Woman Charged With Posting (Fictional) Web Child Sex Stories

shemp

a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
shemp
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
67,694
Location
none
linky winky

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.
Click to expand...

It is my opinion that anyone who molests children should be boiled alive, or worse. It is also my opinion that NO ONE should be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced or punished for what they are thinking.

The theory behind prosecuting people for fictional child molestation stories is that such stories incite people to molest children. Can anyone point toward a peer-reviewed study that indicates this is true? And even if you can prove such a thing, then perhaps, by the same logic, we should prosecute the authors of murder mysteries, crime dramas, terrorism movies, and the guy who wrote the movie about the fictional assassination of President Bush.

There is a difference between fiction and advocating criminal acts. If someone authored a webpage openly advocating the molestation of children and encouraging people to commit such acts, I would not have any qualms about prosecuting that person under whatever statutes apply. If someone publishes fictional works involving such acts and does not openly advocate for child molestation or actively encourage people to commit such acts, then I have qualms about prosecuting them.

Again, can anyone point toward a peer-reviewed study that indicates that such fiction encourages people to molest children? I would like to see if there is really anything behind this theory, or if this is just another step toward broader prosection of people's thoughts.
 
shemp said:
linky winky

It is my opinion that anyone who molests children should be boiled alive, or worse. It is also my opinion that NO ONE should be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, sentenced or punished for what they are thinking.

The theory behind prosecuting people for fictional child molestation stories is that such stories incite people to molest children. Can anyone point toward a peer-reviewed study that indicates this is true? And even if you can prove such a thing, then perhaps, by the same logic, we should prosecute the authors of murder mysteries, crime dramas, terrorism movies, and the guy who wrote the movie about the fictional assassination of President Bush.

There is a difference between fiction and advocating criminal acts. If someone authored a webpage openly advocating the molestation of children and encouraging people to commit such acts, I would not have any qualms about prosecuting that person under whatever statutes apply. If someone publishes fictional works involving such acts and does not openly advocate for child molestation or actively encourage people to commit such acts, then I have qualms about prosecuting them.

Again, can anyone point toward a peer-reviewed study that indicates that such fiction encourages people to molest children? I would like to see if there is really anything behind this theory, or if this is just another step toward broader prosection of people's thoughts.
Click to expand...
I despise child molesters. This kind of literature disturbs me deeply. However, as much as *I would like to disagree with you I can find no reason to do so. From what I have read regarding this type of material it does not lead people to molest children.

I would gladly change my mind if good science is shown otherwise.

*Not simply to be contrarian but I would like a reason to legislate against this crap.
 
How can they even consider arresting this person for a fictional work while allowing NAMBLA free reign? Who will police the Thought Police?
 
I agree completely with the OP.

So we censor fiction today. Tomorrow do we censor news stories about molestation? And if so, what do we censor next? News about our Government's actions?

Seems like I remember reading something about freedom of speech. While I may disagree with many things folks choose to write, I stand behind their right to write it. (that's almost a tongue twister).


Oh yea, I remember now -


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, if Congress didn't make a law against this, who did? And if there isn't one, how can anyone be charged for it? And if there is a law against this, how can that be?

I have a feeling this will not go far in court.
 
Actually, she falls under Freedom of the Press, too.

As repulsive as her subject is to me, the suppression of speech and writing is even more repulsive to me. I do not condone the activities about which she writes, but I do not object to her writing them.

If our society condones censoring her because of what her writing might inspire others to do, then we have just admitted that video games cause crime, and slasher films cause crime, and rock music causes crime.

You know, those freedoms don't exist to protect only the palatable ideas.
 
Mephisto said:
How can they even consider arresting this person for a fictional work while allowing NAMBLA free reign? Who will police the Thought Police?
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court will throw it out like it always does -- this is just before an election, keep in mind.
 
Hmmm...obscenity and freedom of speech at odds again. Who knew? These are the tough cases that reside at the margins of our constitutional protections.

Where's Justice Potter Stewart when you need him? Sylvia?

AS
 
Mephisto said:
How can they even consider arresting this person for a fictional work while allowing NAMBLA free reign? Who will police the Thought Police?
Click to expand...
I will, for the usual fee.

You will find my mind-control techniques disturbing, yet whimsical.
 
AmateurScientist said:
Hmmm...obscenity and freedom of speech at odds again. Who knew? These are the tough cases that reside at the margins of our constitutional protections.
Click to expand...

I thought this issue had been delt with when the supream court issed that ruleing over simulated child porn.

Mind you the stuff would be illegal in the UK.
 
Obligatory statement of pedophile hatred.

Is fiction depicting the graphic murder/torture of children legal? My guess is yes.

I find it odd that it is legal to "promote" the beating of children but not their molestation.
 
I thought this issue had been delt with when South Park did their NAMBLA episode:

"Dude, You. Have. Sex ... With. Kids."
 
Last edited:
"Inciting" molestation? Seems to me somebody who enjoys reading literary child pornography is likely already the sort of person who would molest a child given the chance; I don't think reading "stories" makes matters any worse than they are.

Assuming, for a moment, that it was "OK" (which it isn't, fine) to crack down on a certain form of written speech, it seems to me that a government which will arrest a person for writing fictional stories, but not arrest NAMBLA members for disseminating instructions detailing how to gain kids' trust in order to create a situation conducive to abuse, doesn't have its priorities straight.
 
Joshua Korosi said:
"Inciting" molestation? Seems to me somebody who enjoys reading literary child pornography is likely already the sort of person who would molest a child given the chance; I don't think reading "stories" makes matters any worse than they are.
Click to expand...


Or maybe it gives certain individuals an outlet for their sick fantasys, keeping them from acting on them.

Fill in your favorite controversial media subject in your above statement and read it again. Try, "violent video games".
 
Seems to me somebody who enjoys reading literary child pornography is likely already the sort of person who would play violent video games given the chance.
 
geni said:
I thought this issue had been delt with when the supream court issed that ruleing over simulated child porn.

Mind you the stuff would be illegal in the UK.
Click to expand...

Was that the one that involved pictures of adult woman that had been altered to look like children?

Could you refresh our memory?
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Seems to me somebody who enjoys reading literary child pornography is likely already the sort of person who would play violent video games given the chance.
Click to expand...


I think you misunderstood me; unless you are being clever.

"Seems to me somebody who enjoys playing violent video games is likely already the sort of person who would kill people given the chance..."

That is what I meant.
 
LawnOven said:
I think you misunderstood me; unless you are being clever.

"Seems to me somebody who enjoys playing violent video games is likely already the sort of person who would kill people given the chance..."

That is what I meant.
Click to expand...

I think he was being clever.
 
Seems to me somebody who enjoys being clever is likely already the sort of person who would play violent video games with molested children given the chance.
 
LawnOven said:
I think you misunderstood me; unless you are being clever.

"Seems to me somebody who enjoys playing violent video games is likely already the sort of person who would kill people given the chance..."

That is what I meant.
Click to expand...

You can defend child pornography enthusiasts all you want; I'm afraid your attempted analogy does not change my opinion.
 
I have no problem with putting away the filthy bastards at NAMBLA. They ARE advocating that people molest children. But before I decide that we should put aside the First Amendment so we can prosecute fictional child molestation writers, I want solid evidence that what they are doing encourages people to molest children. My opinion, which may be incorrect but I'll stand by it until proven wrong, is that people who read this sort of trash are already predisposed toward child molestation, and that it probably is more likely to REDUCE the probability that they will act upon their sick fantasies by giving them an outlet for their thoughts. If someone has evidence otherwise, please provide it.
 
I do not support pedophiles in anyway however you all need to realize that we can't allow things like this to happen. We can't allow people to be arrested because they produce fictional content some would consider "obscene". If we allow people to be arrested because they hold a viewpoint or produce fictional content some would consider obscene then what's next? The slippery slope comes into play here like it always has. What's stopping this from turning into full out censorship?

If we allow ourselves to become insensitive to censorship on this level then we're just opening ourselves up for more widespread censorship.
 
Dustin said:
I do not support pedophiles in anyway however you all need to realize that we can't allow things like this to happen. We can't allow people to be arrested because they produce fictional content some would consider "obscene". If we allow people to be arrested because they hold a viewpoint or produce fictional content some would consider obscene then what's next? The slippery slope comes into play here like it always has. What's stopping this from turning into full out censorship?

If we allow ourselves to become insensitive to censorship on this level then we're just opening ourselves up for more widespread censorship.
Click to expand...

There is always a line. People who produce fictional pedophiles stories or fake pictures to make it look like a child in a sexual act deserve being arrested and prosecuted. They are promoting pedophilia, they find it acceptable and they are offering this sort of entertainment to mentally ill people. I want to live in a nanny state where children abuse is null. I think you and society are being too tolerant for these sick b***rds.
 
Q-Source said:
There is always a line. People who produce fictional pedophiles stories or fake pictures to make it look like a child in a sexual act deserve being arrested and prosecuted. They are promoting pedophilia, they find it acceptable and they are offering this sort of entertainment to mentally ill people. I want to live in a nanny state where children abuse is null. I think you and society are being too tolerant for these sick b***rds.
Click to expand...


The line is not black but it is gray. Each time we allow things like this to happen. People to be prosecuted for publishing something that "supports" a crime then we are pushing that gray line back more towards censorship.
Crimes should be based on who they harm. That's it.

Posting fake pedophilia material. Does that hurt anyone? If it does then prove it does. Because I doubt it does.

If you claim that laws should also be based on the support of other things that are illegal. Then you must support arresting people for wearing marijuana t-shirts. That's absurd.
 
Q-Source said:
There is always a line. People who produce fictional pedophiles stories or fake pictures to make it look like a child in a sexual act deserve being arrested and prosecuted. They are promoting pedophilia, they find it acceptable and they are offering this sort of entertainment to mentally ill people. I want to live in a nanny state where children abuse is null. I think you and society are being too tolerant for these sick b***rds.
Click to expand...

And what other "sick bastards" shouldn't be given freedom of speech? Neo-Nazis? Islamicists? Creationists?

It's easy to defend freedom of speech when you don't find the content objectionable. It's the objectionable, disgusting, incredibly offensive, "sick bastard" speech that you have to defend--or the concept becomes meaningless.
 
Q-Source said:
There is always a line. People who produce fictional pedophiles stories or fake pictures to make it look like a child in a sexual act deserve being arrested and prosecuted. They are promoting pedophilia, they find it acceptable and they are offering this sort of entertainment to mentally ill people. I want to live in a nanny state where children abuse is null. I think you and society are being too tolerant for these sick b***rds.
Click to expand...
But where do you draw that line? What about books or stories that are not about pedophilia, but have a scene of it within? Stephen King's story "The Library Policeman" is such a work. There is a passage in it with the rape of a young boy. It is probably not as graphic as the stories this lady was arrested for (I'm guessing; I have no real urge to find out), but it was pretty descriptive. Should King be arrested, or have his book banned?

How much pedophilia in a book is too much? How graphic a description of pedophilia is too much?
 
Relevant quote...

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
— H. L. Mencken​
Click to expand...



​
 
My opinion is that so long as no real children are harmed, you should be able to write out and distribute whatever fantasies you can come up with, no matter how twisted.
 
Disclaimer: No children were harmed in the production of this thread.
 
[caution: somewhat explicit below]


I wonder about the "altered the picture (of an adult) to make it look like a child," and where THAT line gets drawn.

For example, I have heard it claimed that the reason why ... um ... "shaved private parts" are so popular is because they resemble those of pre-pubescent girls. Now, if that were shown to be the case, would it mean that it should be illegal to show shaved private parts?
 
pgwenthold said:
For example, I have heard it claimed that the reason why ... um ... "shaved private parts" are so popular is because they resemble those of pre-pubescent girls.
Click to expand...

I think that has more to do with being able to perform cunnilingus without also getting a floss.
 
LawnOven said:
Why are you being rude? I was not rude to you. I think you know this is not what I was doing.
Click to expand...

Hot-button issue for me; I really need to avoid such topics. If you were not attempting to defend people who enjoy such material (i.e. written child porn), then I apologize for my mistake.
 
Cleon said:
This is helpful.

Reminds me of those people who say that the ACLU is pro-Nazi because they've defended neo-Nazis' right to free speech.
Click to expand...

Err, no. I even defended their right to "free speech". The comment you quoted was not related to that specific issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom