|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Web Site Operator Charged With Obscenity
Sep 27 5:46 PM US/Eastern
By JOE MANDAK
Associated Press Writer
PITTSBURGH
A woman who authorities say ran a Web site that published graphic
fictional tales about the torture and sexual abuse of children has
been indicted on federal obscenity charges.
"Use of the Internet to distribute obscene stories like these not only
violates federal law, but also emboldens sex offenders who would
target children," U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan said Wednesday in
announcing the charges against Karen Fletcher, 54.
Excerpts of her stories were available to all visitors to her Web
site, while others paid to read whole stories, prosecutors said.
Fletcher was indicted by a federal grand jury Tuesday on six counts
involving six stories about the kidnapping, torture, sexual
molestation and murder of children 9 and under. The charges carry five
years in prison each.
Fletcher, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, said
Wednesday that federal authorities "didn't like my site." She had no
other comment on the charges.
In court papers, the FBI said Fletcher told agents she wrote most of
the stories and posted contributions from other people.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mrs Mary Buchanan is fixing to fall flat on her face. The US supreme court has already ruled that comic stories like Japanese Shotakon and such are not illegal and the artist and writters cannot be arrested and tried. this was concerning the Internet decency act. The court said no actual child was involved so there was no victim. I just wonder what makes them think they can get around that rulling. This is nothing but a polictical move and its going to backfire in the autorneys face.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woman charged over 'vile' Web stories
By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A Donora woman who federal prosecutors say posted fictional stories online about the rape, torture and murder of children was indicted this week on six charges of distributing obscene materials over the Internet.
Unlike typical obscenity cases, though, Karen Fletcher, 54, of Meldon Avenue, is charged with violating the law through simple writing, and not with pictures or movies.
Ms. Fletcher, who owned a publicly accessible Web site, will be arraigned on Oct. 17.
"I can't imagine why anyone would want to write or read stories involving the rape and torture of children," said U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan. "The law does not prohibit an individual from thinking or writing about their own thoughts within their own home. But when they go beyond that, and distribute that through interstate commerce, then they violate the law."
Excerpts from the stories were posted on Ms. Fletcher's Web site, but additional content and the full stories were available only by paying a membership fee of $10 a month.
In a February 2005 interview with the FBI, Ms. Fletcher said she had 29 members to her site.
"Fletcher described the Web site as a fantasy site and stated that she posts sexually explicit stories about adults having sex with children," wrote FBI Agent Christopher Cantrell in an affidavit for a search warrant.
According to the paperwork, Ms. Fletcher wrote many of the stories herself, but she also had about 40 other people writing for the site, as well.
Prosecutors believe, though, that most of those that involved graphic sexual exploitation of children were written by Ms. Fletcher. The stories alleged to be in violation of law have been taken off the Web site.
No one else is being charged in the case, Ms. Buchanan said.
Though Ms. Fletcher has told authorities that the stories were fiction, Ms. Buchanan said that doesn't matter.
"Whatever the genesis of the stories are is irrelevant to the federal violation," she said. "This material rises to the level of obscenity, and it is dangerous. Material of this type is the kind that emboldens individuals who have an interest in sexually exploiting children."
And that is one of the reasons obscenity laws were created, said Arthur Hellman, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pittsburgh.
"The worry is that people will be aroused and do awful things based on obscene work," Mr. Hellman said.
The legal definition of obscenity embraces both "description," as in text, and "depiction," as in images, he said.
Prosecutions for purely verbal violations are "relatively rare," Mr. Hellman said. Reasons for that could be a sense that written material is less harmful, or it could be more difficult to prove -- as required under the law -- that there is no artistic value in it.
"Juries would be more likely to see the evil in pictures," he said.
For the case against Ms. Fletcher to rise to the level of child pornography, there would have to be an actual image of a child. But to be considered obscenity under the law, that's not necessary.
"It is some of the most disturbing, disgusting and vile material that I've ever viewed," Ms. Buchanan said.
Copyright ©1997-2006 PG Publishing Co., Inc.
(\\__/) And if you don't believe The sun will rise
(='.'=) Stand alone and greet The coming night
(")_(") In the last remaining light. (C. Cornell)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I expect such things are already illegal in the UK, and, assuming that the material is really what it says it is, it sounds really appalling. Yet I see no proper, non knee-jerk reason for obscenity of this type to be a crime, where it does not reflect genuine actions and no-one has been hurt. It is not as if it was splashed all over the place so that it could traumatise those who would not wish to read it.
This is one of the most highly-rated articles on Google News for this subject. I have no idea who Dimitri Vassilaros is.
Make-believe Free Speech
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/vassilaros/s_472822.html
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
All I have to say (for the moment) is that anyone that advocates, encourages or otherwise praises stories of this nature are as bad or worse than the people that write and then display them.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc said,
>All I have to say (for the moment) is that anyone that advocates, encourages or otherwise praises stories of this nature are as bad or worse than the people that write and then display them.
I agree entirely. But I have not seen anyone doing that, anywhere. (I would certainly not wish to probe the murkier depths of the internet to find those people who might.)
My own disagreement is only with the punishment, which does not appear to fit the crime.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Stories involving Japoneese cartoons ans those portraying real people in realistic situations are very different.
Realistic situations tend to draw those of like minds into the fantasy of the story and as such have the very real possibility of being played out in real life.
Just as Jamie's stories make some feel good and thus instill a sence of hope.......
Bad stories can give miscreants the impetus to go out and grab a child off the streets and use them for their own ends.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc, I will defend your right to say anything you want. It doesnt mater if what you say or wright is discusting and horrible. Our constitution gives us the right to say whatever we wish without the risk of being imprisoned or punished. Any Law, any person who violates that right is the one who should be punished.
Anyone who has the desire to rape or harm a child is going to do it. Reading a story about it isnt going to make a difference. Im not suporting what she is doing, but she has the right to say anything she wishes and the over zelous butt head bitch (I assume she is in bed with W) needs to mind her own business.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc said,
>Stories involving Japoneese cartoons ans those portraying real people in realistic situations are very different.
Yes, you are right. We can see the difference. But I am not convinced that the tabloid press or litigious campaigners can. It would be simplest, as far as they are concerned, to make material involving any minors in a sexual context illegal to portray or distribute. That would include almost all the material on this site, even though it's all respectable and moral. You can follow the logic backwards on that and that is essentially where it leads. In fiction, the fact that no-one is genuinely "wronged" becomes irrelevant. Writing such material down would essentially be a thoughtcrime.
>Realistic situations tend to draw those of like minds into the fantasy of the story and as such have the very real possibility of being played out in real life.
It is easy to say this but there is very little evidence that this is the case. In practice, with violent material, people with a sense of responsibility and a conscience will be revolted and less likely to play it out in real life. Those who are attracted to it are already dangerous to the community. You don't become dangerous after reading a piece of fiction written by another person. What about personal responsibility? Since when has it been the responsibility of the state to censor everything to make sure people don't inadvertently read something unpleasant? By that reasoning, shouldn't we censor the news so people don't get ideas from the violent crimes other people commit?
>Bad stories can give miscreants the impetus to go out and grab a child off the streets and use them for their own ends.....
Well, so can some of the world's greatest literature (assuming that the person who reads it is in a psychotic or suicidal mood). Should we ban that, in case someone becomes depressed by it and hurts someone else?
Just playing devil's advocate.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
No..... The website owner needs to be put out of business......
And then promptly prosecuted......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prosecuted for what? Invent-a-law?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
The thing is, I find her subject material (which I confess I have not read, so I am going 100% on reports) detestable. I would invent the law under whcih to prosecute her. But, and this is the challenge, sites like this one, which do not publish such stories, would be likely to be "embraced" under the same law.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, yes. I think in this case the words "slippery slope" come to mind, this time with some genuine justification.
The problem is that if you were to counter the proposal of such a law (on any perfectly well justified grounds, such as freedom of thought and speech, or that it will inevitably cover far too many situations than it should rationally cover, such as this site or even "Queer as Folk") it is likely that you would be suspected of having ulterior motives, perhaps to the worst possible extent ("He wants stories about the torture of small children to exist? String him up!" even though your personal opinion is almost certainly that it is vile and that it should not exist.) This prevents any sort of rational logic in the lawmaking and judicial processes.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ProfZodiac
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: United States
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 115
|
|
|
There's a big difference between advocating it and defending it.
Who was it, I want to say Thomas Locke, who said, "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." As far as I can tell, granted I have not read these stories myself, they break no written law; these stories only break social mores, which aren't written into our legal code.
And while I seldom get political, this seems like a Republican effort to divide and conquer for votes again. Many Democrats might note that this is, as terrible as it is, a violation of civil rights. And then the Republicans will say that Democrats are soft on "crime" and "child molesters", even though neither has taken place here. The Republicans stay in control, and more civil liberties go by the wayside as a result of cheap tactics like this.
I'm not cynical, why do you ask?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I agree with you. Which is precisley why I brought it up.
You see Marc is absolutely right. If the law exists then she should feel the weight of it. That's fair, dcecent and equitable.
But acceding to my knee jerk reaction to create a new law is wrong, because it would be created, like so many recent UK laws, in haste, and woudl include those which it was never meant to include. Lawmaking by journalism is never good law.
It do3s not mean I am wrong to HAVE this reaction, but it means that wise, calm heads need to prevent extra legislation where none is required.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Certain types of pornography and movies are banned from being publically screened. I do think that from my point of view as an Australian, that generally things that violate the law, if put into writing should have to go through a censorship board/ committee/ whatever, at least. Published novels should perhaps start to have ratings? Maybe then online websites could start to introduce classifications too?
Slippery slope, yes, but very few of the stories on this website would be considered to be involving illegal acts due to the sliding scale age of consent we have here. Obviously that wouldn't be quite as permissable in other countries. Some pornos where rape is emulated for gratituous purposes are banned. Some BDSM pornos are banned. Most are allowed to be sold. We ARE capable of drawing a line somewhere far beyond what most of society would be comfortable with, but there still is a line drawn.
I support freedom of speech and limited censorship, but I do support SOME censorship. Movies depicting rape and murder that are made for pleasure of their audiences should be banned. In my opinion stories of that nature should have fines imposed if they are being distributed, but should not result in gaol time.
I saw a documentary once about a woman who used to work for a the national Canadian censorship board, she said that going in she supported the rights of anyone to display any kind of material they wanted to with no restrictions beyond G, PG, R, etc ratings. Coming out she wasn't so sure.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I think I share Adam's cynicism about the zealous US Attorney! Incidentally, the authorship of the quote Adam used is uncertain, but it's usually attributed to the French philosopher Voltaire ( 1694-1778 ), though it doesn't appear in any of his published works.
Mary Buchanan (I'm ashamed to see from her surname that she has a Scottish connection!) is, in the best Republican tradition, talking emotive nonsense.
So far as I am aware, there is no clear, unbiased and independent evidence that watching violent movies inspires violent behaviour, nor that child pornography inspires child abuse, nor that the most evil and appalling violence in fiction inspires a copy-cat reaction. There is, of course, a reverse connection, in that violent offenders are likely to be in possession of violent films, and child abusers are likely to possess child pornography, but that does not validate the presumption that the films or pornography contributed to the crimes. As Deeej has already pointed out, the offenders were already dangerous before they commited those crimes. Suggesting a causal link between possession of violent or pornographic material and perpetration of violent or abusive acts is as illogical as arguing that because all ducks are birds, all birds must therefore be ducks. Such a conclusion demands evidence and - as I've already said, there isn't any. Frankly, I would love to see independent research in this area, because my intuitive expectation would be that violent or pornographic material is more likely to function as a safety-valve than as a positive inducement to imitate.
I do find the subject-matter of the fiction involved in the present prosecution to be appalling and repulsive, but that is because I find the acts which it describes to be appalling and repulsive. And that is an emotive, rather than a logical reaction. If I had evidence that such fiction provoked offences against children, I would certainly change my view - but Buchanan's say-so is not evidence.
I fervently hope that Buchanan does not succeed. Because she is basing her case upon obscenity law rather than pornography law, the earlier pornography rulings won't constitute a direct legal precedent. Precedent attaches to a specific constitutional clause or to a specific paragraph in an enactment; it may be relevant in construing a different clause or paragraph, but it isn't binding. Thus, in theory, Buchanan could be successful - but if that were to happen it would establish an extremely dangerous precedent in future prosecutions. In the absence of scientific evidence, a favourable decision would necessarily be based on some woolly concept such as 'public outrage', and that would allow the 'moral majority' to attack other hard-won freedoms that we now take for granted.
I fervently hope that the US Courts have the integrity and independence to reject any of Buchanan's claims which are not supported by hard scientific evidence.
Remember - many thousands of Europeans have read the works of the Marquis de Sade, but Europe isn't over-run by sadists! Understanding how other peoples' minds work is an essential element in the process of understanding ourselves.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Evidence is never anything more than a box load of trivia and trinkits.
All prosecution is brought forth through the "say so" of the prosecutor.
Child pornography is illegal and falls under the umbrella of the child protection act.
And now for the fact of the matter.....
Wether or not the prosecutor is successful.....
The woman's web presence will be closed down....
Whatever profits she made from that site will be spent on lawyers to prove her case....
She will invaribly have a visit from local, state and national income tax agents.... and we know where that goes....
So.... One way or another, justice will prevail....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
My gut instinct is with you, Marc. My civil liberties instinct is with her.
Even if we simply argue "Good Taste" a story where any person, child or not, gets killed for the titilation of an audience is pretty sick, and I am not sure I want to meet the author anywhere.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The U.S. Supreme court ruled that that part of the child protection act was invalid. Where there is no victim, there is no crime. People are so willing to give up the civil rights or constitutionel guarantees. What she was doing on her web site was horrid and discusting and I cant think of anyone who would enjoy reading that, however, if we don t defend her right to say it, we will slowly give up that right. If you want to live in a world where the state controls what you hear and what you say, we are in a sad state of affairs. Sometimes we have to let someone like her slip thru the cracks in order to protect our civil rights. Its not a question of wheather she is the scum of the earth or not, but wheather she has the right to free speach. If a fantasy story like that disturbs you, dont read it. If a TV show upsets you turn the channel. No one is forcing anyone to go to that web site. this prosecutor was appointed by Bush, DUH! The republicans have always wanted to take away our civil liberties, this is just another attempt to do that. Their attitude is that we are not smart enough to decide for ourselves whats good and whats bad and we need big brother to take care of us.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
A bit of truth.....
The facts are that whatever the constitutional issues are she will have to now prove her inosense and here in this country that is a very expensive proposition....
Justice sometimes comes round-about but it always comes.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
I hope she wins and I hope she is forced out of business in the process.
I don't always agree with democracy. I'm definitely not an anarchist, people need to be pulled into line by the rule of law.
Rights need to be coupled with responsibility. Putting her behind bars would set a legal precedent to do the same to people that operate "age of consent violating erotica". But her website should be closed down. Cults are made illegal and are forcably shut down. Online communities that take enjoyment in discussing murder, rape, etc should potentially be shut down. I trust our justice system.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you entirely, Brian.
I think it is absurdly simplistic -- well, in fact, just plain wrong -- of Marc to say, "Justice sometimes comes round-about but it always comes." Many, many people have been imprisoned, persecuted or even executed for things that we today would regard as acceptable behaviour. The only way I can possibly think that Marc is being literal here is if he holds a religious view that wrongdoers are punished by God after death. Because they are certainly not always punished on Earth. If not, it's a soundbite that does not extend beyond this particular situation.
Incidentally, in this case, I am NOT saying that this woman's behaviour is acceptable, but I am saying that her work is on the fringes of a subject that IS -- I would regard the stories on this site as acceptable, for example. I support her right to say anything she wants, provided that it harms no-one in the process.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Not absurd at all.......
Not nice either.....
Just reality and the way the justice system works.....
Look at the OJ trial..... guilty as sin, yet acquitted..... but it cost him $5 million to buy it.....
Just as it will become very expensive for this woman to come to a verdict of innosence.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
And.....
Remember, this woman is in it for the $$$$$$$$.......
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot argue with the fact that as far as you are concerned "justice" will prevail in this case whatever happens.
But a statement like "Justice sometimes comes round-about but it always comes" is a blanket one and doesn't just cover this situation. Even if you mean today rather than the past, in the USA rather than any other country, it would imply that the laws are never wrong, that there are no over-zealous prosecutors or corrupt police, that no-one is ever brought to trial wrongly, and certainly never sentenced wrongly. You seem to have a rather absurd faith in the American legal system. Is that really what you meant?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I believe that you get what is coming to you.......
This woman should not profit from these stories.... and for the right or wrongness of our legal system I can take some comfort in knowing that she now will not profit from them.
You see..... Justice comes in many forms.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc said,
>I believe that you get what is coming to you.......
In this case, perhaps. I take exception to you saying that without qualification, as if it always holds true in any case.
I don't think that those women and children who die of war or famine or disease necessarily get what is coming to them.
Or those who have been murdered for belonging to another denomination or religion, or pointed out the inadequacies of the government of the day, inevitably got what was coming to them.
What about gay people who committed "unspeakable acts" in the eyes of the people and the law of the time -- I suppose it is also right that they were persecuted or imprisoned or even executed?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I am talking about this woman in this set of circumstances.
Without reservation the instances are not what people deserve but there are those that cause these circumstances and they will get what is coming to them....
Just as I will get what is coming to me and you will get what is coming to you.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc said,
>Just as I will get what is coming to me and you will get what is coming to you.....
Well, that's a truism, certainly. Your life is what you make of it, including making the best of difficult circumstances. The examples I gave, however, are in most cases influenced by external factors: things that people have no control over. In many cases these are people exploiting their power over other people with the object of making them miserable.
Regretably there are people who live and die without ever seeing the error of their ways. Does it in the long run make them unhappy and unfulfilled people? I don't know. Some of those people who preach hate on behalf of their religion give every sign of being entirely and absolutely self-righteous and content with their position, while simultaneously being entirely evil.
I don't think there is an afterlife, and while I would love to think that God will give them what is coming to them after death, I do not believe that can possibly be the case.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
It's complex. Being able to make money at something you are good at is fine provided it is lawful. Vegetarians truly find abattoirs appalling places and wish people would not earn money from owning them or working in them. Meat is not necessary for human life.
If it proves, as is likely, that she is within the law, so be it. She may continue to earn money from her trade, one that I find appalling. Abattoirs continue to exist.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ProfZodiac
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: United States
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 115
|
|
|
The irony here is that you've got it roundabout. She doesn't have to prove a damn thing, she just has to be able to refute whatever the prosecution attempts to prove.
Innocent until proven guilty, as I recall. Burden of proof is on the district attorney.
Even better, if she wins the case, she might have grounds for a countersuit alleging defamation of character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regretably, I made a small speling misstake. I hope it is not obvius.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Then we always have the option of pissing on their grave.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
My argument is as good as I choose it to be....
Sometimes, just sometimes it is good to see someone put everything they have on the line to prove their point.
I hope she has nothing but her skin when it is all over....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Firstly, Marc says "Evidence is never anything more than a box load of trivia and trinkets." I cannot believe that he really means that; if evidence is unimportant, the law becomes irrelevant.
In fact, what I meant by 'evidence' was properly validated scientific research into the question of whether exposure to violent or pornographic media is likely to provoke violent or abusive behaviour. And, so far as I am aware, no such evidence exists. Buchanan's opinion is immaterial; she has no expertise in the field. No doubt she can marshal a few academics who will uphold her view, but the defence will have no trouble in finding just as many academics who support the opposite view; in any event, the defence need only ask the prosecution witnesses to cite the studies upon which their opinions are founded. Even expert witnesses cannot pluck opinions out of thin air.
The material is NOT illegal under the Child Protection Legislation, for the reason Brian has already given. The legal precedent established by the case to which he provided a link makes that clear. That's why Buchanan is taking the case under Obscenity statutes.
Marc, I think that your feelings about the accused woman are entirely right; I feel the same way myself. But, if we wish to live under the law, we have to respect it, even if we do not agree with it. And when it comes to limiting the right of free speech, surely that is a matter to be decided by the legislature rather than the Courts? There are dozens of examples in legal history of legal precedents being used in ways the original Court could never have foreseen.
As regards the issue of legal expenses, is there no system of legal aid in the US? Does the ability to mount an effective defence depend upon how rich you are? If so, that must apply to every innocent person wrongly accused, so it's hardly something of which the US can be proud? Surely, at the very least, a person acquitted by the Courts can sue for wrongful arrest and recoup their legal costs in damages? I appreciate how you feel about this woman, but if she is not convicted, then in the eyes of the law she is no different from anyone else acquitted of a charge.
From my own experience of working for the state, I’d also add that subscriptions from 29 users at $10 per month isn’t going to make the case a priority with the Department of Internal Revenue, even if the income hasn’t been disclosed. She’d be entitled to deduct the costs of maintaining and managing the website, so the net undisclosed profit wouldn’t justify the costs of investigating the case.
Moving on to Saben’s response, I admire his point of view but I can’t accept it. I’ve spent much of my life close to what we Brits claim to be the best Judicial system in the world. In some ways it is; it isn’t perfect, but - on the whole - wealth is not a factor which can influence the outcome of a case. Nevertheless, I don’t trust the system; I’ve seen it manipulated far too often. That’s why I believe that cases like this can be so dangerous; legal precedent is a tool easily misused by those with a particular agenda. Clear and simple are the watchwords in this situation; decisions need to be objective and fact-based; once we allow them to become subjective, reflecting opinion rather than evidence, we begin to slide down a slippery slope. I would love to see this woman’s site trashed, but not if it left a subjective precedent – because, seriously, a site as innocent and well-meaning as this one would be at risk in the future.
Adam, as before, hits the nail on the head and is absolutely right.
I don’t really want to take sides in the exchange between Deeej and Marc. I understand how Marc feels, and I can’t bring myself to criticise him for that. But I’m much too cynical to believe in anything as vague as natural justice. If natural justice had any validity, 200,000 Black Africans would still be alive in Darfur, and countless Iraqis whose only dream was peace and justice would still be alive to express that dream. The world is governed by self-interest, not by justice, and for that reason alone we, as the un-named masses, should never waver in upholding the independence and intellectual integrity of the judicial system, whilst subjecting it to the most detailed scrutiny.
And finally, I agree with Timmy – the financial argument is unsound because it isn’t restricted to cases like this. The activities of the accused woman are repulsive in the extreme but, if the financial argument would apply equally to someone protesting at in infringement of their liberty by a wealthy corporation, it is something of which the US should be ashamed, rather than proud.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Or is everyone stunned by my brilliant summary? Well, no - that can't be right!
Seriously, this is one of the most interesting and important topics we've addressed for ages; surely there's more to be said?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I haven't read the stories. And I have no desire to.
Like cossie, my gut instinct is that such fictions are more likely to act as a safety valve for people having fantasies, rather than making then rush out and actually comit such actions. There is - as far as I know - no *convincing* evidence one way or the other.
And hard evidence is the only foundation that I find acceptable for making law in this area. To base law, and law enforcement, on personal prejudice about what should be "acceptable" is the kind of thinking that leads to the castration of homosexuals ("'s obvious - if they haven't got any balls they're not going to go out and have sex with kids and turn them into faggots ..."). Marc, what you are advocating is NOT "justice" but the legalised application of narrowminded and parochial prejudice that happens to suit your own world-view. It is lynch-law ... sometimes disguised by a veneer of legality from bigoted courts (and inequitable access to legal representation for the "innocent-until-proven-guilty" defendants).
For what it is worth, in any major unedited collection of stories on the net (Nifty, for example) has a high proportion of stories about subjects that I find disturbing. Abuse of kids, non-consensual BDSM / rape, etc. are topics I think most of us find abhorrent. Any story set in a war or military context may appear to glorify the military lifestyle which I believe is wrong. Perhaps I am more unusual in finding stories about the fictional sex lives of real people (boyband fanfic, RP slash) almost equally abhorrent (because they also treat other people as objects). But I remain committed to ensuring that such stories are available to those who wish to read them.
Freedom of speech is a precious right, and the real test is whether we are prepared to stand up for the right of those with whom we strongly disagree to express themselves. Even if their writings are (in our view) dangerous, exploitative nonsense, which we think obviously corrupt others, we must either be able to show beyond reasonable doubt that such corruption does actually occur, or accept that (while we can ask that we ourselves not be exposed to such writings) other people may not share our evaluation and may choose to read such material. And, frankly, that applies whether the material is child-abuse stories on a website read by a rather few people, or the official outpourings of the UK government which are actually designed to desensitise us to the realities of cluster bombs, "collateral damage", and shifting the boundaries between "intensive questioning" and "torture".
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
not if we've exhausted it 
