Web Site Operator Charged With Obscenity

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.

-----------------------------------------------------

What are your thoughts?

I find it an interesting angle being used by the government stating that her content "emboldens sex offenders who would target children".

I'm really torn by this.

I think there's an argument to be made that by publishing and glorifying horrendous acts against children, she may in fact be supporting or encouraging the deviant behavior of child molesters, and one can make an argument that if it meaningfully contributes to behavior that harms children, restrictions might be in order.

However, on the other hand, it's fiction. It's not (as far as I've heard) based even in part on real acts that she performed or were described to her. So it's very, very clearly protected speech. And as repulsive as it is, I have a difficult time justifying restricting her freedom of expression.

I just hope that the right wing bozos at the Supremes will look at this objectively and uphold her right to freedom of speech and expression.

i agree chip, very tough one. ive heard the argument that it feeds fantasies that may one day be acted out. is that true? we dont have that much evidence either way as far as i can see. i cant bring myself to say that its ok to write sex stories about kids, maybe thats predjudice.

ill be interested to read everyone elses thoughts though. could be an interesting thread.

I'm not certain, but I believe there is substantial research done in Canada connecting the continual display of violence in movies and television with an increase in violent acts by kids and teens who have watched a large amount of TV.

That's apparently why Canadian film ratings are different than US ones (a film rated PG here might get an the equivalent of an R in Canada if it is violent, while a film rated R here because of near-explicit sexual content might get the equivalent of a PG in Canada.

If the research is actually solid and well conducted, then it wouldn't be a big step to say that we could probably generalize the findings about that to depictions of sexual behavior.

Again, I haven't read the research, this is just what I've been told secondhand.

Well I can see how young love/sex “between guys or girl’s under 18”should not be illegal in literature in anyway, after all we could count Romeo and Juliet in all this. I have not read or have time too read the story’s but I will say I do not approve of child molestation story’s. Now do I think it should be outlawed, well not sure about that, I really personally hate to have limitations, but would never take anything that far.

We will have too see if this case even sticks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxpower

Well I can see how young love/sex “between guys or girl’s under 18”should not be illegal in literature in anyway, after all we could count Romeo and Juliet in all this. I have not read or have time too read the story’s but I will say I do not approve of child molestation story’s. Now do I think it should be outlawed, well not sure about that, I really personally hate to have limitations, but would never take anything that far.

We will have too see if this case even sticks

---

im no shakespeare expert but i dont think romero and juliet was sexually explicit.

i hate abuse of kids in any way and i find this material to be vile and sick, but, like gaybucks_chip said, it is fiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

I'm not certain, but I believe there is substantial research done in Canada connecting the continual display of violence in movies and television with an increase in violent acts by kids and teens who have watched a large amount of TV.

That's apparently why Canadian film ratings are different than US ones (a film rated PG here might get an the equivalent of an R in Canada if it is violent, while a film rated R here because of near-explicit sexual content might get the equivalent of a PG in Canada.

If the research is actually solid and well conducted, then it wouldn't be a big step to say that we could probably generalize the findings about that to depictions of sexual behavior.

Again, I haven't read the research, this is just what I've been told secondhand.

---

See I don’t know about studies I can pull a study out too “prove” about anything I want. I think its more likely people attracted to violence or what ever is attached by the films or stories not the other way around. $0.02

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marcjacob

im no shakespeare expert but i dont think romero and juliet was sexually explicit.

i hate abuse of kids in any way and i find this material to be vile and sick, but, like gaybucks_chip said, it is fiction.

---

As I recall the real thing has sex between a 14 year old girl and a 18 year old boy, and love and drama ECT too of course. People have been using this stuff in literature for thousands of years, even a few incest stores in the bible. I see no need to take the current witch hunt to the point we start burning books, just because the media has got everyone looking behind every tree for a child molester, and have everyone’s support do anything we can to “Protect The Children” should not give anyone the right to have this kind of control over literature or art even legal porn. We have to watch the Gov most when they have the most support for something, these are the times when the Gov takes things too far.

just seen this story elsewhere, she apparently had only 29 members paying $10 a month. I think that needs to be taken into account even if you think she deserves jail time. She hardly perverted society with 29 members.

i have been told that one of the stories on her website was a story about sex with a two year old girl. that's not exactly romeo and juliet...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

i have been told that one of the stories on her website was a story about sex with a two year old girl. that's not exactly romeo and juliet...

---

You see that makes me squirm. I try to think about free speech and all that stuff but i just cant bring myself to say this is fine.

I've done a lot of soul searching on this and after reading a primer on free speech from Stanford University, amongst other publications, I have a more solid stance on this particular topic. The primer is located here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/ . They mention pornography a number of times and address issues like extreme porn and degrading women in porn.

I have not seen any of the red rose material. I do not trust our current administrations rendition of the material, as I do not trust our current administration at all.

If the red rose material was a blueprint on how to abuse children and/or incited people to abuse children, then it's not protected speech.

If the red rose material is a compilation of fantasies, regardless of how sick one might feel, they are a form of protected speech.

Not liking the fact that a type of protected speech exists is not grounds to silence it, or control it, as much as we'd like to, if in fact the red rose material falls under protected speech.

One quote I found interesting the in the freedom of speech primer was this quote from John Stuart Mills:

"If all of mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankid would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

Mind you that free speech does not equal the freedom to DO whatever you like. Real abuse of children, selling content depicting sex between children or with them, sexually exploiting children, etc. is obviously not ok by any mentally healthy persons standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maxpower

See I don’t know about studies I can pull a study out too “prove” about anything I want. I think its more likely people attracted to violence or what ever is attached by the films or stories not the other way around. $0.02

---

That's the difference between good, solid studies and junk science. A really well controlled study takes into account many different factors and does its best to control for them, adjusting the outcome accordingly. If you have a science or research background, it's not too difficult to look at the methodology behind a study and determine from that whether you can trust the results.

What I was told from someone I trust in such matters was that the Canadian studies were among the best ever conducted on that subject. I don't think they were junk science intended to arrive at a particular conclusion. Unfortunately, a large number of the studies done in the US are quite the opposite, and as you said, under those circumstances, you can pretty much buy any result you want, and it will look good until you start looking at the methodology. I don't think that's the case with these.

Can text and video alter behavior?

Jackass, Camp kill yourself, Wild Boys and Steve-o gave birth the backyard kamikaze daredevils

Or is that too hard to understand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IdolKnights

Can text and video alter behavior?

Jackass, Camp kill yourself, Wild Boys and Steve-o gave birth the backyard kamikaze daredevils

Or is that too hard to understand?

---

By your logic people who watch straight porn will have straight sex right? For surely if they watch it they will be capable of doing it, or willing to.

Backyard kamikaze daredevils have always existed. Everyone knew someone like the jackass asses growing up. TV shows didn't make jackasses, jackasses made tv shows.

Has book burning ever helped society? ( take note on Chinese cultural revolutions that have failed )

Keeping China in mind, once the government has a hold on the people it is very hard to change public opinion with no forum for public opinion, and the government bars that bind you to being the ideal citizen are strong.

Everyone is impressionable and everyone has free will. Reading doesn't make you do anything, you do.

I write a lot of gay sex stories and, as they're 'wank' material for adult websites I keep all my characters over the age of 18. One of my novels concerns a 16 year old guy coming out and I can think of loads of 'coming out' and other gay novels that describe a boy's first sexual experience - usually teenage - but these novels are art, Edmund White etc. and not writen for the sexual gratification of the reader. I think that's the difference.

Oh - and there's a line in Romeo & Juliet : 'let us go to bed and let our mouths do what our hands would otherwise' (paraphrased, don't have my copy to hand) - so my guess is that some kind of oral bonking went on!

Luke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Backyard kamikaze daredevils have always existed. Everyone knew someone like the jackass asses growing up. TV shows didn't make jackasses, jackasses made tv shows.

Has book burning ever helped society? ( take note on Chinese cultural revolutions that have failed )

(snip)

Everyone is impressionable and everyone has free will. Reading doesn't make you do anything, you do.

---

I agree with both sides of this argument. People are responsible for their own behavior, but people are also influenced by what they see in the mass media and what those around them do, whether they like it or not, whether they want it or not.

Over time, if kids constantly see lots of violence, *some* of them will be numbed to the point that it somehow becomes OK. That's basically what the studies have shown.

HOWEVER. that said, it is absolutely not OK to limit speech or expression. The true answer is for people to educate their kids to see through the violence AND to limit their exposure to it, and maybe for people (Hollywood, in this case) to think about the impact that they have on the public with the films they produce.

[QUOTE=Squirt;166869]
Has book burning ever helped society?
QUOTE]

Maybe is we got a huge stack of bibles...and then....

:p