[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Woman Sentenced for Web Site With 'obscene' Stories here

[MAcUser21]

so, she has no right to write whatever she want? free speech right seem removed to me

[AuroraDizon]

What happened to free speech

[mcbarker]

This is clearly an abuse of power by a US Attorney. Doesn't Mary Beth Buchanan know that Freedom of Speech is protected under US law by the First Amendment? I may not care for the author's stories, but she absolutely has the right to publish them, either in print, or on the Internet. What's next... an arrest warrant for the author of Lolita, or maybe for the producers of fifty percent of what comes out of Hollywood?
If Ms Buchanan finds Karen Fletcher's works so offensive and immoral, maybe she should take some advice from the "good book"... "And if thine eye offends thee, pluck it out and throw it away". If Ms Buchanan doesn't understand the US Constitution, maybe she should be removed from her position as a US Attorney. What is happening to this country? We are sitting back, and letting petty dictators, like this woman (and others in our government), slowly eliminate our freedom.
Mary Beth Buchanan, this is for you... !http://forums.pcworld.com/legacyimages/
1!

[coastie65]

I am no fan of the ACLU, but this over zealous procecuter is off her trolley and is ruling in direct contradiction to the U.S. Constitution. This needs to be appealed for sure. Just another Activist Judge that is legislating from the bench. Nobody has to watch or read anything they may find offensive. In the case of a TV program, just change the channel or turn off the set. The people who visited the web site knew what the content was, and if they didn't like it, then move on. Censorship belongs in the hands of the people, not in the hands of Government. coastie65

[Adama]

Well, I think that if someone wants to write obscene stories, they could write a book or something, rather than putting it on the web. I say that, because too many young kids are innocently clicking in to things like that. And, they could very well become the victims here.

This woman just wants to gain public notice, by putting them on a website. IMO

If everybody were to ignore her, then things would be different. But here we are, a Computer Technology website, talking about this nonsense. That's all I got to say about it.

[ssmurple]

@Adama
Not having read her content, and having no interest in doing so I posit this: maybe she isnt' writing it for gratification of the reader but education and therapy. Regardless it is protected as free speech so one person cannot deem it "obscene" and control its distribution.
Regarding books vs. the internet. It doesn't matter, if a person buys that book and a child opens it up then the same thing can happen. Don't put the responsibility of the parent on the creator. Book, internet or billboard sign, it is up to the parent to allow their children access to appropriate content.
In conclusion, I hope you don't change your mind and I hope you continue to speak out on what you feel is right, without fear of reprisal.

[coastie65]

ssmurple said:

@Adama

Not having read her content, and having no interest in doing so I posit this: maybe she isnt' writing it for gratification of the reader but education and therapy. Regardless it is protected as free speech so one person cannot deem it "obscene" and control its distribution.

Regarding books vs. the internet. It doesn't matter, if a person buys that book and a child opens it up then the same thing can happen. Don't put the responsibility of the parent on the creator. Book, internet or billboard sign, it is up to the parent to allow their children access to appropriate content.

In conclusion, I hope you don't change your mind and I hope you continue to speak out on what you feel is right, without fear of reprisal.Well said. It is sad that so many parents want to place the responsibility of parenting on the Government, rather than do it themselves, thus denying others the right to view or read what may appeal to them. There are so many safeguards built in to TV's and DVD players/ VCR's and if the parents would only take the time to learn how to use them they wouldn't have to worry. They would rather have the Government Censor the content instead thus depriving those who may wish to view such stuff to right to do so. The Judge definitely abridged that woman's constitional rights in my opinion. coastie65

[AuroraDizon]

This is defiantly a curroption of power, and a mockery more obscene then anything she would of written to the true law of America and what she stands for.

[mcbarker]

Like Coastie, I'm not a big fan of the ACLU, but where are they when they're really needed, or are they staying hidden because of the nature of the author's writings?

[1D10TUSER]

This was not a case of an overzealous prosecutor. There is a freedom of speech, but there are certain things you cannot say.
You cannot yell fire in a crowded building.
You cannot advocate the overthrow of the government by force.
There is no freedom of speech for obscene communications.
These are hard and fast rules for a reason. What she was doing was clearly obscene, and she knew it. The stories themselves must have been really bad for them to prosecute.

[rgreen4]

Everyone apparently overlooked the 5th, 6th and 7th words in the third line of the first paragraph.

".....after pleading guilty..." The woman pled guilty to the charges, and the article was about the sentence. While we don't know the reason she pled guilty, one thing is certain. It cannot be appealed.

[Keithios]

It's insane what the government can do to people. Besides, obscenity is a point of view, I would find her stories obscene and disgusting, but she probably didn't, otherwise she wouldn't have written them. I just hope this remains an isolated incident, I don't want to be arrested for saying Bush is an idiot.

[coastie65]

Keithios said:

I don't want to be arrested for saying Bush is an idiot.

I don't think that'll happen.

[Patriot]

I agree more with Adama and 1D10TUSER about this issue.

Rgreen4 adds a vital reminder: she pled guilty. To throw in the towel this quickly when the SCOTUS has already ruled that child-porn images are allowable--geesh, how bad was this?

Society ("community standards") does have the privilege to establish the outer limits of public speech. That she profited commercially from speech puts her rights into the policeable realm.

[JimH443]

One thing to keep in mind is: The First Amendment applies only within the boundaries of the United States. The web extends far beyond that limitation. Anything placed on the web could be said to be done "for the purposes of exportation."



The US Constitution gets murky when the internet becomes involved. It doesn't always apply to the global information superhighway.

[AuroraDizon]

Its not like she was spam emailing it to teenagers or anything else inaproperate. She wrote fictional stories that were on a paid site only adults could access. What is everyone on literotica going to be taken to jail? How about Edgar Allen Poe, should he of been burned at the stake for writing such 'horrifying' fictional stories. This is America freedom of speech is the foundation of what we came here for. What this country was built upon. When you start to draw a line, someone else can draw it closer, then find another excuse to draw it even close. Until we' have no freedom of speech left.

[JimH443]

Yes, her physical location is in the United States. However, her "virtual location" is worldwide. Once your cross our borders, your Constitutional rights disappear. If you want freedom of speech, don't leave the U.S.

[AuroraDizon]

She isn't in jail or sentenced in some other country. What we do and what our laws are are not the same laws in China or Russia or anywhere else. They would block the content, I'm sure they probably already have. That's not the issue.

[ImaPhake]

I agree with AuroraDizon on this.
Some of you point out that "Red Rose" pled guilty -- as if that somehow puts some sort of "Seal of Pristine Justice" upon it.
Nonsense. Anyone might plead guilty to anything when the massive weight of the government's unlimited resources come to bear upon you. How can you fight against something like that? You can't and that's why a lot of defendants in all types of cases cut deals to escape the potential consequences of a government machine that won't stop until you're as guilty as they want you to be.

She originally planned to fight the charges -- and had a team of First Amendment lawyers on her side -- but as the time neared for a trial, her fear of possibly losing and being sentenced to prison was too much for her.

All of us in this thread are sitting at our keyboards typing in strings of symbols that emanate from our thoughts. We can easily "see" the ideas expressed and choose either to embrace (agree with) some of it, all of it or none of it You have the choice to read something or not to read it. Whatever circumstance that happened to lead to the prosecution of "Rose Red" stemmed from some individual(s) who couldn't seem to exercise the ability to avoid self-inflicting distress by continuing to read something that they personally found abhorrent. That, and they decided that no one else should be given the choice to read something of their own volition or pass it by.

Groups like the KKK and neo-Nazis arre allowed to spread their "obscenities" with impunity under our Constitution. When did fictionalized accounts of anything come under the government's authority to scrutinize and decide for everyone what someone is allowed to express, or not, in text?

If you've read this far, then it was your choice to do so. Granted, there was no reasonable expectation that my words might somehow offend or harm you by simply reading, but that's what the government is somehow claiming -- that you and I lack the innate ability to protect ourselves from ourselves.

And lastly, before the zealots jump up and cry, "We're protecting children" let me pose the question: What children? Didn't the Supreme Court rule that if there isn't a real child depicted in visual imagery (ostensible child pornography created by CGI) then there isn't a victim and therefore no crime exists?

The sort of rationalization that led to the prosecution of "Red Rose" will some day be utilized to establish "Thought Police" if/when technology allows such a thing. Far-fetched? Maybe. But the idea that the fiction of "Red Rose" did some sort of tangible harm to anyone is just as outlandishly absurd in my opinion.