A lesson in Free Speech

[BacktoBasics]

A Pennsylvania woman has been sentenced to five years of probation, including six months of home detention, and forfeiture of her computer after pleading guilty Thursday to obscenity charges for running a Web site that featured text stories that were sexual and violent in nature.

Karen Fletcher, 56,of Donora, Pennsylvania, owned and operated the Web site, Red Rose Stories, which featured stories describing sexual molestation and violence against children. Other stories included torture, rape and murder of children, and Fletcher sold memberships to her site, where members could get full stories, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

Fletcher, using the pen name Red Rose, wrote most of the stories herself, the DOJ said. Some of the stories were available as audio files, but the site didn't include photos, according to press reports.

Fletcher reportedly was abused as a child and started the site as a form of therapy, according to news reports.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation ordered the site closed in late 2005. Some constitutional lawyers have questioned the prosecution of Fletcher, saying many pieces of popular literature have contained similar descriptions of abuse or murder.

Fletcher pleaded guilty Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh to six counts of using an interactive computer service to distribute obscene materials. She must serve the first six months of her probation under home detention and pay a US$1,000 fine, Judge Joy Flowers Conti ruled.

Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. attorney in the Western District of Pennsylvania, has filed obscenity charges against several defendants.

Buchanan "has gone on a rampage trying to stamp out expression that doesn't meet her standards of morality," Marc John Randazza, a law professor at the Barry University School of Law in Orlando, wrote on his blog.

Randazza, who teaches about free speech rights and other legal issues, acknowledges that the content of Red Rose Stories was shocking, but he suggested the U.S. Constitution protects fictional stories. "If you believe in the Constitution, and you believe in what this country means, you can NOT believe that any American should ever face prison for writing fiction -- no matter what the subject matter of that fiction might be," he wrote in a blog post.

[FromWayDowntown]

Obscene material isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Whether the author's site contained obscene material is a different question (and one that would be decided without specific rules) and whether written fiction can actually be deemed to be obscene is another fair question, I think. But it would certainly appear that the federal judge in this case decided that those materials were in fact obscene and beyond the protection of the First Amendment.

[cherylsteele]

which featured stories describing sexual molestation and violence against children.
That is where the free speech really starts to end. Promoting stuff like that by writing stories, she deserves what she is gettin, if not more.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Ms. Buchanan said that the rarity of obscenity prosecutions during the eight years of the Clinton administration meant that the pornography industry had come to believe that law enforcement had tacitly “agreed to an anything-goes approach.”

What a fucking joke.

[Shaolin-Style]

I think it should be thought of somewhat like shes encouraging adults to do this kind of crap, even if she has some longwinded disclaimer not to do this at home, we all know that didn't work at all for that show Jackass. Some perverts gonna get some ideas from one of her stories and act on them and then what? Sites that explicitly and intentionally advocate the harm of children with realistic based tones earn their adminstrators all the punishment coming to them.

[BacktoBasics]

That is where the free speech really starts to end. Promoting stuff like that by writing stories, she deserves what she is gettin, if not more.
So the 2 girls 1 cup promotion is below the mendoza line of where free speech should end?

[Buddy Holly]

I hate when people use the constitution to retrofit one of them into applying to today.

When they came up with it, they probably didn't have in mind the protection to those who wanted to "write stories solely of rape and murder towards children for the world to see via the internet."

The same thing for dumb shits out there that argue they wanted "everyone to have guns."

[BacktoBasics]

I hate when people use the constitution to retrofit one of them into applying to today.


Shouldn't you hate it more when peoples own personal standards and beliefs become the new benchmark on when you can and can't throw out peoples rights?

To the rest of you jackasses - stop PMing me you fucking losers. Never once did I say I agreed or disagreed with this lady. Never once did I say I advocate this shit. I posted it to read peoples thoughts not because I support the lady. You people are fucking pathetic and clearly blind.

[Buddy Holly]

Shouldn't you hate it more when peoples own personal standards and beliefs become the new benchmark on when you can and can't throw out peoples rights?

Isn't that what the entire constitution is based around? What laws and rules are based on? Personal standards of the majority?

[BacktoBasics]

Isn't that what the entire constitution is based around? What laws and rules are based on? Personal standards of the majority?
So you think they had no right to shut her down since she was working within the predetermined standard set by the constitution? Perhaps I misunderstood you.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

BTW, she had a whopping 28 members.

Nice use of resources.

[cherylsteele]

So the 2 girls 1 cup promotion is below the mendoza line of where free speech should end?
Where is this in the article?

[BacktoBasics]

Where is this in the article?Its not but they and many other offensive sites have managed to continue doing their thing without issue. How can story telling be less offensive than a video of a couple of gals munching bark.

[Buddy Holly]

So you think they had no right to shut her down since she was working within the predetermined standard set by the constitution? Perhaps I misunderstood you.

I don't think you can hold the same standard for so long.

Just like people change, life changes, places change, standards of morality change.

It's being able to understand that and to adjust with those changes.

The world they lived when they put that in isn't the same world we live in today. We have to be socially responsible for the time we live in now, not follow to heart something written by men who have been dead hundreds of years.

[FromWayDowntown]

I think the big problem here is that nobody has any clue what is constitutionally "obscene" and what isn't. The Supreme Court basically has punted on the idea of giving a definition and has left that determination to the norms of the local community. But the local community in 2008 is very different than the local community that existed 30 years ago or so. What's kosher in San Francisco might be seen as obscene in suburban Pennsylvania. Had this woman maintained her website in a different community, she might very well have never faced any sort of prosecution. But, given the current state of free speech law, that doesn't mean that the First Amendment was violated by her prosecution in Pennsylvania.

An even bigger problem with cyber obscenity is that what might be perfectly legal to display in, say, Thailand or Uruguay or Morocco might be deemed to be completely obscene in every American community. If it's legal where it's posted, I'm not sure it can be prosecuted where it's viewed. For instance, I don't know where 2 girls, 1 cup (given what I've heard, it sounds like a perfect example) originated, but it could be that it originated in some foreign place and isn't actually housed anywhere within the United States. If that's the case, no American prosecutor would likely be able to go after what would appear to be obscene material; if I decided to have a showing of that beauty in my house and charged admission to a bunch of my deviant friends, I might be getting closer to a prosecutable offense. If I'm displaying it myself, don't get the protection of the obscene material being legal somewhere else.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Its not but they and many other offensive sites have managed to continue doing their thing without issue. How can story telling be less offensive than a video of a couple of gals munching bark.

You shouldn't focus on just the web.

Isn't it just as obscene to read about our soldiers shooting innocent women and children without provocation in a book like Generation Kill?

[BacktoBasics]

I don't think you can hold the same standard for so long.Then it really wouldn't matter because she was technically working within a much stricter more broad standard than todays free wheeling anything goes way.

Unless you're telling me that todays society should have a tighter moral ground.

[BacktoBasics]

You shouldn't focus on just the web.

Isn't it just as obscene to read about our soldiers shooting innocent women and children without provocation in a book like Generation Kill?Probably not if a bunch of richers intend to make money off it.

[BacktoBasics]

I think the big problem here is that nobody has any clue what is constitutionally "obscene" and what isn't. The Supreme Court basically has punted on the idea of giving a definition and has left that determination to the norms of the local community. But the local community in 2008 is very different than the local community that existed 30 years ago or so. What's kosher in San Francisco might be seen as obscene in suburban Pennsylvania. Had this woman maintained her website in a different community, she might very well have never faced any sort of prosecution. But, given the current state of free speech law, that doesn't mean that the First Amendment was violated by her prosecution in Pennsylvania.

An even bigger problem with cyber obscenity is that what might be perfectly legal to display in, say, Thailand or Uruguay or Morocco might be deemed to be completely obscene in every American community. If it's legal where it's posted, I'm not sure it can be prosecuted where it's viewed. For instance, I don't know where 2 girls, 1 cup (given what I've heard, it sounds like a perfect example) originated, but it could be that it originated in some foreign place and isn't actually housed anywhere within the United States. If that's the case, no American prosecutor would likely be able to go after what would appear to be obscene material; if I decided to have a showing of that beauty in my house and charged admission to a bunch of my deviant friends, I might be getting closer to a prosecutable offense. If I'm displaying it myself, don't get the protection of the obscene material being legal somewhere else.Jime Rose Circus?

Furthermore she's not displaying anything at a local venue.

[gatoloco]

she got fucked as a child and is getting fucked again...free speech the great misnomer of american society...

if anything, the law enforcement agencies just got 28 solid leads to add to their watch lists...

[BacktoBasics]

she got fucked as a child and is getting fucked again...free speech the great misnomer of american society...

if anything, the law enforcement agencies just got 28 solid leads to add to their watch lists...even more reason that they probably should have let the site stay up.

[T Park]

I don't see how anyone can defend the content of what she had..

[BacktoBasics]

I don't see how anyone can defend the content of what she had..
Pretty easy to defend when they allow millions of others to pen, stage, film and post just as equally ruthless or worse acts via the internet, print, tv or any other media.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

I don't see how anyone can defend the content of what she had..

It's easy. Ever read the Bible?


Rape:

34:2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

Premeditated Drunken Incest:

19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

Also, death, destruction, murder, etc, etc.

Gee, I hope no one reads it and gets any ideas. Ban it.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I don't see how anyone can defend the content of what she had..

It's just that.

Nobody's defending the content, they're defending her right to write the content.

[T Park]

which featured stories describing sexual molestation and violence against children. Other stories included torture, rape and murder of children

Im sorry, I can't defend this being able to be written.

Whatever.

[Buddy Holly]

Pretty easy to defend when they allow millions of others to pen, stage, film and post just as equally ruthless or worse acts via the internet, print, tv or any other media.

How you see the correlation between her site and what she was doing to that of movies and tv, well, that's the view you choose to have. :wow

[Buddy Holly]

It's easy. Ever read the Bible?


Rape:

34:2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

Premeditated Drunken Incest:

19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.

Also, death, destruction, murder, etc, etc.

Gee, I hope no one reads it and gets any ideas. Ban it.

The bible is filled with all sorts of stupid shit. It's one big pile of stupid shit.

Again, it's not the same thing as what this woman was doing.

[JoeChalupa]

Im sorry, I can't defend this being able to be written.

Whatever.

Have you never read a graphic novel before? I read some pretty bad stuff in my day.

[JoeChalupa]

If you don't want to read that stuff don't be a member.

[Buddy Holly]

It's just that.

Nobody's defending the content, they're defending her right to write the content.

She has the right to write it, but no one has the right to stop it?

Fuck, if everyone has the right to do stupid shit, then guess what, tagging is... you guessed it. A act of freedom of speech.

Not one person should protest it. Not one person should try to stop it. Not on person should get in trouble for it.

Tag away kids.

[BacktoBasics]

How you see the correlation between her site and what she was doing to that of movies and tv, well, that's the view you choose to have. :wowogrish.com. Seems to be running without issue. Crazyshit.com so on an so forth and the list goes on. There are thousands of sites all over the net with far more graphic and evil content. These sites are filled with scat porn, human and animal mutilations, murder, beastiality...

but we chose to shut a site down with apparently less than 28 members where a women who was a victim herself found a way to ease the pain by penning graphic writings to make a buck.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

The bible is filled with all sorts of stupid shit.

Again, it's not the same thing as what this woman was doing.


Why? Because you say so?

Is American Psycho different? It only promotes murder, brutality and rape.

[Buddy Holly]

Ogrish is no longer around. It's now Liveleak and has been so for awhile.


but we chose to shut a site down with apparently less than 28 members where a women who was a victim herself found a way to ease the pain by penning graphic writings to make a buck.

Yeah. write out in a way that makes it seem valid and acceptable. Go on.

[Buddy Holly]

Why? Because you say so?

No, because straigh forward there's a fucking difference. It's not even on the same level.


Is American Psycho different? It only promotes murder, brutality and rape.

Yes, it's an R rated movie where an adult kills other adults. If it's a movie where a man or men constantly rape and kill children, you'd be ok with it getting made?

Again, this wasn't a woman writing about adults. Where you seem to miss that, is well, stunning.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

"Hounddog," a controversial movie that features child actress Dakota Fanning in a graphic child rape scene...

Apparently, she just needed a better publicist and/or marketing team.

[Buddy Holly]

Apparently, she just needed a better publicist and/or marketing team.

Holy crap. You won't stop. Trying everything you can to justify this.

Was this woman kid? No. She got probation and had her computer taken away. Get over it. She can continue to write all the stories of children being raped and murdered she wants in the privacy of her own home.

Maybe next time she won't put it on the internet for everyone to see.

[Buddy Holly]

DLF, just answer me this. Are you fine with taggers?

[T Park]

Have you never read a graphic novel before? I read some pretty bad stuff in my day.

I can't say I've ever read a novel about details in raping, murdering, and molesting children. Nor would I ever WANT to read such vile filth as that.

[Ronaldo McDonald]

A Pennsylvania woman has been sentenced to five years of probation, including six months of home detention, and forfeiture of her computer after pleading guilty Thursday to obscenity charges for running a Web site that featured text stories that were sexual and violent in nature.

Karen Fletcher, 56,of Donora, Pennsylvania, owned and operated the Web site, Red Rose Stories, which featured stories describing sexual molestation and violence against children. Other stories included torture, rape and murder of children, and Fletcher sold memberships to her site, where members could get full stories, the U.S. Department of Justice said.

Fletcher, using the pen name Red Rose, wrote most of the stories herself, the DOJ said. Some of the stories were available as audio files, but the site didn't include photos, according to press reports.

Fletcher reportedly was abused as a child and started the site as a form of therapy, according to news reports.

The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation ordered the site closed in late 2005. Some constitutional lawyers have questioned the prosecution of Fletcher, saying many pieces of popular literature have contained similar descriptions of abuse or murder.

Fletcher pleaded guilty Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh to six counts of using an interactive computer service to distribute obscene materials. She must serve the first six months of her probation under home detention and pay a US$1,000 fine, Judge Joy Flowers Conti ruled.

Mary Beth Buchanan, the U.S. attorney in the Western District of Pennsylvania, has filed obscenity charges against several defendants.

Buchanan "has gone on a rampage trying to stamp out expression that doesn't meet her standards of morality," Marc John Randazza, a law professor at the Barry University School of Law in Orlando, wrote on his blog.

Randazza, who teaches about free speech rights and other legal issues, acknowledges that the content of Red Rose Stories was shocking, but he suggested the U.S. Constitution protects fictional stories. "If you believe in the Constitution, and you believe in what this country means, you can NOT believe that any American should ever face prison for writing fiction -- no matter what the subject matter of that fiction might be," he wrote in a blog post.

According to her, it's therapy. It's not like she's condoning the acts she's writing about. It's all about intention behind it. Stupid stuff, expecially when you consider the amount of literature, or entertainment in general, that is supports or is indifferent to violence it puts out there.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

No idea what that is.

[Buddy Holly]

According to her, it's therapy. It's not like she's condoning the acts she's writing about. It's all about intention behind it. Stupid stuff, expecially when you consider the amount of literature, or entertainment in general, that is supports or is indifferent to violence it puts out there.

What she's doing as her "treatment" is something she should keep private at home or on a website she can only access, to herself not post it on the internet and charge people membership. People more than likely who aren't "good" people.

[CosmicCowboy]

since it's true we can still talk about Tlong's beastiality with sheep without the FBI kicking our door in can't we?

[Buddy Holly]

No idea what that is.

A tagger? You have no idea what a tagger is?

They do a lot of this.

http://www.indymedia.ie/attachments/feb2006/graf_tag_dub_feb_06_01.jpg

[Spurminator]

For one thing, do we even know that her stories "promoted" the rape and murder of children? Who decides that? Did The Accused promote rape?

But thank God we have this dangerous woman in jail where she belongs so she can't disseminate her filthy stories to 28 pervs anymore. Now those pervs will be forced to look somewhere else for disgusting fiction, but given how small the Internet is I'm guessing they'll have a hard time finding it.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Can't say I've ever really thought about it, to be honest with you.

[BacktoBasics]

I can't say I know but was it not a members only site. Her site that is. So wouldn't that be somewhat private...for adults only.

I wouldn't truely know the condition of the ogrish site but any of the others are equally as bad.

I'm not justifying her work I'm pointing out that they shouldn't single her out compared to the loads of other shit available online.

[Buddy Holly]

Can't say I've ever really thought about it, to be honest with you.

So if some punk kid one night tagged up your entire house with curse words, racist comments, vulgar shit and just plain unmentionable stuff. You'd have no problem with it?

None whatsoever.

I mean, you believe in freedom of speech so strongly.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

She said she charged the fee so she could verify age through the CC.

Irony?

[Buddy Holly]

For one thing, do we even know that her stories "promoted" the rape and murder of children? Who decides that? Did The Accused promote rape?

But thank God we have this dangerous woman in jail where she belongs so she can't disseminate her filthy stories to 28 pervs anymore. Now those pervs will be forced to look somewhere else for disgusting fiction, but given how small the Internet is I'm guessing they'll have a hard time finding it.

She's not in jail. You may want to actually read the article.

[Buddy Holly]

She said she charged the fee so she could verify age through the CC.

Irony?

You can verify without charging money.

Irony? :nope

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

So if some punk kid one night tagged up your entire house with curse words, racist comments, vulgar shit and just plain unmentionable stuff. You'd have no problem with it?

None whatsoever.

I mean, you believe in freedom of speech so strongly.

Show me where she's aided in the destruction of personal property and I'll answer that for you.

[Spurminator]

So if some punk kid one night tagged up your entire house with curse words, racist comments, vulgar shit and just plain unmentionable stuff. You'd have no problem with it?

None whatsoever.

I mean, you believe in freedom of speech so strongly.


That's vandalism.

If this crazy bitch drew pictures of a little girl getting raped on my door, yeah I'd call the cops, but if she wants to write stories about it and sell them to willing readers how can you throw her in jail for that?

[Ronaldo McDonald]

What she's doing as her "treatment" is something she should keep private at home or on a website she can only access, to herself not post it on the internet and charge people membership. People more than likely who aren't "good" people.

True, but then again, putting it out there may help other people cope with the abuse they've experienced.

[Spurminator]

She's not in jail. You may want to actually read the article.

You're right but if she sets up a new site she will be. That's what probation is.

Jail, probation, $500 fine, whatever. It's crap.

[Buddy Holly]

I'm not justifying her work I'm pointing out that they shouldn't single her out compared to the loads of other shit available online.

Because it's not black and white. There's a whole lot of gray and the sooner you admit and or understand that the sooner you will realize why she no longer has a computer.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

I didn't realize the women's Web site was property not owned by her, and in fact, owned by other people and/or the government.

Show me where a tagger who has been commissioned to do artwork for a business has been arrested.

Weak argument.

[Buddy Holly]

You're right but if she sets up a new site she will be. That's what probation is.

Well, she'll have to stick to pen and paper to get her therapy.

[Spurminator]

Well, she'll have to stick to pen and paper to get her therapy.

Why should she?

[Buddy Holly]

I didn't realize the women's Web site was property not owned by her, and in fact, owned by other people and/or the government.

Show me where a tagger who has been commissioned to do artwork for a business has been arrested.

Weak argument.

Now you're twisting this to fit your argument.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, correct?

If you can apply it to one thing you can apply it to another.

Instead of trying to fit a argument admit that it's not always cut and dry and that not every situation can be handled the same way.

[Spurminator]

Taggers aren't punished for obscenity. It's a horrible argument. A teenager painting bunny rabbits on the side of a building is going to be punished the same as a teenager who sprays "Fuck" on it.

We're talking about free speech, you're talking about vandalism.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

No, I'm not twisting my argument.

Do taggers get arrested or fined for their work, or for their work on other people's property? Question?

[Buddy Holly]

Taggers aren't punished for obscenity. It's a horrible argument. A teenager painting bunny rabbits on the side of a building is going to be punished the same as a teenager who sprays "Fuck" on it.

I just used graphic words because 10/10 it's going to piss someone off. Not a cute little bunny.

Again, tagging anything is... FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

[Buddy Holly]

No, I'm not twisting my argument.

Do taggers get arrested or fined for their work, or for their work on other people's property? Question?

LOL

The fundamental right here is the freedom of speech. Correct?

What does doing work have to do with the fundamental right?

[Spurminator]

It's vandalism. Your metaphor is irrelevant. Next argument.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Anything, I just used graphic words because 10/10 it's going to piss someone off. Not a cute little bunny.

Again, tagging anything is... FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Me tagging my notebook is freedom of speech.

Me tagging your front door is vandalism. Again, they're not arrested for their work, they're arrested for their outlet (which isn't theirs to alter).

[Buddy Holly]

Why should she?

Well because, like you said, if she starts another website featuring those stories she gets in trouble.

I have no problem with her writing those stories as some type of therapy. But it's when she starts making money off of it and letting god knows who view those stories that I have a problem with it.

[Buddy Holly]

Me tagging my notebook is freedom of speech.

Me tagging your front door is vandalism. Again, they're not arrested for their work, they're arrested for their outlet (which isn't theirs to alter).

No, it's fundamentally the same thing. One just pisses people off more.

How are you not seeing that?

[Buddy Holly]

It's vandalism. Your metaphor is irrelevant. Next argument.

It's vandalism, yes. Which is my point.

There needs to be situations where "freedom of speech" can no longer be the excuse.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

LOL

The fundamental right here is the freedom of speech. Correct?

What does doing work have to do with the fundamental right?

You can scream "fire" in your own house. You can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater.

[Spurminator]

Buddy, you need to read this site because I think you've managed to use just about every one of these in this thread. It's almost impressive.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

[Buddy Holly]

You can scream "fire" in your own house. You can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater.

EXACTLY!

It's not BLACK AND WHITE.

It's a whole lotta GRAY.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

No, it's fundamentally the same thing. One just pisses people off more.

How are you not seeing that?

Again, show me the person commissioned to tag a wall that has been arrested.

[Spurminator]

It's vandalism, yes. Which is my point.

There needs to be situations where "freedom of speech" can no longer be the excuse.


Okayyyy, how does that apply to this case? With tagging, there is a crime being committed with the expression.

What crime is being committed in this author's case?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Would somebody please cue FWD?

[Buddy Holly]

Again, show me the person commissioned to tag a wall that has been arrested.

Yes or no.

Is it not the same fundamental thing?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Well because, like you said, if she starts another website featuring those stories she gets in trouble.

I have no problem with her writing those stories as some type of therapy. But it's when she starts making money off of it and letting god knows who view those stories that I have a problem with it.

How is it different than charging admission to see Dakota Fanning get raped?

Selling a book where there are passages devoted to child abuse, child rape, etc?

Prince of Tides? Sleepers?

Here's a book summary:

A 12-year-old Albanian girl is sold into prostitution in Italy; a boy is duped by a man who pretends he is a pigeon; an eight-year-old girl is forced by her grandmother to service an old man. Most of the 12 stories in Italian writer Dacia Maraini's chilling collection Darkness involve the betrayal of children by the adults charged with caring for them. Alicetta, a schizophrenic girl, is given baths late at night by a hospital orderly armed with sedatives; Tano, a tough 11-year-old, denounces his father for rape many times, but no one believes him.

[CuckingFunt]

The vandalism-as-free-speech argument is easily one of the weakest I've ever read around here.

That's really saying something.

[Buddy Holly]

Okayyyy, how does that apply to this case? With tagging, there is a crime being committed with the expression.

What crime is being committed in this author's case?

An obscenity law, it seems.


A Pennsylvania woman has been sentenced to five years of probation, including six months of home detention, and forfeiture of her computer after pleading guilty Thursday to obscenity charges for running a Web site that featured text stories that were sexual and violent in nature.

This woman wouldn't have pleaded guilty if she didn't do anything.

[Buddy Holly]

The vandalism-as-free-speech argument is easily one of the weakest I've ever read around here.

That's really saying something.

Is it not fundamental the same thing? Seriously, just answer yes or no.

[Spurminator]

This woman wouldn't have pleaded guilty if she didn't do anything.

Yeah that never happens.

[JoeChalupa]

An obscenity law, it seems.



This woman wouldn't have pleaded guilty if she didn't do anything.

You'd be surprised how many innocent people plead guilty.

[Spurminator]

Is it not fundamental the same thing? Seriously, just answer yes or no.

Fundamentally, it's vandalism.

[Buddy Holly]

How is it different than charging admission to see Dakota Fanning get raped?

Selling a book where there are passages devoted to child abuse, child rape, etc?

Prince of Tides? Sleepers?

Here's a book summary:

A 12-year-old Albanian girl is sold into prostitution in Italy; a boy is duped by a man who pretends he is a pigeon; an eight-year-old girl is forced by her grandmother to service an old man. Most of the 12 stories in Italian writer Dacia Maraini's chilling collection Darkness involve the betrayal of children by the adults charged with caring for them. Alicetta, a schizophrenic girl, is given baths late at night by a hospital orderly armed with sedatives; Tano, a tough 11-year-old, denounces his father for rape many times, but no one believes him.

What's the difference between a tagger being commissioned to spray paint on someone's wall and a tagger than isn't?

Charging people to be a member of a site that provides nothing but graphic stories where in children are raped and murdered is sick.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Is the right to bear arms fundamentally the same thing as using said gun in a threatening manner or shooting someone?

[Buddy Holly]

Fundamentally, it's vandalism.

Vandalism is only a meaningful concept in a culture that recognizes history and archaeology.

[Buddy Holly]

Is the right to bear arms fundamentally the same thing as using said gun in a threatening manner or shooting someone?

No. Because the fundamental right is to bear arms is that, the right to bear arms.

[Spurminator]

Charging people to be a member of a site that provides nothing but graphic stories where in children are raped and murdered is sick.

I think it's sick to be personally offended by fictional stories (that you haven't even read) to the point where you think they should be thrown in prison.

[Buddy Holly]

I think it's sick to be personally offended by fictional stories (that you haven't even read) to the point where you think they should be thrown in prison.

I said she should be thrown into prison?

Nope. Nice try though.

Hell, I think the probation was too much.

I do however have no problem that her membership site was shut down.

[Spurminator]

If you don't fine, but somebody obviously does because she's on probation right now.

[Spurminator]

Im sorry, I can't defend this being able to be written.

Whatever.

I thought you DIDN'T want to become China?

[Buddy Holly]

TPark is on the extreme side.

[CuckingFunt]

Is it not fundamental the same thing? Seriously, just answer yes or no.

Not even remotely.

[Buddy Holly]

Not even remotely.

It is.

The only variable is one is asked for/given permission the other isn't.

[CuckingFunt]

It is.

The only variable is one is asked for/given permission the other isn't.

That's a pretty big variable.

It's the same variable that determines the difference between graffiti and an art gallery.

If someone were to tag my apartment building, whether it be fluffy bunnies or a racial slur, there's no way I could possibly avoid seeing it every day until it was removed. This woman, on the other hand, could have kept her website from now until the end of eternity and I likely wouldn't have ever known about it unless I specifically searched for rape porn.

[Buddy Holly]

That's a pretty big variable.

It's the same variable that determines the difference between graffiti and an art gallery.

If someone were to tag my apartment building, whether it be fluffy bunnies or a racial slur, there's no way I could possibly avoid seeing it every day until it was removed. This woman, on the other hand, could have kept her website from now until the end of eternity and I likely wouldn't have ever known about it unless I specifically searched for rape porn.

It's fundamentally the same right. The right to free speech.

It's ok to admit that sometimes free speech just isn't a viable reason.

[MannyIsGod]

So if some punk kid one night tagged up your entire house with curse words, racist comments, vulgar shit and just plain unmentionable stuff. You'd have no problem with it?

None whatsoever.

I mean, you believe in freedom of speech so strongly.

Tagging is illegal not because of what they write but WHERE they right it. Its an act of vandalism. If someone tags their own wall its NOT illegal so you using this as proof that we have limits on freedom of speech is extremely laughable.

[CuckingFunt]

It's fundamentally the same right. The right to free speech.

It's ok to admit that sometimes free speech just isn't a viable reason.

What you're not getting, though, is that vandalism is a big enough issue to make the free speech point completely moot. Taggers are not breaking the law because of what they're painting/drawing/writing, they're breaking the law because of where they're doing it. The phrase "West Side Crips 4 Life" is protected by the first amendment, but painting it on the side of a liquor store is not.

[MannyIsGod]

Jesus Christ is this concept really that difficult to understand? Tagging is a propery crime. It is vandalism. It has nothing to do with the content of what is being written. Obscenity laws have everything to do with the content that is being written. Thats why it has everything to do with free speech. People argue that obscenity laws have no place because of the first amendment and saying that they have a place in our society and using vandalism prosecution as an reasoning or example is just flat out mind boggling.

[MannyIsGod]

The biggest problem with obscenity rulings is how much judgement based on morality you allow into the judicial system. The fact that ultimately one person gets to decide what is acceptable and what is not is something that is fundementaly unAmerican. The problem is that anyone who tries to fight in cases like this is always tied to the content and not the argument of free speech. You can see it in this thread. People have already asked "How can you defend the content".

So who's going to go up in front of the press and fight for the right of some woman to write this material when they themselves become associated with the material?

[PM5K]

She basically got a slap on the hand, sounds like they were just trying to make a point but didn't exactly do a great job of doing that.

I'm just wondering how her stories were any different from books or movies that have children being raped or murdered in them...

Let's say for example the book Pure Murder:

"The crime itself is almost too frightening to believe and Mitchell paints a most vivid depiction. I'm glad he does because it made me realize how truly despicable these young men were and how horribly they assaulted, raped, mutilated, and finally killed these two sweet teenage girls."

Is that ok because it's non-fiction?

[Buddy Holly]

I'll admit that my tagging example wasn't the best put together.

[AlamoSpursFan]

I hate when people use the constitution to retrofit one of them into applying to today.

When they came up with it, they probably didn't have in mind the protection to those who wanted to "write stories solely of rape and murder towards children for the world to see via the internet."

The same thing for dumb shits out there that argue they wanted "everyone to have guns."

I may be a "dumb shit", but I'm a "dumb shit" with guns.

:lmao

[mavs>spurs2]

Im sorry, I can't defend this being able to be written.

Whatever.

These weren't rich children, they were poor children who's parents made minimum wage. Does that change your opinion?

[baseline bum]

Obscenity is bullshit. Writing demented stories is not a crime against anyone. There is no victim. I hate how in this country no one wants to assign responsibility to the criminal anymore. If someone reads a story and goes and tortures a child, it's still his choice and not the writer's. This is like dumbass Tipper Gore trying to ban Ice-T's work because some idiots have to go and bust a cap. That's just bullshit. Whatever happened to the simple "that guy's crazy"?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Yes, it's an R rated movie where an adult kills other adults. If it's a movie where a man or men constantly rape and kill children, you'd be ok with it getting made?

Missed this earlier.

Yes, I'd be fine with it. Just like I'm fine with Hollywood making movies about killing the President, terrorist plots against our country, serial killers, etc.

I just want to know what laws have been broken. A private citizen sold her private works to other private citizens via a private medium(pay site). Are Tom Clancy and VC Andrews next? The cast of L&O: SVU?

Who is the victim in this? Whose liberties have been infringed upon? It's not fucking real, for Christ's sake.

Why is fictitious child rape/molestation considered more criminal than a fictitious assassination plot of the President?

[MannyIsGod]

I mean wtf. You guys think you can stop people from thinking these things?

The Marquis de Sade would say shit hasn't changed in 200 years.

[ploto]

When you look at the history of literature, there are many books that people tried to stop from being published that are considered classic works of literature today.

[sabar]

Wow there are some really weak arguments in here.

And there are many excellent books where children were defiled or murdered. Just like there are many excellent books where good honest adults are brutally slaughtered. Look at the hundreds of books on World War II and Nazi concentration camps. If you are so naive you want stuff like that banned, then please do the world a favor and don't vote.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I'll admit that my tagging example wasn't the best put together.

Wrong is the word you're looking for... not "wasn't the best put together", W R O N G! It has absolutely no merit. When tagging is illegal, it is so because its vandalism like people have already pointed out in here, not because its a free speech issue. You thinking its fundamentally the same means you're wrong.

[Slomo]

I mean wtf. You guys think you can stop people from thinking these things?

The Marquis de Sade would say shit hasn't changed in 200 years.


Missed this earlier.

Yes, I'd be fine with it. Just like I'm fine with Hollywood making movies about killing the President, terrorist plots against our country, serial killers, etc.

I just want to know what laws have been broken. A private citizen sold her private works to other private citizens via a private medium(pay site). Are Tom Clancy and VC Andrews next? The cast of L&O: SVU?

Who is the victim in this? Whose liberties have been infringed upon? It's not fucking real, for Christ's sake.

Why is fictitious child rape/molestation considered more criminal than a fictitious assassination plot of the President?


When you look at the history of literature, there are many books that people tried to stop from being published that are considered classic works of literature today.

+1

I might add that the Marquis de Sade books (now considered a classic) opened the subject for debate and study, which in turn lead to a better understanding of such human behavior.



I'm still surprised at Buddy's premises in one of the earliest post, where he says that free speech should be adapted to and limited by current moral values.

I hate when people use the constitution to retrofit one of them into applying to today.

When they came up with it, they probably didn't have in mind the protection to those who wanted to "write stories solely of rape and murder towards children for the world to see via the internet."...

That is in fact the most dangerous premise of this whole thread. Free speech must be absolute and unequivocal, since adaptation of fundamental rights to the moral guidelines "du jour", is what made atrocities like Hitler's final solution not only possible but also acceptable.

[timvp]

Buddy Holly comparing freedom of speech to tagging is Charles-Oakley-on-Oprah-esque.

[BacktoBasics]

All I know is that this thread fucking delivered.

I think Manny made a great point when he stated that most people in general would stray from supporting this women not based on the fact that she went beyond free speech (which I don't think she did) but more based on the fact that they wouldn't want the content associated with themselves. Which furthermore showcases exactly how retarded and blind the world we live in is.

Had this women wrote the exact same material and landed a full feature mega movie starring well know actors and actresses we wouldn't even be debating this. She'd probably earn some kind of "high honor" or prestigious award for depicting her horrific past via money making theatre. They'd call it creative and genius.

You can't pick and choose from works of fiction whats more acceptable than the next. We might as well stop people from purchasing all kinds of excessive luxury items deemed over the top....then we can start rationing bread and water. Not to mention that we'd be missing out on great works of art like Saw 1.2 and 3 maybe 4.