Second FBI Raid This Week: Erotic Stories Website Hit, Apparently Over Obscenity

[Miyana Books]

PITTSBURGH, PA - The FBI raided the home of a controversial erotic stories website owner on Friday, apparently on charges of obscenity. The website, red-rose-stories.com, posted a notice on its home page announcing the raid and warning customers that the FBI now has access to all past customer information.

“I am sorry to inform all interested parties that Red Rose Stories is a DEAD site,” read a statement posted on the website by operator Rosie. “The FBI has suceeded [sic] in closing me down. I am being charged with 'OBSCENITIES' and face charges for having posted such stories. Our stories are NOT protected speech. Please, please, be careful out there.”

The stories in question, according to the website’s announcements, include no images or videos, but describe acts of bestiality, urination, scat, BDSM, slavery, threesomes, orgies and sex with children.

According to Rosie’s post, the FBI entered her home while she was away and seized several items before leaving.

“The men in black (FBI) took ALL of my computer equipment, and many of my diskettes, and have access to ALL my files and site information,” Rosie warned on her site. “They came when I was NOT home and siezed [sic] my belongings, I had no choice, and no recourse.”

Rosie’s attorney Larry Walters, of Weston, Garrou, DeWitt and Walters, said that the FBI will have a difficult case if the raid was merely over the content of text stories.

"We're still investigating the issues associated with the raid, but at this point it does not appear that any basis exists to justify obscenity charges premised on the written stories and audio files that were the subject of the search warrant,” Walters told YNOT. “While obscenity laws are broad enough to potentially cover the written word, a conviction based solely on text, or even audio, would be an extreme uphill battle for the government in the current culture. We are hopeful that once the matter is reviewed at the next level, no further action will be taken in regards to the stories at issue."

The Red Rose raid has already set off a firestorm of opinions on adult webmaster chat boards, with some people expressing dismay that stories could fall under obscenity laws, while others stated support for the FBI in its targeting of such materials.

“Publishing pedo fantasy stories about 6 month old babies getting finger fucked is OBSCENE, is over the line, and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,” posted one user on GFY.com, although YNOT has not yet been able to verify the exact nature of the targeted stories. “I have no sympathy for this site. It should not be protected as free spreech [sic]. The entire premise is to cater to the fantasies of pedos at the most debased and perverted levels imaginable. When you are writing sexually perverse stories describing pornographic acts on infants, toddlers, and children you are generating the same effeect [sic] as if you were publishing pictures of such.”

Another poster disagreed that stories can be equated to actual pictures of children being abused.

“I do not care what a story is about,” the poster wrote. “It could be as sick, perverted, evil, and downright dispicable [sic] to satan himself and it should never be considered illegal. It is a fucking story.”

The case is still under investigation, and it is unclear whether charges other than obscenity will be leveled against the site operator.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

Wasn't Red Rose raided like 6 months ago?

 

[Miyana Books]

Yeah, this is from October.

I just saw it today. I didn't know.

 

[Pure]

IT does sound like Literotica's refusal of stories of sex with children and of bestiality is prudent, indeed.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Scary...

There is another site, Storiesonline.net that allows anything. The amount of stuff on that site that deals with pedophila is scary. I'd be damned worried if I was writing anything with minors in it. I usually put a disclaimer with all of my stories that all participants are 18 and over.

I just checked the Red Rose site, the date of closure seems to be Oct 3, 2005.

 

[Pure]

it's worth mentioning that there have been federal 'obscenity' prosecutions, routinely over the years (though Clinton diminished them). i'm referring to written material.

aside from the child and beast categories already named, i think the 'deviate' stuff (other than gay) is potentially vulnerable, in two categories: scat and pee; and SM. these sorts of things, in visual media (i.e., pornography) are definitely problematic, and I can see the extention to written matter. that, of course, would impinge on literotica.

 

[MissBri]

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Jett,

Your point is well made, and I agree somewhat with you. I saw a series of stories on another site where the writer espoused his belief that it was healthy and normal for adult family members to have sexual relations with 12 year old children.

The problem is where do we draw the line....a 14 year old? ...a 13 year old? 12...11....10...?

For me personally, I will not write anything under 18...

Brian
drksideofthemoon

 

[MissBri]

 

[Pure]

drkside said, I saw a series of stories on another site where the writer espoused his belief that it was healthy and normal for adult family members to have sexual relations with 12 year old children.
----

How did you determine the author's beliefs (assuming it's fiction we're talking about).

If you read a story of murders--let's say, American Psycho--do you say the author 'espouses his belief that it is healthy and normal to murder.'

 

[drksideofthemoon]

drkside said, I saw a series of stories on another site where the writer espoused his belief that it was healthy and normal for adult family members to have sexual relations with 12 year old children.
----

How did you determine the author's beliefs (assuming it's fiction we're talking about).

If you read a story of murders--let's say, American Psycho--do you say the author 'espouses his belief that it is healthy and normal to murder.'

It was on his profile page that he said that he thought it was normal, healthy, and loving for adults to have sexual relations with children that were family members as young as 12. I didn't read any of his/her work. That was enough for me to keep on going.

 

[Pure]

drkside It was on his profile page that he said that he thought it was normal, healthy, and loving for adults to have sexual relations with children that were family members as young as 12. I didn't read any of his/her work. That was enough for me to keep on going.

surely that's NOT common for the author to be publicizing his views, next to his stories

it seems to me that readers generally do NOT have that kind of information. in all the 'alt' stories i've read, there is a pseudonym and rarely a brief 'author bio', and virtually no author statements.

(there are exceptions: of course a gay author or 'bdsm lifestyle' person may well make that known; but again if you see lots of violence in the latter's story, do you conclude he thinks that level of violence in fine in real life bdsm?)

do you try to figure the author's views in these other cases, e.g, when you read a typical lit. story?

 

[LadyJeanne]

To me, there's a difference in fantasizing, writing, photographing, and engaging in sex (or murder, etc.).

As a woman who was sent to the "good girls don't (and they certainly don't talk about it!)" school of sex, it wasn't until I ran across Nancy Friday's book, Women on Top, that I fully accepted that many women masturbate, and that they fantasize while doing so, and they sometimes fantasize about unspeakable things...and that it was ok! To be honest, it freed my mind from the guilt and shame of doing something wrong, which I kinda thought I was doing.

For that reason, I'd hate for porn writers to be censored. It's words. It didn't happen.

I tend to doubt that someone who never thought sex with kids or animals was erotic would suddenly start wanting to do it because they read a story. Just like I'm not suddenly going to start murdering people because I enjoyed reading a murder mystery.

 

[Pure]

The big picture, for those who want it:

Feds Stepping Up Obscenity Prosecutions
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

Wednesday, May 4, 2005



(05-04) 12:23 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --


Thomas Lambert made no attempt to hide the kind of videos he peddled from his Montana home — hard-core sex tapes involving bestiality, sadomasochism and simulated rape.


The 65-year-old former schoolteacher had little reason to believe he could get in trouble. He was selling tapes to adults who wanted them and there had not been a federal obscenity prosecution in Montana in at least 16 years, according to his lawyer, Mark Errebo.


But Lambert and co-defendant Sanford Wasserman were charged last spring with violating federal obscenity statutes. In pleading guilty, they joined a growing number of purveyors of pornography whom the Bush administration has pursued.


Since 2001, 40 people and businesses have been convicted and 20 additional indictments are pending, said Andrew Oosterbaan, chief of the Justice Department's child exploitation and obscenity section. By comparison, there were four such prosecutions during the eight years of the Clinton administration, he said.


Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, like his immediate predecessor, John Ashcroft, has pledged to make obscenity prosecutions a priority. The department is expected to announce soon the creation of a special unit within its criminal division to focus on adult obscenity cases.


"Enforcement is absolutely necessary if we are going to protect citizens from unwanted exposure to obscene materials," Gonzales recently told federal prosecutors. He directed U.S. attorneys to report back by late July on effective ways to crack down on obscenity and what tools the prosecutors might need.


Those kind of words please religious conservatives, who claim the Clinton administration virtually ignored the proliferation of pornography, particularly on the Internet, during the 1990s.


Critics say a few dozen criminal cases will not dent an industry with an estimated $10 billion a year in sales. Moreover, they say, the effort is an assault on the First Amendment protection of speech and expression, however distasteful.


"They'll find some sacrificial victims, but the porn industry will go on," said Marjorie Heins, founder of the Free Expression Policy Project at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice.


A proponent of strict enforcement of obscenity laws agreed with Heins that so far, the administration has aimed mostly at minor figures in the industry.


"At some point, they're going to have to ratchet it up if they want to do something meaningful," said Robert Peters, president of Morality in Media.


Oosterbaan said the government has won convictions in high-profile cases. He cited a guilty plea last year from John Coil of Highland Village, Texas, who owned and operated 27 adult-oriented businesses in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Coil forfeited an estimated $8.1 million in property to the government and was sentenced to more than five years in prison.


In addition, there is the 23-count indictment against Edward Wedelstedt of Littleton, Colo., and his Goalie Entertainment Holdings Inc. Wedelstedt owns pornographic bookstores in 18 states; the indictment lists six allegedly obscene videos and DVDs.


The government is seeking the forfeiture of millions of dollars in real estate and other property, including a Lear jet, in the Wedelstedt case.


Henry W. Asbill of Washington, Wedelstedt's lawyer, said the indictment was politically motivated.


"My client supplies his own stores with adult materials that are for adults only. Consenting adults come into the stores and view or rent or buy the movies," Asbill said.


In trying to prosecute obscenity, it long has been difficult to distinguish obscenity from indecent content. As former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once famously said about hard-core pornography, "I know it when I see it."


The Supreme Court has ruled that many dirty pictures are constitutionally protected free speech that adults have the right to see and buy. The high court also has rebuffed Congress' attempts to ban or restrict adult-oriented Web sites.


But the court also set out ground rules for obscenity in its landmark 1973 ruling in Miller v. California that allow the standards for offending material to vary from one community to the next.


The Justice Department's approach has been to identify videos that even some in the pornography business find unappealing and to bring charges in more socially conservatives places, where possible.


In the Montana case, Lambert distributed videos that even his lawyer said were "frankly, disgusting."


In the case against Wedelstedt, the government filed charges in Dallas, where the Colorado resident was indicted.


But a recent court decision in Pittsburgh could upset the administration's plans. U.S. District Judge Gary Lancaster tossed out an obscenity indictment against Extreme Associates Inc. and its owners, Robert Zicari, and his wife, Janet Romano, both of Northridge, Calif.


Lancaster ruled that prosecutors overstepped their bounds while trying to block the company's hard-core movies from children and from adults who did not want to see such material. He said the company can market and distribute its materials because people have a right to view them in the privacy of their own homes.


The government has appealed.

 

[Pure]

Need a job?

Recruits Sought for Porn Squad

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 20, 2005; Page A21

The FBI is joining the Bush administration's War on Porn. And it's looking for a few good agents.

Early last month, the bureau's Washington Field Office began recruiting for a new anti-obscenity squad. Attached to the job posting was a July 29 Electronic Communication from FBI headquarters to all 56 field offices, describing the initiative as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and, by extension, of "the Director." That would be FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III.

Mischievous commentary began propagating around the water coolers at 601 Fourth St. NW and its satellites, where the FBI's second-largest field office concentrates on national security, high-technology crimes and public corruption.

The new squad will divert eight agents, a supervisor and assorted support staff to gather evidence against "manufacturers and purveyors" of pornography -- not the kind exploiting children, but the kind that depicts, and is marketed to, consenting adults.

"I guess this means we've won the war on terror," said one exasperated FBI agent, speaking on the condition of anonymity because poking fun at headquarters is not regarded as career-enhancing. "We must not need any more resources for espionage."

Among friends and trusted colleagues, an experienced national security analyst said, "it's a running joke for us."

A few of the printable samples:

"Things I Don't Want On My Resume, Volume Four."

"I already gave at home."

"Honestly, most of the guys would have to recuse themselves."

Federal obscenity prosecutions, which have been out of style since Attorney General Edwin Meese III in the Reagan administration made pornography a signature issue in the 1980s, do "encounter many legal issues, including First Amendment claims," the FBI headquarters memo noted.

Applicants for the porn squad should therefore have a stomach for the kind of material that tends to be most offensive to local juries. Community standards -- along with a prurient purpose and absence of artistic merit -- define criminal obscenity under current Supreme Court doctrine.

"Based on a review of past successful cases in a variety of jurisdictions," the memo said, the best odds of conviction come with pornography that "includes bestiality, urination, defecation, as well as sadistic and masochistic behavior." No word on the universe of other kinks that helps make porn a multibillion-dollar industry.

Popular acceptance of hard-core pornography has come a long way, with some of its stars becoming mainstream celebrities and their products -- once confined to seedy shops and theaters -- being "purveyed" by upscale hotels and most home cable and satellite television systems. Explicit sexual entertainment is a profit center for companies including General Motors Corp. and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (the two major owners of DirecTV), Time Warner Inc. and the Sheraton, Hilton, Marriott and Hyatt hotel chains.

But Gonzales endorses the rationale of predecessor Meese: that adult pornography is a threat to families and children. Christian conservatives, long skeptical of Gonzales, greeted the pornography initiative with what the Family Research Council called "a growing sense of confidence in our new attorney general."

Congress began funding the obscenity initiative in fiscal 2005 and specified that the FBI must devote 10 agents to adult pornography. The bureau decided to create a dedicated squad only in the Washington Field Office. "All other field offices may investigate obscenity cases pursuant to this initiative if resources are available," the directive from headquarters said. "Field offices should not, however, divert resources from higher priority matters, such as public corruption."

Public corruption, officially, is fourth on the FBI's priority list, after protecting the United States from terrorist attack, foreign espionage and cyber-based attacks. Just below those priorities are civil rights, organized crime, white-collar crime and "significant violent crime." The guidance from headquarters does not mention where pornography fits in.

"The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's top priority remains fighting the war on terrorism," said Justice Department press secretary Brian Roehrkasse. "However, it is not our sole priority. In fact, Congress has directed the department to focus on other priorities, such as obscenity."

At the FBI's field office, spokeswoman Debra Weierman expressed disappointment that some of her colleagues find grist for humor in the new campaign. "The adult obscenity squad . . . stems from an attorney general mandate, funded by Congress," she said. "The personnel assigned to this initiative take the responsibility of this assignment very seriously and are dedicated to the success of this program."




Permission to Republish
© 2005 The Washington Post Company

 

[MissBri]

 

[drksideofthemoon]

drkside It was on his profile page that he said that he thought it was normal, healthy, and loving for adults to have sexual relations with children that were family members as young as 12. I didn't read any of his/her work. That was enough for me to keep on going.

surely that's NOT common for the author to be publicizing his views, next to his stories

it seems to me that readers generally do NOT have that kind of information. in all the 'alt' stories i've read, there is a pseudonym and rarely a brief 'author bio', and virtually no author statements.

(there are exceptions: of course a gay author or 'bdsm lifestyle' person may well make that known; but again if you see lots of violence in the latter's story, do you conclude he thinks that level of violence in fine in real life bdsm?)

do you try to figure the author's views in these other cases, e.g, when you read a typical lit. story?

The stories were at Storiesonline.net and he had a group of stories grouped in a "Universe", and it was on his Universe page that the writer espoused his/her beliefs in pedophilia and incest...

And no, when I read a writer's work, I don't try to judge the writer's views from their writings, just as I hope no one tries to understand my views from my work.

 

[BlackShanglan]

And no, when I read a writer's work, I don't try to judge the writer's views from their writings, just as I hope no one tries to understand my views from my work.

While I don't think that many authors - at least many good ones - attempt to expound upon their ideals and morals in a direct and dogmatic sense in a work of fiction, I question whether it is possible for one's personal views to be completely effaced from the text. I question whether one is wholly in conscious control of all elements of one's text in the first place; I believe that one's individual and social existence enter into the text, whether one chooses to incorporate them deliberately or not. That it can be difficult to tell which views in the text come from the author, and that it is dangerous to confuse the author with the character, I think true; however, I do not believe that that obviates the presence of the author in the text. It was composed by a living, thinking, feeling person under a variety of complex influences, and thus I think is very unlikely to be a pure, isolated, self-contained universe.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

Yes, Mistress Jett

It does sound ominous, if Gonzales has to prove himself to the Christian Right.

BTW, it is not just videos we're talking; the key term is 'obscenity', which applies against written material; that's stuff appealing to 'prurient interests', iirc.

 

[MissBri]

 

[Pure]

I thinking too, of Sade, who's always had problems.

Then there's Lolita. For those who can discern an author's position, what did he think of, of feel toward, the acts depicted? (which have been found to resemble the real life episode of Sally Horner.)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1774602,00.html

[corrected]

---
If this url does not work, Google for Lolita and Sally Horner and the Times article should be near the top of the list.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Pure, the link in your last post didn't work for me.

==

Just a reminder that unlike the two articles Pure posted, the "Red-Rose" story that kicked off this thread is unattributed. When this came up before, some of us tried to track it down, but to no avail. Odds are, it's phony. That's no reflection on the valid issues since raised here. But it should remind us that any such "news" flash should be view with extreme skepticism.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Pure]

Red Rose is real

these look like semi respectable sites:

posted Oct 11

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/ChillInTheAir.htm

-------
see Oct 23 entry at

http://www.censorwatch.co.uk/cw1005.htm

====
Note there is also action against the site nowthatsfuckedup.com (see the FSC coalition site mentioned)

It's worth noting that 'nowthatsfuckedup' gained notariety by publishing gruesome pictures from the Iraq war. The army was quite concerned.
The charging of the site for 'obscenity' is, transparently, politically motivated.

 

[R. Richard]

I do not support censorship and I do think that porn is a reasonable expression of views. Hell, I write porn!

However, when some idiot attempts to publish written porn that describes sex between adults and small children or sex with four footed animals, that person is NOT aiding the cause. That sort of porn hurts those of us who write porn. It may be that that sort of porn should be allowed, but it is not currently allowed and is not likely to be anytime soon.

The type of written porn I have described above is bad enough, but to also offer photos and/or movies of the same type of porn is the written equivalent of a suicide bombing that only targets people in the porn "industry."

If someone has a monumental work of fiction that might change public opinion, then that sort of thing might be ventured, although the risk is still very high.

To publish run of the mill porn of the type I have described helps no one and hurts all of us.

JMHO.

 

[Pure]

Red Rose--Planet Manu

Our Manu, in "Planet Manu" thinks the incident is real, fwiw.


http://manu.literotica.com/2005/10/08/sex-story-site-raided-by-fbi/