[JimH443]

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a LOT more was going on than what was released to the press. For all we know, the Russians or Chinese could have contacted the State Department and said "If you don't do something about this, we will." And I'm not referring to something as passive as IP blocking. Then the U.S. would be in the awkward position of defending the extradition of an author of child porn... in an election year.

[JimH443]

I won't dispute the claim that "no children were harmed in the writing of these stories." That's not the point I was making. You can bet the press would portray her as a child porn author. And in politics, image is everything.

[ImaPhake]

That sounds too conspiratorial to me.
Be that as it may, the notion that defending our Constitutiional Right to Free Speech might be deemed "awkward" makes it all that more important to each and every one of us. I may not like the fiction of "Red Rose," but I don't care much for the writings of Bill O'Reilly either. Fact is, both should be covered under the same principle of law.
Either we have free speech, or we don't.

The "Red Rose" case seems to say that we don't.

[1D10TUSER]

The fact is that none of you have read what she was prosecuted for writing, so your immediate reaction that there is some sort of constitutional violation here is ludicrous.

I don't care how staunch of a believer you are in the right to free speech, writing detailed descriptions about the rape and murder of 10 year old children is obscene and against the law, as it rightfully should be. This case in no way reduces the freedom of speech. I agree that people should be free to say what they want, but the line must be drawn somewhere. And I, for one am satisfied with where they drew it in this case.

As I said in my earlier post, there are somethings you cannot and shouldn't be allowed to say - i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, threatening the overthrow of our government by force, threatening to kill the president, and engaging in plainly obscene communication, with the "obscenity" being judged by a jury of your peers. If you plead guilty, that's your choice, but that doesn't mean that you were denied any right.

[JimH443]

As I've said on numerous occasions, First Amendment rights only apply in the U.S. If she violates another country's laws, she can be prosecuted for them. With the internet, she doesn't have to cross our borders to violate the laws in another country. She can be extradicted for doing so. But then the politiicans would have to fight it. And there are a lot of people right here in the U.S. who feel exactly the same way as ID10TUSER.



Trust me, the press doesn't always print all the relevant facts. You can call this "conspiratorial" if you want, but it's true.

[ImaPhake]

What fictional age is "okay?"
So what you're saying (not that I believe you anyway) is that the law defines an age at which graphic descriptions of rape, torture, dismemberment, etc. becomes perfectly alright as long as it meets or exceeds the magic number?

I have a video game on my PC (Prey) which depicts some children which look to be about that age (10) being killed by alien machinery.

That's "okay" because it's aliens, or being done by a machine, or...what?

I could find better illustrations to point out the absurdity of this in mainstream literature were I to try, but that's not the point here. You're still protecting non-existant children and non-existant situations from some non-existant harm (it's fiction).

You can inject as much moral umbrage about children into this as you like, it won't change anything. This case crossed the line where issues of free speech are concerned. The system interpreted the writings of "Red Rose" as somehow advocating the rape of children. Can you say that it did? I can write a fictional story of the assassination of a sitting president (there was a movie released recently about the same thing). Knowing that writing or expressing any threat against the president can land one in jail -- how is it that the film was allowed to be distributed?

It was fictional.

[AuroraDizon]

Indeed [~12838] fiction is fiction and being prosecuted for writing a fictional story is pretty ridiculous.

[1D10TUSER]

Again, you haven't read the writings. Is it really your position that you can write about anything you want, at any time for any reason, and it will be okay because you slap the label, "fiction" on it?



Where is the line drawn?

[AuroraDizon]

I already talked about the line before when one is drawn another is drawn even closer to you. She isn't selling books at your local walmart she had them on an adult site. Not to mention the fact that such stories are a great emotional relase for people who were abused as a child like she was. This stuff happens in our world, what gives anyone the right to tell someone else what they can and can't write.

[JimH443]

Believe it or not, like it or not... the line for fiction here in the U.S. really is set very, very low. Pretty much anything is fair game.

[ImaPhake]

President Bush gets shot dead in front of hundreds in Chicago:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojWOWyHWj6M

Fiction is fiction is fiction regardless of the subject or topic.

Why do you seem to think there should be some sort of "line drawn" for fiction?

It's pretend. It's an illusion. It's imaginary. Can you say, "WMDs?" I knew you could.

When the government decides that all/any of the above is dangerous and to be proscribed by law, then the government is breaking their own law. The government tells harmful lies to the people on a continuous, daily basis.

Indeed, "Where is the line drawn?"

[malachi]

Last time I checked I live in America and not a muslim controled state. If thats what you want where you have no right to listen to what you want write what you want watch what you want and read what you want its a simple fact move there. Oh if your christian good luck with staying alive for to long over there cause thats kinda of death pentelty thing.

You either have FREEDOM or you don't. I don't see you putting Neo Nazi's in jail. You may not agree with them. You may hate them for their Beliefs but its THEIR BELIEFS. Its that simple. You have the RIGHT to do that here thats the purpose of being the Crown Jewel of the world. Again if you don't like it leave.

[ImaPhake]

A lot of people here need to read what the Supreme Court decided concerning "virtual child pornography:"

www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=virtual_childporn

As Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, "...speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production."

CGI child pornography has been ruled to be "A-OK" by our Supreme Court.

How does one reconcile the above judicial treatment of visual imagery which does not exist against fictional textual content which is even farther from reality (i.e., it has not been rendered)?

Oh, and as an aside: I have no need to personally read what Karen Fletcher wrote on her Web site in order to understand the issues here. I don't need to view pornography either in order to understand what it is and that, it too, is actually protected speech under the Constitution.

What the Pennsylvania case against "Red Rose" seems to be saying is that my thoughts are allowed as long as I do not write them down and share them with others who might not like what I'm thinking.

[Number3124]

Right on Randazza!!!

[ImaPhake]

I had to look that up (Randazza) to understand what it was you were referring.

Mr. Randazza didn't say anything that I haven't said, and the closest thing on his site is this:

"Text is as close to the process of thought as we can get. The First Amendment doesn't mean much if one is only allowed to write down their own thoughts for their own perusal."

Which is something said by someone else and not from Marc Randazza.

This is the URL of the quote in question: randazza.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/red-rose-stories-case-continues/

Apparently, the quote comes from Jerome Mooney, one of Fletcher's attorneys and not Marc Randazza.

It's heartening to see that there are people like Marc Randazza who still believe in that "crazy" notion some like to call "free speech."

If you were comparing anything I've said to that of Mr. Randazza, then I am flattered but undeserving. Thanks. :)

Bottom line: All of this should be completely understandable to even a first-grader who has been given the explanation of what it means to have the right of free speech.

[raife1]

I am not sure if "1D10TUSER"s post are indicative of ignorance, wishful-thinking, or intentional deception... but, they are so patently-untrue that I felt it necessary to address some of them.




1D10TUSER said:


"...reaction that there is some sort of constitutional violation here is ludicrous"


The Supreme Court of the United States HAS, in fact, repeatedly, ruled that "fiction" IS fully protected "free speech"... PERIOD. This has been made necessary due, precisely, to such misguided, and unConstitutional, prosecutions. Therefore ANY prosecution, or restraint, against such literary works, clearly, IS a "constitutional violation".


Sorry to burst-your-bubble, but that IS, both, the Law, and the reality.





1D10TUSER also said:


"...I don't care how staunch of a believer you are in the right to free speech, writing detailed descriptions about the rape and murder of 10 year old children is obscene and against the law, as it rightfully should be"


Sorry, but as ruled repeatedly by the U.S. Supreme Court... it is NOT "...obscene and against the law". "Fictional works" (whether, or not, they discuss ANY type of "illegal" acts) ARE "Constitutionally-protected speech", whether you like it, or not. And, frankly... as to your personal observation at the end... I dont really care what your-own opinions are regarding -acceptable- literary content... the RIGHT to "free speech" (of authors and their readers) DOES preempt your (or my) personal-wish to control the -thoughts- of others. If we dont like it, we dont have to read it.





1D10TUSER also said:


"...there are somethings you cannot and shouldn't be allowed to say - i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre"


Nice (???intentional???) misquote. The original legal-clarification, actually, is: "...you cannot FALSELY yell fire in a crowded theatre". In fact, you most certainly CAN yell "fire"... if you honestly believe there is one. Furthermore, your assertion has NOTHING to do with the case at hand, namely; the Government deciding what thoughts, or opinions, any citizen can hold, or express.





1D10TUSER also said:


"...and engaging in plainly obscene communication, with the "obscenity" being judged by a jury of your peers"


Well... since "fiction" cannot, legally, be considered to be "legally obscene", and since your own -OPINION- is simply irrelevant... and, especially since, she DID NOT face a "jury"... AT ALL... she was, actually (clearly, under undoubtedly-considerable duress of serious threat of even greater personal-jeopardy)... persuaded to "plead guilty"... your very preface, is ridiculous.





1D10TUSER also said:


"...If you plead guilty, that's your choice, but that doesn't mean that you were denied any right."


IF... you were convinced, under THREAT, to "plead guilty" to erroneous charges (to ease a plainly unConstitutional prosecution... obviously done, specifically, to alleviate the government of having to prove their ludicrous-case) then... YES... you WERE "denied" your "rights".




So, all in all, Id say... every-single element of "1D10TUSER "s post (and arguments) fails, completely, to meet any test of fact, logic, or truthfulness. And, as an American... I personally consider such, self-righteous, pedantic, rhetorical-rationalizations to be both asinine, and offensive (and, frankly, I think they are far more dangerous to our society, than ANY dirty-story)...


...Which, is why I chose to utilize MY RIGHT to "free speech", to challenge such, blatant CLAP-TRAP, and NONSENSE.

[rgreen4]

Too bad she didn't have you as her lawyer instead of the one she had that was a member of the bar. Of course it's not too late to offer to appeal her erroneous guilty plea pro bono and explain to the Judge how he doesn't understand the law either.

[m12345]

1D10TUSER: Wow. You really don't understand the meaning of "free speech". The government is not supposed to interfere with anything we have to say - that's called censorship, in case you didn't know.
Mary Beth Buchanan is one of the greatest dangers to freedom of speech in the U.S. What an awful person she is. Thank goodness the Bush Era is over.
It turns my stomach to think that someone can be convicted of a federal crime for writing a story that Mary Beth Buchanan deems "obscene".

[Danther]

Another example of an overzealous, conservative prosecutor playing 'thought police', either to further their view of what everyone else should believe in. Or could it be for political gain. Bottom line is, even though I don't enjoy the type of literature that the author wrote, I enjoy even less the trampling of someone's freedom of speech. What's next, banning of groups such as this, where opinion can be discussed? Or, how about freedom to assemble? Better, yet, in this prosecutor's mind, how about the right to a fair trial?