Why we need age restrictions on Literotica

[darkvision29]

A 65-year-old man from Texas has been sentenced to prison for operating a website devoted to stories in which violence occurs against minors.

In January, a federal jury convicted 65-year-old Brewster County resident Thomas Alan Arthur of three counts of trafficking in obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of a child, five counts of trafficking in obscene text stories about the sexual abuse of children, and one count of engaging in the business of selling obscene matters involving the sexual abuse of children.

The charges were all related to the website Mr. Double, which Arthur launched from his home address in 1996. On it he published writings that described the sexual abuse, rape, torture, and murder of infants and children.

In 1998, Arthur began charging a membership fee to access the site, which was hosted on a server in the Netherlands. He made enough money from Mr. Double for the site to be his sole source of income for more than two decades.

Users were invited to upload their own content, which included drawings depicting children engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The evidence at trial showed that all submissions for publication were personally reviewed and approved by Arthur before being added to the site.

The site remained online until November 2019, when the FBI executed a search warrant of Arthur's residence.

Court documents and statements made at the sentencing showed that Arthur sexually assaulted two females who came forward during the investigation of this case.

The court heard that in approximately 1992, Arthur drugged an adult woman who resided with him, sexually assaulted her and captured the assault on video. In another instance, in the early 1980s, Arthur molested the daughter of a friend and business associate when she was four or five years old.

On June 22, Arthur was sentenced in the Western District of Texas to 40 years in prison. He was further sentenced to three years of supervised release and fined $50,000.

This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse.

https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/mr-doubles-operator-jailed/

 

[KeithD]

Interesting, but need to separate out the activity here, which the cited article doesn't clearly do. What were the actual convictions for having the Web site separated from convictions for actual physical acts against actual people?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Interesting, but need to separate out the activity here, which the cited article doesn't clearly do. What were the actual convictions for having the Web site separated from convictions for actual physical acts against actual people?

Most of the coverage seems to be based on this DoJ press release, which says "three counts of trafficking in obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of a child, five counts of trafficking in obscene text stories about the sexual abuse of children, and one count of engaging in the business of selling obscene matters involving the sexual abuse of children."

The later release indicates that during the trial, it also came out that he had allegedly assaulted a woman and a girl, but those assaults don't seem to be part of the conviction - presumably there would be a separate trial for those if DoJ considers it worth pursuing.

This previous DoJ release from the time of Arthur's conviction says pretty much the same things, but makes no mention of his own alleged assaults.

Here's a copy of the criminal complaint made by an FBI agent against Arthur: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6548074-Thomas-Alan-Arthur-Criminal-Complaint.html

The offenses alleged are 18 U.S.C. S1462 "Importation or transportation of obscene matters", 18 U.S.C. S1466 "Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter", and 18 U.S.C. S1466A "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children". (From the complaint, the site is promoted as "text only, no pictures", but authors have their own author page and the FBI agent found an explicit drawing of a child on one author's user page.)

Para 20 of that complaint states:

I believe there is probably cause that Thomas Arthur: (a)... has trafficked obscene stories about the sexual abuse of children, in violation of 18 U.S.C. S1462; (b) has engaged in the business of selling and transferring obscene material, namely stories about the sexual abuse of children... in violation of 18 U.S.C. S1466; (c) possessed with intent to distribute, a visual depiction, including a drawing, that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene, in violation of 18 U.S.C. S1466A(a).

Those three items seem to correspond with the categories mentioned in the DoJ release. Parts (a) and (b) make it clear that the FBI agent thought the stories alone were violations of 18 U.S.C. and it certainly looks like the jury agreed.

The language of S1462 specifically includes "obscene writing/print". It's the same statute that Frank McCoy was convicted under for distributing pedo stories back in 2013.

 

[lovecraft68]

This was already discussed here.


https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1548679


this is a google link to stories about it, if anyone wants to read up.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mr+...AeACAAWaIAYwGkgEDOC4xmAEAoAEB&sclient=gws-wiz

The Op is wrong in saying this is why we need age restrictions, it is not illegal to write erotic stories featuring under age characters, what got this freak arrested was far more than that.

This site has an alleged age restriction, because they choose to, they don't have to.

 

[KeithD]

five counts of trafficking in obscene text stories about the sexual abuse of children, and one count of engaging in the business of selling obscene matters involving the sexual abuse of children."

This would seem to the part, then, that writers would need to focus on.

 

[lovecraft68]

Just adding that as disgusting as this guy was....he had hundreds of people paying for this content, and people contributing this content

I wonder, can LE go after them? Perhaps not the readers, but the content creators?

Also, wouldn't it be great if sites that promoted the violence and torture and abuse of women were shut down?

yeah, right.

 

[XerXesXu]

I wonder, can LE go after them? Perhaps not the readers, but the content creators?

.

This is the provision he was convicted under. It includes ‘Any … lascivious … writing … “, not just, or expressly, pedo-porn, and an offence is committed by anyone who ‘knowingly takes or receives from such … interactive computer service … any matter … which is herein made unlawful.”

Pretty sweeping. Imagine getting 5 years for the first lascivious story you read on Lit, and 10 years for each successive one.


Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) [1] of the Communications Act of 1934), for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce—
(a)
any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; or
(b)
any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy phonograph recording, electrical transcription, or other article or thing capable of producing sound; or
(c)
any drug …

Whoever knowingly takes or receives, from such express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) 1 of the Communications Act of 1934) any matter or thing the carriage or importation of which is herein made unlawful—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.

interactive computer service
(2) Interactive computer service The term “interactive computer service” means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

 

[Bramblethorn]

This was already discussed here.

Thanks, I thought it rang a bell.

The Op is wrong in saying this is why we need age restrictions, it is not illegal to write erotic stories featuring under age characters, what got this freak arrested was far more than that.

This site has an alleged age restriction, because they choose to, they don't have to.

AFAIK there isn't a US law specifically banning writing about under-age characters, and we've all talked before about some of the stuff that gets published in the mainstream.

But under-age content probably does increase the legal risk. AFAICT (mostly from reading the McCoy judgement), if it's clear that you've been distributing naughty stories, it's going to come down to whether those stories are considered "obscene" and hence not covered by First Amendment protection.

Part of the definition of "obscene" is that the work "affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters". I expect it's a lot easier to prove that for child-rape content than for consensual adult erotica, or even for adult non-consent.

 

[SimonDoom]

It's worth pointing out that there's a big difference between "underage" and the kind of violent pedophilia snuff material this man wrote and made money off of.

Lolita concerns an affair between an older man and prepubescent girl. In this day and age there is zero chance in the US of criminal liability for writing something like Lolita. Of course, it's not explicit.

Popular movies like American Pie, if told as short stories, wouldn't fly under Literotica rules. Obviously, they are not illegal.

Literotica's owners have made the judgment that they don't want content about people under 18, but there is absolutely no legal requirement that they have this rule. There is nothing illegal about underage content, per se.

It's worth pointing out that both cases where men were found guilty of writing obscene fiction took place in the American South. It's not clear to me that courts in other parts of the country would have ruled the same way. They might have ruled that this content was protected by the First Amendment Freedom of Speech clause. The fact is, there is a mountain of underage fiction content on the Internet and almost none of it is prosecuted.

 

[drscar]

Literotica's owners have made the judgment that they don't want content about people under 18, but there is absolutely no legal requirement that they have this rule. There is nothing illegal about underage content, per se.

IIRC, the "Amateur Action" case was never resolved to outline the "community standards" basis for the arrests.

https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-v-Thomas

First, it's important to note that the AA case was blatant U.S. Government entrapment. The basis for the arrest (and subsequent prosecution) was a bastardization of community standards without actually considering what defines "community." (Memphis standards were used, rather than California where the BBS was being run). Since the AA case, there still has not been clarification on that point.

Likewise, it's not been clarified whether Miller v. California was the correct litmus test to use to determine whether or not the material qualified as obscenity. Remember, obscenity is not protected under the first amendment (see Miller v. California, 1973) - which is exactly what put the nail in the legal coffin for the Thomases. Nevertheless, this is still the same test used today.

So, here's the bottom line. As long as someone, somewhere, could possibly consider the material obscene by their "community standards," then it is incorrect to say there is "nothing illegal" about such content.

This makes the rules quite justified.

I don't like the rules any more than anyone else. It's a complete creative blocker, as it presumes that adults get their sexuality faxed to them on their 18th birthday. But that doesn't mean that I don't understand why it's there.

Just my $.02.

 

[XerXesXu]

IIRC, the "Amateur Action" case was never resolved to outline the "community standards" basis for the arrests.

https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-v-Thomas

First, it's important to note that the AA case was blatant U.S. Government entrapment. The basis for the arrest (and subsequent prosecution) was a bastardization of community standards without actually considering what defines "community." (Memphis standards were used, rather than California where the BBS was being run). Since the AA case, there still has not been clarification on that point.

Likewise, it's not been clarified whether Miller v. California was the correct litmus test to use to determine whether or not the material qualified as obscenity. Remember, obscenity is not protected under the first amendment (see Miller v. California, 1973) - which is exactly what put the nail in the legal coffin for the Thomases. Nevertheless, this is still the same test used today.

So, here's the bottom line. As long as someone, somewhere, could possibly consider the material obscene by their "community standards," then it is incorrect to say there is "nothing illegal" about such content.

This makes the rules quite justified.

I don't like the rules any more than anyone else. It's a complete creative blocker, as it presumes that adults get their sexuality faxed to them on their 18th birthday. But that doesn't mean that I don't understand why it's there.

Just my $.02.

Quite.

The problem SCOTUS has unsuccessfully wrestled with is, if a ‘contemporary community standards’ test is applied by juries, in respect of any given text or image, the First Amendment may apply in New York but not in Texas, may apply to senders but not receivers, or vice-versa, may apply on Mondays but not on Tuesdays, or vice-versa. Worse still, though you may feel that different states can apply different laws differently, federal law has obscenity laws.

Arthur was also convicted under federal law by a jury sitting in Texas. What community standards should that jury have applied? SCOTUS has opined that there’s no national community standard. Is obscenity then, a moving feast also under federal law?

Until it confronts the need to draw an objective line between a masturbatory fantasy that merely lacks any redeeming social merit – the indecent or pornographic - and a squicky masturbatory fantasy - the obscene - as several of the Justices have pointed out, you may be convicted for a crime, which no-one had any reason to believe was a crime until you had your collar felt.

PS: Bulletin Boards - that brought back a pleasant trip down memory lane.

 

[JaxRhapsody]

A 65-year-old man from Texas has been sentenced to prison for operating a website devoted to stories in which violence occurs against minors.

In January, a federal jury convicted 65-year-old Brewster County resident Thomas Alan Arthur of three counts of trafficking in obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of a child, five counts of trafficking in obscene text stories about the sexual abuse of children, and one count of engaging in the business of selling obscene matters involving the sexual abuse of children.

The charges were all related to the website Mr. Double, which Arthur launched from his home address in 1996. On it he published writings that described the sexual abuse, rape, torture, and murder of infants and children.

In 1998, Arthur began charging a membership fee to access the site, which was hosted on a server in the Netherlands. He made enough money from Mr. Double for the site to be his sole source of income for more than two decades.

Users were invited to upload their own content, which included drawings depicting children engaged in sexually explicit conduct. The evidence at trial showed that all submissions for publication were personally reviewed and approved by Arthur before being added to the site.

The site remained online until November 2019, when the FBI executed a search warrant of Arthur's residence.

Court documents and statements made at the sentencing showed that Arthur sexually assaulted two females who came forward during the investigation of this case.

The court heard that in approximately 1992, Arthur drugged an adult woman who resided with him, sexually assaulted her and captured the assault on video. In another instance, in the early 1980s, Arthur molested the daughter of a friend and business associate when she was four or five years old.

On June 22, Arthur was sentenced in the Western District of Texas to 40 years in prison. He was further sentenced to three years of supervised release and fined $50,000.

This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse.

https://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/news/mr-doubles-operator-jailed/

I remember reading about that around May. He kinda fucked up with that. Technically his site shouldn't have been illegal, but whatever. I think a few submitters to his site got hit, too.

 

[Anthonysdaughter]

I don't like the rules any more than anyone else. It's a complete creative blocker, as it presumes that adults get their sexuality faxed to them on their 18th birthday.

Actually in about a dozen stories that I have written under different usernames here the Greek God Eros personally delivers the knowledge of sexuality to people the night of their 18th birthday. Except sometimes his mom Aphrodite takes his place if he's been out drinking with Dionysus. Mom tends to be somewhat Sapphic.

Sometimes both Eros and Aphrodite visit together, that happened with a M-F-M set of triplets. On one occasion ol' Eros was several days late after he and his mom were kept busy enjoying an orgy with Pan, Comus, and a few Satyrs. The young man's girlfriend was beginning to wonder about him, or herself, but Eros finally arrived-- right in the middle of dinner with her family.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I don't like the rules any more than anyone else. It's a complete creative blocker, as it presumes that adults get their sexuality faxed to them on their 18th birthday. But that doesn't mean that I don't understand why it's there.

Write about adults being adults. Problem solved.

 

[drscar]

Actually in about a dozen stories that I have written under different usernames here the Greek God Eros personally delivers the knowledge of sexuality to people the night of their 18th birthday. Except sometimes his mom Aphrodite takes his place if he's been out drinking with Dionysus. Mom tends to be somewhat Sapphic.

Thanks for that. You just made my morning.

 

[drscar]

Write about adults being adults. Problem solved.

Obviously, being unfamiliar with my work (and why would you be?) you wouldn't know that nearly all of my stories are about grown adults. So, the chastisement is unnecessary.

However, there is also the case of character development. Motivation and incentive doesn't just begin at age 18. People's desires, perversions, hesitations, or traumas that define who they are begin much earlier. Some of these events are pleasant, some are not.

What I'm talking about is the reference to events that occur before a character is 18. I can be write about "adults being adults" but I cannot make any reference to how they came to hold certain views? At least, not unless they had these watershed moments after their 18th birthday?

Like I said, a PITA. But I understand why.

There is only one story of mine where the character is 18, because it just so happens to be crucial to the mental development, plot, and character trajectory. The events that happen to her would not make sense if she was 25, or 30, or 40. Whether she is 17 or 18, though, doesn't make a difference. So, 18 is just fine.

But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that any story can be told in any way with arbitrary characteristics. Some things really do matter for the sake of the story.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Obviously, being unfamiliar with my work (and why would you be?) you wouldn't know that nearly all of my stories are about grown adults. So, the chastisement is unnecessary.

When someone says the eighteen year rule is "a complete creative blocker" and then says their content is nearly all about adults, why then is the rule a complete blocker? If you're writing about adults, surely the rule is, in fact, irrelevant?

Of course teenage years are formative years, but with erotica and more especially porn, one doesn't really need to go on about it.

 

[drscar]

When someone says the eighteen year rule is "a complete creative blocker" and then says their content is nearly all about adults, why then is the rule a complete blocker? If you're writing about adults, surely the rule is, in fact, irrelevant?

Of course teenage years are formative years, but with erotica and more especially porn, one doesn't really need to go on about it.

Perhaps the word "complete" is the sticking point. In my mind, when I wrote that sentence I was thinking about specifically needing to work on character development and how, yes, it is indeed a "complete" creative blocker.

As far as writing in general? No, you are correct. My mental Venn diagrams were specifically about the fact that characters have histories and pasts that begin before the age of 18. When they become particularly relevant to the story, it is an annoying block (no hyperbole this time). That's all.

 

[SimonDoom]

Perhaps the word "complete" is the sticking point. In my mind, when I wrote that sentence I was thinking about specifically needing to work on character development and how, yes, it is indeed a "complete" creative blocker.

As far as writing in general? No, you are correct. My mental Venn diagrams were specifically about the fact that characters have histories and pasts that begin before the age of 18. When they become particularly relevant to the story, it is an annoying block (no hyperbole this time). That's all.

I've always thought the "hard no under 18" rule is a little silly and arbitrary, but I don't find it to be at all a creative block.

Assuming the principle events of the story take place when the character is over 18, is there any real need to discuss what happened when they were young? Almost certainly not. We all know as readers that characters existed before the age of 18 and probably had sexual feelings. There's no real need to discuss it. There are plenty of creative ways of addressing whatever the character's background is without recounting the under 18 past. I don't see it as a big deal. As authors we all have innumerable ways of writing the stories without transgressing Lit's hard-line rule.

 

[Bramblethorn]

As far as writing in general? No, you are correct. My mental Venn diagrams were specifically about the fact that characters have histories and pasts that begin before the age of 18. When they become particularly relevant to the story, it is an annoying block (no hyperbole this time). That's all.

And there's plenty you can write about those pre-18 histories here. Just not the sexual bits.

 

[drscar]

And there's plenty you can write about those pre-18 histories here. Just not the sexual bits.

Uh, that's kind of the point. If you want to show character growth and development from events that transpired to form and shape the sexuality of a character, those are somewhat relevant.

 

[drscar]

I've always thought the "hard no under 18" rule is a little silly and arbitrary, but I don't find it to be at all a creative block.

This depends on the story and the characters. I have read stories (on lit, and elsewhere) where they simply "age shifted" the characters to be 18 or over, and rarely does such a technique actually "work." In fact, it drives me crazy to read stories about 18 or 19 yo characters who behave as if they are 12 or 13. It's creepy and it's really bad writing.

Assuming the principle events of the story take place when the character is over 18, is there any real need to discuss what happened when they were young? Almost certainly not.

I disagree. I disagree especially with the "certainly not."

Some stories are episodic, this is true. In fact, almost all erotica is episodic in nature. But that doesn't mean that the characters themselves are or need to be.

If an author is interested in fleshing out the characters into real, believable people that the reader can better identify and associate with, then yeah. It becomes "a real need to discuss what happened when they were young".

[Updated to add:] If I have a character who is a rape survivor, or someone who has struggled with sex addiction, or has been sexually confused about their orientation, these events are likely to have occurred before someone is 18 if the character is 18, 19, or 20. If someone's adolescence was marred by harassment or - the other way around - the moment where a character finds s/he has gained sexual influence over others, that becomes quite relevant.

So, why write about those characters at all? Probably because a) this is erotica, and some people find the emotional and mental states to be more erotic than the physical "lather, rinse, repeat" action of the physical description, and 2) characters that come to life off the page is a valid goal for the author.

We all know as readers that characters existed before the age of 18 and probably had sexual feelings. There's no real need to discuss it. There are plenty of creative ways of addressing whatever the character's background is without recounting the under 18 past.

This isn't about sexual feelings (well, just about sexual feelings). You can write about sexual feelings all day long on lit. This is about events that shape a character's life, motivation, and emotional states.

People go through more changes from 18-21 than they do from 20-30. The years prior to that are even more dramatic. To simply hand-wave them away as 'irrelevant' seems... arbitrary.

I don't see it as a big deal. As authors we all have innumerable ways of writing the stories without transgressing Lit's hard-line rule.

Again, this isn't about technique. The one story where it was applicable actually changed the nature of the story (in other words, her asexuality before turning 18 actually became a character point for her shock at suddenly, belatedly, becoming a key component of her mental state). However, you can really only do that plot trick once (maybe twice) before it starts becoming a crutch or, worse, a trope.

No, while you can work around it, it does make it more complicated when trying to have characters who have more emotional depth than just a sex doll. That's all I'm saying.

 

[KeithD]

However, there is also the case of character development. Motivation and incentive doesn't just begin at age 18. People's desires, perversions, hesitations, or traumas that define who they are begin much earlier. Some of these events are pleasant, some are not.

That can be handled in stories accepted here at Literotica, and good writers do it.

You are beating a very, very tired horse that drags by here twice a week.

 

[drscar]

You are beating a very, very tired horse that drags by here twice a week.

sigh. I know. All because a flippant comment was taken more seriously than intended.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I have a first person narrative, for future publication, where the MC killed an older boy when she was 12 years old. Freely admitting she murdered the kid, she refuses to give her reason to the court. But specifically states it wasn't sexual abuse to the reader. The reader can judge for themselves what happened. I'm not sure if the character will ever give the reason for killing the boy. I know them, but won't share them, they are the characters, she'll let me know if it's okay to give the reader in inside story.