Time for a Freedom of Speech discussion?

[Seattle Zack]

Sorting through my newsgroups the other day, one alarming tidbit arose ...

Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff had hundreds more contacts with top White House officials than those Bush administration officials had previously acknowledged, according to a congressional report to be released on Friday.

Naw, that wasn't it ...

Former teen TV star Dustin Diamond is reportedly the star of a candid new sex tape in which he romps with two women. The 29-year-old, who played geek Screech Powers in "Saved By the Bell," engages in a number of sexual acts with the women in the 40-minute tape.

How did that get in there? Oh, yeah, here it is (emphasis mine):

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/15621840.htm

A woman accused of running a Web site that published graphic fictional stories about the torture and sexual abuse of children was indicted by a federal grand jury on obscenity charges.

Karen Fletcher, 54, of Donora, was indicted Tuesday, and the charges were announced on Wednesday by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan.

"Use of the Internet to distribute obscene stories like these not only violates federal law, but also emboldens sex offenders who would target children," Buchanan said.

Buchanan is an outspoken proponent of prosecuting Internet obscenity. In 2003, she brought charges against two people who run a company that distributes videos simulating rape and murder.

...

The charges carry a statutory maximum of 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine, but the actual sentence she would face if convicted would be driven by federal sentencing guidelines.

---
This Mary Beth sounds like a rather dangerous crusader. V.C. Andrews, one that comes to mind, has published far more horiffic stuff. How long before BDSM fiction gets onto her radar and she decides it's a politically advantageous move to prosecute those offensive smut peddlers?

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Sorting through my newsgroups the other day, one alarming tidbit arose ...

Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff had hundreds more contacts with top White House officials than those Bush administration officials had previously acknowledged, according to a congressional report to be released on Friday.

Naw, that wasn't it ...

Former teen TV star Dustin Diamond is reportedly the star of a candid new sex tape in which he romps with two women. The 29-year-old, who played geek Screech Powers in "Saved By the Bell," engages in a number of sexual acts with the women in the 40-minute tape.

How did that get in there? Oh, yeah, here it is (emphasis mine):

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/15621840.htm

A woman accused of running a Web site that published graphic fictional stories about the torture and sexual abuse of children was indicted by a federal grand jury on obscenity charges.

Karen Fletcher, 54, of Donora, was indicted Tuesday, and the charges were announced on Wednesday by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan.

"Use of the Internet to distribute obscene stories like these not only violates federal law, but also emboldens sex offenders who would target children," Buchanan said.

Buchanan is an outspoken proponent of prosecuting Internet obscenity. In 2003, she brought charges against two people who run a company that distributes videos simulating rape and murder.

...

The charges carry a statutory maximum of 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine, but the actual sentence she would face if convicted would be driven by federal sentencing guidelines.

---
This Mary Beth sounds like a rather dangerous crusader. V.C. Andrews, one that comes to mind, has published far more horiffic stuff. How long before BDSM fiction gets onto her radar and she decides it's a politically advantageous move to prosecute those offensive smut peddlers?

Well, you're going to have a hard time evoking any sympathy from me for Ms. Fletcher. Yes, I believe in the freedom of speech but, with that freedom comes responsibilities. I'm sorry but, a site dedicated to graphic fiction of torture and abuse of children is over the line. Just my opinion for what it is worth...

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Gotta agree with the moon-man. For me, this is a kiddie porn issue, not "freedom of speech."

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Seattle Zack]

I see. And the hundreds of thousands of sites that are devoted to tentacle rape are acceptable?

I question the legal grounds of prosecuting someone who publishes fiction. It may be offensive to you (and it certainly is to me). So I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

I see. And the hundreds of thousands of sites that are devoted to tentacle rape are acceptable?

I question the legal grounds of prosecuting someone who publishes fiction. It may be offensive to you (and it certainly is to me). So I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it.

It's a tough call for those of us who believe in freedom of speech and press. With the Bushites running things, there's an almost instinctive lurch towards attacking any restraints. But kiddie porn ain't tentacle rape.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Lauren Hynde]

But kiddie porn ain't tentacle rape.

And fictional reports of fictional kiddies being fictionally raped isn't kiddie porn either.


I'll just copy-paste some excerpts of what I said about this case on the other thread about it. Some of it may sound a bit decontextualised, but hey:

I hope that by "this sick woman", you mean U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan and the idiot legislators that passed the obscenity laws that let her do this. The number of outstanding classic works of literature that have been prosecuted under obscenity laws is staggering.

Writing the fictional report of the fictional kidnapping, fictional torture, fictional sexual molestation and fictional murder of a fictional nine-year-old is as much of a crime as writing about BDSM, incest, non-consent sex, gay sex, or a happily-married couple doing it in the darkness of their room. It all depends on what U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan feels like. It's all thought-crime.

...

If you don't believe the woman should have been allowed to post fictional stories, why should U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan believe you should be allowed to post yours?

...

What is the difference between the fictional writings of that woman and your fictional writings? None. It's only a matter of whether or not U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan feels like considering your stories obscene as well - and there's nothing stopping her from doing that. And apparently that's cool. You won't get into trouble, though, because you're not stupid. You just write the stories and post them on a US-based site. The trouble will only come to those that are stupid enough to own and operate US-based pornographic sites.

...

You are absolutely 100% risk-free of getting into trouble over the fictional stories you write. All the trouble will lie entirely on those distributing it, namely Laurel and Manu.

If you think that the difference between your fiction and hers is that yours doesn't contain subject matter that is a hot button issue in the United States, I believe you're being naïve. You write pornography. If the U.S. Attorney can have her arrested for distributing her fictional stories, then she can also have Laurel arrested for distributing your fictional stories. If she should have done a little self-censorship, then maybe so should you. At least she was putting her own neck on the line. Does that make her doubly stupid? Probably. Should she be being called stupid in a forum of pornography authors? I don't know, it sounds a bit hypocrite to me.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

fear will conquer all
almost all
and each through a different path
we will all come
almost all
to be mice.

yes, mice.

 

[S-Des]

I made my thoughts thoroughly known on the other thread. Lauren, you are right, everyone else is wrong. There is no debate, rape is just as bad as kiddie porn (or any other deviancy). The problem is that some people feel their smut is less offensive. They've got their head firmly up their asses. If you don't think that there are people out there who don't consider gay porn, BDSM porn, NC/Reluctance porn, or Incest porn every bit as offensive as kiddie porn, you are living in a state of denial. Hell, there are people out there who'd like to see ALL porn (even that between a loving husband and wife) outlawed. If you let them punish someone for fictional sex between an adult and a minor, they'll be looking for you next.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

"Use of the Internet to distribute obscene stories like these not only violates federal law, but also emboldens sex offenders who would target children," Buchanan said.

This is what really bugs me. Use of the Internet to distribute stories deemed obscene by whoever may violate a federal law - a law that legitimates U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's witch hunt and is contrary to freedom of speech, but a federal law nonetheless. But the law refers to obscene, not to kiddy porn, to "sex offenders who would target children", or to "stories like these".

I would love to see the federal law against "embolden[ing] sex offenders who would target children". Where is the law that allows a U.S. Attorney to embolden the latent fear in all those with children in order to gain support for a campaign to crush inalienable human rights.

 

[Antfarmer77]

"Use of the Internet to distribute obscene stories like these not only violates federal law, but also emboldens sex offenders who would target children," Buchanan said.

She must hang out with Tipper Gore. This is like that whole "heavy metal music makes teens kill-crazy" debacle.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

I'm with Rumple on this one.

Defending promoters of child abuse - whether fictional or real - is not the strongest of grounds for starting a free speech crusade or attacking the zealot, Ms Buchanan. Even reading the stuff is probably illegal in many places.

At first I was rankled by the 'over 18' rule, thinking of the age of consent point on Lit. I now see that it is essential for a site that runs 'Non-consent', 'BDSM' and 'Incest' categories (probably for 'Fetish' and 'Anal' too).

All the characters in stories here are, legally and theoretically, 'adult' and capable of making their own decisions.

If you replace the word 'obscenity' by 'pedophilia' on the rap sheet, does the Free Speech thing still fly. As Rumple said, 'kiddy porn'.

 

[angelicminx]

Yesterday my So reminded me of a wonderful line in the movie "The American President" and I want to share it with y'all.

"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Defending promoters of child abuse - whether fictional or real - is not the strongest of grounds for starting a free speech crusade or attacking the zealot, Ms Buchanan. Even reading the stuff is probably illegal in many places.

I think it's the absolute opposite. This is exactly the place where the line should be drawn. Steadying your ground on Free Speech based on the assumption that your perversion is somehow better than someone else's is not only morally questionable, but also impossible to defend.

Reading fictional accounts of child abuse is not illegal. Hell, forget about the fictional. Reading accounts of child abuse is not illegal. Writing accounts of child abuse is not illegal. Owning accounts of child abuse is not illegal.

Karen Fletcher was indicted for distributing obscene material. Obscene. Not kiddy porn. Any and all pornography (and erotica, and mainstream literature) can fall under that umbrella easily, if U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan feels like it. This is not an attack on kiddy-pornographers. This is an attack on all owners and operators of pornographic sites. And I think that for pornographers like us, who limit ourselves to writing and leave the distribution and risk to others, to attack Karen Fletcher, or even turn a blind eye while she is being indicted for distributing material that for all purposes is the same we write, is the very definition of hypocrisy.

Now, if you want to have a new law that prohibits writing and/or owning and/or distributing written accounts of paedophilia, we can go into an entirely different war about what constitutes pornographic accounts of paedophilia and what are "legitimate" accounts. That should be a fun discussion too, but it's not at all what is at stake here.

"Erotica is what I like; pornography is what you like, you pervert."

 

[Liar]

If you replace the word 'obscenity' by 'pedophilia' on the rap sheet, does the Free Speech thing still fly. As Rumple said, 'kiddy porn'.

Pedophilia (when practiced, one can be a pedophile but never touch a kid) as well as child pornography, are acts of abuse against actual children.

 

[sophia jane]

And fictional reports of fictional kiddies being fictionally raped isn't kiddie porn either.

I agree with this whole-heartedly. Like I said on the other thread, you can draw a line on freedom of speech. We either have it or we don't. I don't have to agree with what others writer, nor do I have to approve of it, or even read it. But that doesn't take away their right to say it without fear of persecution.
As for the obscenity laws, we're all in danger because it's entirely subjective. As Lauren says, the law in question isn't one about pedophilia or writing about child abuse, it's about obscenity. And who gets to decide that?


It's interesting to me that there is main stream fiction out there that depicts child abuse, even including rapes of children or other sexual abuse against children. And because those scenes are included in a larger work. they're acceptable. Why the difference? Drawing a line on acceptable/obscene is a risky thing.

 

[Oblimo]

It's interesting to me that there is main stream fiction out there that depicts child abuse, even including rapes of children or other sexual abuse against children. And because those scenes are included in a larger work. they're acceptable. Why the difference? Drawing a line on acceptable/obscene is a risky thing.

I've always thought the publication of Flowers in the Attic was a crime, but I never expected the USDOJ to take me literally!

 

[Oblimo]

Pedophilia (when practiced, one can be a pedophile but never touch a kid) as well as child pornography, are acts of abuse against actual children.

...and policemen pretending to be children on the Internet.

Most cybersex crime leglislation (US) specifically states that having cybersex with an undercover cop pretending to be an underage girl or boy is also a crime.

I am waiting for a case where the person pretending of be a 13 y.o. girl wasn't even a police officer.

 

[Oblimo]

Reading fictional accounts of child abuse is not illegal. Hell, forget about the fictional. Reading accounts of child abuse is not illegal. Writing accounts of child abuse is not illegal. Owning accounts of child abuse is not illegal.

Agreed. What is supposed to be illegal, though, is the solicitation of child abuse. If the USDOJ could prove that Karen Fletcher had the specific intent of counseling, advising, or urging her website's readers to go out and commit child abuse, then I'd be of the opinion that the arrest was well justified.

But they would not have needed s fancy-schmancy Internet decency law to arrest her under that theory (other than one that grants them jurisdiction).

I will be very interested in seeing a Constitutional challenge to this arrest if solicitation is not an element of the charge.

 

[Oblimo]

She must hang out with Tipper Gore. This is like that whole "heavy metal music makes teens kill-crazy" debacle.

It was Prince's Little Nikki that sent Tipper Gore over the edge, as I remember. Her daughter begged her to buy the Purple Rain album by the fellow named Prince, whoever he was, so she did, and then happened to catch the lyric about masturbating to a magazine...

IIRC, that was the brunt of Tipper's Bizarre Crusade: give us poor parents a clue as to what we're buying for our kids. I'm sure if Al had just told her, "Soon, dear, we'll just be able to look up the lyrics on this Internet thing I just invented!" she would have been mollified.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Agreed. What is supposed to be illegal, though, is the solicitation of child abuse. If the USDOJ could prove that Karen Fletcher had the specific intent of counseling, advising, or urging her website's readers to go out and commit child abuse, then I'd be of the opinion that the arrest was well justified.

Yes, but then there would be no need to bring distribution of obscene material into it. The target is entirely a different one, here: "use of the Internet to distribute obscene stories [...] emboldens sex offenders who would target children". There's a huge difference between emboldenment - if that is even possible to judge - and incitement and solicitation, and an even greater difference between who the target of actions against the latter would be - people inciting sex offenders - and the declared enemy of U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan - the use of internet to distribute obscene stories.

 

[Pure]

for those who are reacting to the distastefulness of the material.

don't you see this is the 'thin edge of the wedge'. the next step will be regarding rape or torture of an adult (in the written medium). something NOT to be encouraged, but which we're free to write about.

next will be 'degradation'; that move was done in Canada (re visual depictions). turns out nothing degrades a woman like cum on her fact, so all those scenes had to be excised.

the amping up of obsecenity prosecutions, i.e. for written stuffm is a stated Bush plan. Clinton had it scaled way back.

 

[Pure]

bump

just out of curiosity, do our forum friends understand that prosecutions for *obscenity*, are being stepped up*. As well, laws about 'obscenity' over the 'net are being re-crafted.

I do NOT mean pornography. porn is pictures, 'obscene material' is broader and includes writing. much of the writing--by you, my friends,-- is arguably obscene. And putting it on the 'net may soon involve violating federal laws.



*Clinton let them fall to an almost zero level.

 

[ImpureThoughts]

The horse is dead. Stop beating it, already.

 

[Athena_e19]

Plot Twist

The definition of obscene is a tough one. I was wondering yesterday about the ongoing school attacks that have happened in Penn and Colorado.

Hypothetically, if I was to write a fictional story similar to the reality of what happened, where all the girls were of consenting age and were sexually aroused by the molestation of the man who had invaded their school- would it be obscene? Perhaps they are killed in the end, perhaps not. Does the fact that it happened make this obscene, or not? If it does, do non consent or incest stories qualify as obscene?

I am not planning on writing said story- so please don't hate mail me on this one.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

The horse is dead. Stop beating it, already.

The hell I will!