there.

 

[CrazyCatGuy]

see Roth, in post #11 above. the first amendment, according to the SC, does NOT protect obscene stuff, part of the definition of which is that the sexual material is just 'prurient' (arousing) and has no social value.

There are probably infinately more stories on Lit with less social value than what she's (claiming she's) writing about, so does that mean the authors of those stories should get prosecuted as well? I mean, if all that they can charge her for writing her stories is "obscenity", then most erotic fiction on the net can be similarly catorized, being just 'prurient', and has no social value.

 

[Pure]

hi crazy,

There are probably infinately more stories on Lit with less social value than what she's (claiming she's) writing about, so does that mean the authors of those stories should get prosecuted as well? I mean, if all that they can charge her for writing her stories is "obscenity", then most erotic fiction on the net can be similarly catorized, being just 'prurient', and has no social value.

good point. the way the law attempts to differentiate is to talk about the 'patently offensive'; you need prurience, offensive, and no social value.

i think you would agree that in the larger community, a vast majority of lit stories would not seriously offend them.

that is why the US prosecutions are aiming at certain violent material, including directed at children. they want something that the vast majority will say 'yecchh, that is truly offensive.'

 

[CrazyCatGuy]

If just by the standards of "prurience, offensive, and no social value," plenty of nonconsent stories on Lit, as well as a few other sites, will also fall under that catagory. The only difference with her stories is that it features children.

So does this mean that rape is not "patently offensive"? No, as i'd think the general population, especially women(sorry for the generalization), would also consider those to be seriously offensive.

Now, whats to stop them from being prosecuted? Hell, 50 years ago, even interracial stories would've been considered seriously offensive to the vast majority of Americans...

 

[Pure]

you're right. the gov simply needs to find a conservative venue, and some lit stories, e.g. about rape, could be prosecuted as 'obscene.'

the only thing stopping it is the profusion of such stories [and absence of prosecution]. read the BC court decision someone posted. there IS tacit acceptance.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=265837

if you read the judge's reasoning, you see that he looks at mainstream material that's equally far out, like 'american psycho', esp. the book.

 

[Boxlicker101]

you're right. the gov simply needs to find a conservative venue, and some lit stories, e.g. about rape, could be prosecuted as 'obscene.'

the only thing stopping it is the profusion of such stories [and absence of prosecution]. read the BC court decision someone posted. there IS tacit acceptance.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=265837

if you read the judge's reasoning, you see that he looks at mainstream material that's equally far out, like 'american psycho', esp. the book.

I don't believe Lit permits stories about violent rape, and I know they don't permit stories about statutory rape. I do have one story about a violent rape, but it is in the EH category, and the rapist was killed at the end.

The idea about "disgusting" worries me, though. I don't read or write stories about "golden showers" or "water sports" because I find them gross. At the same time, if somebody else wants to read or write such stuff, I have no objection. I do write gay male stories, and some neurotic persons find the subject to be "disgusting", and they read them by the dozen, just to pinpoint which ones they are.

Anyhow, suppose the gov. says "These are disgusting stories, and they should be deleted"? What would happen then, I wonder.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

suppose the gov. says "These are disgusting stories, and they should be deleted"? What would happen then, I wonder.

There's that damned slippery slope again...

 

[rgraham666]

Which some people will jump on head first going "Wheeeeee!"