'Obscene Text' Indicted In Pittsburgh

[mongo]

Regardless of how you feel about the content of these stories, this was settled law. But our current justice department just doesn't care. Before you comment on how awful the content is, do you really want to go back to the day that Fanny Hill was banned?

'Obscene Text' Indicted In Pittsburgh
By: Mark Kernes
Posted: 5:48 pm PDT 9-27-2006

PITTSBURGH, Pa. - U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, the same official who secured the indictments of Extreme Associates and its owners, has turned her attention to a subject that many had thought long settled by the U.S. Supreme Court's 1966 decision in A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts: Obscene text.

Apparently not. On Tuesday, Karen Fletcher, webmistress of a website which published "excerpts of stories about child sex, torture and murder that were available to all visitors" under the pen name "Red Rose," according to a story by Joe Mandak of the Associated Press, was indicted on six counts of obscenity trafficking. The government is also seeking to forfeit Fletcher's computer system and an undisclosed amount of money in addition to the potential $1.5 million fine she could receive if convicted – not to mention the 30 years in jail.

Fletcher's website, which apparently had all of 29 subscribers, charged $10 per month for customers to read fantasies consisting of "explicit stories about adults having sex with children," according to the FBI's search warrant which was executed in August of last year. At that time, the government seized Fletcher's computer containing the online stories, to which 40 writers alleged contributed.

"Fletcher was charged with one count for each of six stories that involved the kidnapping, torture, sexual molestation and murder of children 9 years and younger," according to Mandak. "Although Fletcher's site offers written works instead of videos, the case is similar to the one Buchanan filed against Extreme Associates, a California company that distributes videos simulating rape and murder."

more WARNING -- from Adult Video News, not work safe, explicit content, yada, yada -- http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Articles&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=276797

And a followup story with the text of the indictment
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Web_Exclusive_News&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=276804

[xchrom]

1. gulag america.

the sanitized version.

[On the Road]

2. Most of Us Do Recognize Cetain Types of Obscenity

we just have different standards. That makes application of the first Amendment tricky. Community standards vary and change over time -- that makes it trickier.

Whether there should be a legal penalty for distributing "fantasy" depends partly on whether it's considered to be a victimless crime, or whether sites like this result in actual harm to minors.

[mongo]

3. The whole idea of "community standards"

is BS when applied to the internet. Should content on the internet be reduced to what the most prudish "community" in America endorses?

And what about the concept of individual liberty? What about the fact that it's legal to OWN any sexually material that involves consenting adults, but NOT to sell it? If someone has a right to own something, then doesn't a right to aquire it naturally follow? What other asset can someone own, but not legally sell to an adult?

Not to mention that this WAS settled law, and that textual descriptions of sexuality has been LEGAL since 1966.

We really are going backwards in this country.

[Matariki]

4. I agree with you

it's a sad, sad day when written material becomes illegal.