Government scores victory against woman who can't leave her house

[gonzo]

PITTSBURGH - Of all the people in the United States posting sexually explicit text to Internet sites, the government chose agoraphobic Karen Fletcher to indict for text-based obscenity - and now that she's pleading guilty, it's not unreasonable to ask, "Why Karen?"

We know her "subscription base" consisted of just 29 people. We know that she charged a mere $10 for access to her (and others') stories about abuse and torture of children - fictional children, not real children - not to make income from the site, but in order to keep minors away - minors who might get the wrong idea that she was writing about them.

And we know, as the government with all of its resources must also have known, that this poor indigent invalid was so scared of nearly everything that she could barely go out of her house - not to go shopping at the mall, not to go to the movies, not to attend a sports game - not to do any of the things that give more sane people pleasure.

And it's just possible that someone in the bowels of that great government machine decided that that combination made 54-year-old Karen Fletcher the perfect "test case" for the first text-based obscenity prosecution in more than 30 years - so Fletcher was indicted in September, 2006, for publishing six "obscene" stories.

Still smarting from the impending loss of her "easy case" against Extreme Associates - the Third Circuit Court of Appeals had overturned Judge Gary Lancaster's dismissal of the Extreme indictments earlier that year, but on procedural rather than substantive grounds, leaving the substantive issues ripe for introduction at trial - U.S. attorney Mary Beth Buchanan opined that the targeted stories were "disturbing, disgusting and vile." Of course, in order to render that opinion, if she hadn't had FBI print-outs to reference, Buchanan would have had to affirmatively sign on to RedRoseStories.com, pay her $10 like anyone else and then search out the stories in question ... and actually, voluntarily, read them.

"With text, you can always stop reading," First Amendment attorney Reed Lee told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. "You're less likely to be offended than if an image is just splashed at you."

Lee also thought a case could be made for the stories having social value, in that they provided a psychological outlet for people who had suffered such abuse as children, or who were attracted to the idea of such abuse. For the former, the stories would act as a means of sharing their feelings of frustration and anger at their experiences, while for the latter, they could serve as a damper on illegal actions. Lee called it "breaking th[e] spiral between silence and shame."

Or as Fletcher herself explained, "I have always been afraid of monsters. The monsters in my life had always been real; for too long they were always there with unlimited access to me, and I was helpless to do anything about it. In my stories, I have created new monsters. [They] rise above the horror of the real life monsters. Somehow, making these monsters so much worse makes me feel better, and makes my life seem more bearable. I may still be afraid of the monsters, but at least in the stories, they prey on someone else, not me."

It's unlikely that Buchanan gave such reasoning any consideration in obtaining the indictments against Fletcher. What likely had more pull with the prosecutor was the fact that Fletcher wouldn't be able to mount a very good defense if crowds (like those in and around a courtroom) scared her, and she was so fearful of the outdoors that she was virtually unable to leave her house.

So although Fletcher has some of the best legal minds on obscenity issues representing her, including Florida-based Lawrence W. Walters, ultimately it was her inability to be present in a downtown Pittsburgh courtroom for the week or more that her trial was projected to last that led to her plea.

"The one thing I would say is, the headline of the [Post-Gazette] article ["Afraid of public trial, author to plead guilty in online obscenity case"] is unfortunate or misleading or something," Walters told AVN, "because I believe it portrays that she has a fear of going to trial, and it's not so much a fear as a medical condition that limits her ability to be away from her home for any length of time, particularly a week-long trial. We'd certainly like to have a First Amendment battle, but it all comes down to her willingness to be able to go through the whole procedure, and this particular client has a very delicate emotional state that needs to be addressed and looked out for by her attorneys and by herself, frankly, and she's not going to be able to."

In any case, Fletcher's guilty plea will result in no prison time; just a period of home detention - the same home she has feared for decades to leave for any reason.

"Basically, she lives in her home and doesn't leave anyway," Walters stated, "so there won't be any real change in her life, but yeah, we've worked out a deal where she'll just be under house arrest."

Fletcher's guilty won't be precedential in any way, but that won't stop the government from using it.

"The government likes to get these convictions, then wave them around in the background and use them in negotiations, backroom deals, and FCC discussions by saying, 'This could be obscene, so you better be careful'," Walters told attorneys Clay Calvert and Robert D. Richards in an interview. "That's where the insidiousness of obscenity prosecutions really comes in because, for every conviction and prosecution, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of uncreated works or works that end up in the trash bin out of the fear of prosecution and its chilling effect. That's where the real value would come for the government with a conviction in the Fletcher case."

Undoubtedly, Buchanan and the rest of Pittsburgh will be able to sleep better at night, knowing that Karen Fletcher is ... exactly where she's been for many years: At home, though no longer sitting at her computer because that's been seized.

Perhaps Buchanan can find some kittens or puppies to indict next.

http://www.avn.com/law/articles/30261.html

[Sexyteaser]

Ok this just kills me.... We have many mainstream movies, books, tv shows that depicted these kinds of scenes but of course they did not want to go up against any of them so they chose this little person to beat up on this issue of obscenity in text.

I am writing them today and voicing my opinion about this case.

[Sexyteaser]

Originally Posted by Sexyteaser

Ok this just kills me.... We have many mainstream movies, books, tv shows that depicted these kinds of scenes but of course they did not want to go up against any of them so they chose this little person to beat up on this issue of obscenity in text.

I am writing them today and voicing my opinion about this case.

Well I guess with the justices holding up the child porn law today by a vote of 7-2 movies and other mediums are now fair game - but we will have to see if they will still spend all their time prosecuting the weak and ignoring the bigger fish with large legal funds.

Remember that a script (written word) is how a movie or tv show is developed and those scripts are often transmitted via electronically.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Sexyteaser

Ok this just kills me.... We have many mainstream movies, books, tv shows that depicted these kinds of scenes but of course they did not want to go up against any of them so they chose this little person to beat up on this issue of obscenity in text.

I am writing them today and voicing my opinion about this case.

There was a line that was crossed in this case, sadly hard to define, but it had to do a bunch with the intent.

My personal example is the first Death Wish movie. In that movie, the mother and daugher are followed home, the mother killed after she is forced to watch her daughter be violently raped and left for dead as well. It is an integral part of the story, and the scene was (especially for the times) very graphic and rather disturbing.

However, and this is important: It was part of a greater whole, the movie didn't dwell on the rape. It wasn't a 2 hour movie with 90 minutes of rape of 30 minutes of seeking revenge, but rather a transient (about 2 minutes total) part of a 2 hour movie. They didn't show gyno shots, they didn't show her bleeding pubis, they didn't show the perp's cum dribbling out of her bleeding ass... they didn't discuss it in detail, they didn't have to - it wasn't important, it wasn't the object of the story, and it wasn't needed.

Karen's child porn stories were massively disturbing (and I like erotic stories, the first types of sites I ever owned). I read parts of one of them, and they were all about raping children (Often under the age of 5), going into great detail, dwelling on the acts, the blood, the disgust, the crying... absolutely horrible. There was no other object of the story but to violate the children, to show HOW to violate the children, and to document the violation of children.

Now, before the free speech mongers get on my case, please think past the ends of your noses. I understand that the US system is based on bizarre absolutes (if the courts ban or criminalize any speech, they can criminalize it all!), but common sense is one of those things that must prevail here. There is no reason to have stories out there that coach, encourage, and teach people how to abuse children. There is no reason to give prospective child abusers spank material to help them build up their desires to rape children, and there is no literary value to a text that does nothing but dwell on the fine details of how to rape a child and the enjoyment derived from doing so. No child should ever have to suffer this fate, and a sane society doesn't need an author to write publish material that would incite this type of action by anyone.

Also, consider this: If these stories were put together in a book and sold at your local adult bookstore, how long before that store would be raided? Would you expect to find this book in your local library? Perhaps it would be good material for your child's 7th grade ethics class? The answers are pretty much "right away", "no", and "never!".

Bizarre absolutes meet reality. Film at 11.

[Sexyteaser]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

There was a line that was crossed in this case, sadly hard to define, but it had to do a bunch with the intent.

My personal example is the first Death Wish movie. In that movie, the mother and daugher are followed home, the mother killed after she is forced to watch her daughter be violently raped and left for dead as well. It is an integral part of the story, and the scene was (especially for the times) very graphic and rather disturbing.

However, and this is important: It was part of a greater whole, the movie didn't dwell on the rape. It wasn't a 2 hour movie with 90 minutes of rape of 30 minutes of seeking revenge, but rather a transient (about 2 minutes total) part of a 2 hour movie. They didn't show gyno shots, they didn't show her bleeding pubis, they didn't show the perp's cum dribbling out of her bleeding ass... they didn't discuss it in detail, they didn't have to - it wasn't important, it wasn't the object of the story, and it wasn't needed.

Karen's child porn stories were massively disturbing (and I like erotic stories, the first types of sites I ever owned). I read parts of one of them, and they were all about raping children (Often under the age of 5), going into great detail, dwelling on the acts, the blood, the disgust, the crying... absolutely horrible. There was no other object of the story but to violate the children, to show HOW to violate the children, and to document the violation of children.

Now, before the free speech mongers get on my case, please think past the ends of your noses. I understand that the US system is based on bizarre absolutes (if the courts ban or criminalize any speech, they can criminalize it all!), but common sense is one of those things that must prevail here. There is no reason to have stories out there that coach, encourage, and teach people how to abuse children. There is no reason to give prospective child abusers spank material to help them build up their desires to rape children, and there is no literary value to a text that does nothing but dwell on the fine details of how to rape a child and the enjoyment derived from doing so. No child should ever have to suffer this fate, and a sane society doesn't need an author to write publish material that would incite this type of action by anyone.

Also, consider this: If these stories were put together in a book and sold at your local adult bookstore, how long before that store would be raided? Would you expect to find this book in your local library? Perhaps it would be good material for your child's 7th grade ethics class? The answers are pretty much "right away", "no", and "never!".

Bizarre absolutes meet reality. Film at 11.

Great post!!!! At 7 years old I did something pretty heroic and told a neighbor that her daughter was raped by an old man - it had been going on for some time but I never actually witnessed anything I just had a feeling what was happening behind the closed door. For many years following that I dealt with being told I was a liar and stupid (probably why I can handle Rhets comments aboout me) and he never really got caught until he died 20 years later and everything he did was discovered in secret places in his house.

The girl recently wrote about her experience with graphic detail and I read it (and it made me sick and I asked her not to include it in her book, especially my name even if it was a thank you) and it was transmitted electronically and it is part of the foreword for her new book. I did not see the context from your view point but from my own experience and knowing how helpful it was for this person and others to write about their experiences and share them even if its behind the umbrella of being fiction. I don't know what the intent of these people are or was nor do I know anything about the sick people who enjoy this kind of stuff movies and all - I am more a comedy girl, don't like to watch anything scary or violent.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I read parts of one of them, and they were all about raping children (Often under the age of 5)..........

So, you are a psychic of some kind that based on reading parts of one story you can make a reasonable determination of what all the stories are about?


Must be nice to be omniscient

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by sarettah

So, you are a psychic of some kind that based on reading parts of one story you can make a reasonable determination of what all the stories are about?


Must be nice to be omniscient

It's called skimming... I don't have to read all of a book to get the gist of the book. I don't have to look at 10 stories called "5 year old gets raped" to know that all of them are about 5 year olds getting raped.

Must be nice to be able to dismiss a well thought out with a wave of your paw.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

It's called skimming... I don't have to read all of a book to get the gist of the book. I don't have to look at 10 stories called "5 year old gets raped" to know that all of them are about 5 year olds getting raped.

Must be nice to be able to dismiss a well thought out with a wave of your paw.

Only Canadians have paws. We down here have hands thank you very much.

[gonzo]

Oh my its debate without personal attacks!
Im so proud of yall!!!

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Only Canadians have paws. We down here have hands thank you very much.

Considering the depth of your comments, I have to assume you have paws... sometimes I get concerned you might still walk on all fours as well, but that is a different issue for a different thread.

[Sexyteaser]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Considering the depth of your comments, I have to assume you have paws... sometimes I get concerned you might still walk on all fours as well, but that is a different issue for a different thread.

And all this time I really thought "The Shaggy Dog" was a fictional story.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Considering the depth of your comments, I have to assume you have paws... sometimes I get concerned you might still walk on all fours as well, but that is a different issue for a different thread.

Well since Gonzo is so proud that there have not been personal attacks, I will withhold my comments for now, ok Moosebrain ?

[RawAlex]

No problem shaggy.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

No problem shaggy.

lololol.

You're ok Alex, I don't give a shit what everyone else says about you

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by sarettah

lololol.

You're ok Alex, I don't give a shit what everyone else says about you

I stopped giving a shit about it a long time ago too, shaggy. Keeps me happy

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Well since Gonzo is so proud that there have not been personal attacks, I will withhold my comments for now, ok Moosebrain ?

You guys are too much!

[sarettah]

I've never seen, nor heard, nor smelled anything so dangerous it can't be talked about (misquote from the play 1776)

Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.

Ben Franklin

The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.

Justice Anthony Kennedy (1936 - )

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), to Archibald Stuart, 1791

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.

First amendment to the constitution

[Sexyteaser]

Originally Posted by sarettah

I've never seen, nor heard, nor smelled anything so dangerous it can't be talked about (misquote from the play 1776)

Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.

Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.

Ben Franklin

The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.

Justice Anthony Kennedy (1936 - )

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), to Archibald Stuart, 1791

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.

First amendment to the constitution

Sarettah - brilliant quotes on free speech! Great Great Post!

[RawAlex]

Alas, while the quotes are nice and meaningful, they also occurred long before the internet allowed pedophiles to group together to share their exploits and their children with each other.

Also, nobody is suggesting that we cannot talk about child porn (ie, "Child porn, which is sexual or nude images involving minors is bad"), but there is no valid reason to be dwelling on and detailing the methods only for the prurient interest - especially when that interest is specifically to an act not only illegal, but the inflicts life long suffering on the victims.

The greatest thing about freedom should be the intelligence and judgement when NOT to use it.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Alas, while the quotes are nice and meaningful, they also occurred long before the internet allowed pedophiles to group together to share their exploits and their children with each other.

Also, nobody is suggesting that we cannot talk about child porn (ie, "Child porn, which is sexual or nude images involving minors is bad"), but there is no valid reason to be dwelling on and detailing the methods only for the prurient interest - especially when that interest is specifically to an act not only illegal, but the inflicts life long suffering on the victims.

The greatest thing about freedom should be the intelligence and judgement when NOT to use it.

There are actually plenty of valid reasons for certain people to dwell on it and actually detail the methodologies but I am not going to get into the psychiatricts (sp?? word???) of the whole mess.

Nicest thing about the freedom of speech is that it does not have to be valid. It can be whimsy, it can be illusion, it can be the worst things that you can personally imagine and it is still legal to both think it and speak it.

The only valid limits should be whether an accusation is true or not and that is usually handled at the civil level.

Jefferson maintained, and I completely agree, that the right to correspond did not have to be enunciated in the first amendment because it was quite obviously a natural right.

When we put limits on what people can write about we are going down that
big long slippery slope.

Would I find the writings offensive, from your descriptions (of your skimming) most definitely. Would I consciously allow those type of writings to be in my house, most definitely not.

But, what I like or dislike is not and should not be the determining factor. The law has always tried to make a distinction between the idea (speech) and the act (conduct).

Conduct can and should be regulated to some extent. Speech should not.

[Sexyteaser]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Alas, while the quotes are nice and meaningful, they also occurred long before the internet allowed pedophiles to group together to share their exploits and their children with each other.

Also, nobody is suggesting that we cannot talk about child porn (ie, "Child porn, which is sexual or nude images involving minors is bad"), but there is no valid reason to be dwelling on and detailing the methods only for the prurient interest - especially when that interest is specifically to an act not only illegal, but the inflicts life long suffering on the victims.

The greatest thing about freedom should be the intelligence and judgement when NOT to use it.

RawAlex you are correct and have a valid point. We do not have laws and or legislation yet that meets the growth of technology and it's impact on children and families, a lot of work needs to be done and this industry as a whole needs a louder voice and support to find that happy medium.

You may be right with your judgement on this case as I have not nor will I read those stories as they would be traumatic for me to relive 20 years of verbal abuse I took for standing up against a child molestor who remained free and there was no real honor when I was proved correct, it was too little too late.

But, I also see the benefit of writing and sharing the experience to find comradarie around the abuse and connecting with others who experienced similar violations and to know they were not alone to help them move on. But the people exploiting those narratives for ideas and titilization to ruin an outlet for healing its just a sick part of society that we have to deal with, just like a murder plot from a book copied in real life and any other examples of the written word mirrored and made a reality.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by Sexyteaser

RawAlex you are correct and have a valid point.

Impossible. He's Canadian

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by sarettah

Jefferson maintained, and I completely agree, that the right to correspond did not have to be enunciated in the first amendment because it was quite obviously a natural right.

When we put limits on what people can write about we are going down that
big long slippery slope.

(blah blah blah edited to make this shorter)

Conduct can and should be regulated to some extent. Speech should not.

Again, you are making some pretty fundamental errors in logic here. First, quoting a man who was President 200 years ago and assuming his opinion would account for the rapid increase in the flow of information and "speech" is a pretty big jump. During the term of his Presidency, people were lucky to see a newspaper once a week (once a month in many areas) and news took weeks to travel from point to point. The vast majority of people would never do any more "speech" than to write a letter to a relative in another part of the country to tell them about the church social and the spring crops.

Your second assumption is that speech isn't conduct. Speech is conduct, it is an act of volition. It is something we do not just by accident, but with intent and the repercussions that come from that intent.

As an example, would you support the rights of someone to print a book called "the Holocaust never happened - So we need to kill all jews now" Would you consider it acceptable for someone to put up a website that explains how to kill children in a manner that still allows you to harvest their organs for transplant? Perhaps a list of your family members names, their addresses, the codes for their security systems, and the best places to put a ladder to be able to shoot directly into their beds?

The miracle of free speech should always be limited by it's harm to others. In Canada, we don't put up with Holocaust deniers, consider the case of Ernst Zundle... you can always donate to the cause of his lack of free speech on his website http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_per...is_zundel.html - Should he have the right to free speech, to teach what is clearly a lie, only because he has MUST have that right? Would you approve of him as a history teacher for your family school? After all, he has the right, no?

The so-called slippery slope exists because through the years, the US constitution has been used (and abused) until it has become a series of bizarre absolutes, legally correct only in the most narrow of ways.

[RawAlex]

I must also add this: The girl found guilty was so serious about her first amendment rights that she couldn't force herself to leave the house, yet apparently could not get a doctor to say she could not attend. Agoraphobia or other, I don't know... but sad in any case.

[Sexyteaser]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Again, you are making some pretty fundamental errors in logic here. First, quoting a man who was President 200 years ago and assuming his opinion would account for the rapid increase in the flow of information and "speech" is a pretty big jump. During the term of his Presidency, people were lucky to see a newspaper once a week (once a month in many areas) and news took weeks to travel from point to point. The vast majority of people would never do any more "speech" than to write a letter to a relative in another part of the country to tell them about the church social and the spring crops.

Your second assumption is that speech isn't conduct. Speech is conduct, it is an act of volition. It is something we do not just by accident, but with intent and the repercussions that come from that intent.

As an example, would you support the rights of someone to print a book called "the Holocaust never happened - So we need to kill all jews now" Would you consider it acceptable for someone to put up a website that explains how to kill children in a manner that still allows you to harvest their organs for transplant? Perhaps a list of your family members names, their addresses, the codes for their security systems, and the best places to put a ladder to be able to shoot directly into their beds?

The miracle of free speech should always be limited by it's harm to others. In Canada, we don't put up with Holocaust deniers, consider the case of Ernst Zundle... you can always donate to the cause of his lack of free speech on his website http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_per...is_zundel.html - Should he have the right to free speech, to teach what is clearly a lie, only because he has MUST have that right? Would you approve of him as a history teacher for your family school? After all, he has the right, no?

The so-called slippery slope exists because through the years, the US constitution has been used (and abused) until it has become a series of bizarre absolutes, legally correct only in the most narrow of ways.

Can I hire you?

[RawAlex]

Perhaps rent?

[tony404]

I disagree the speech you have to protect is the speech that turns your stomach. This woman hurt no one it was her thoughts as twisted as they maybe. Do you really want to go down that slippery slope? What's next writing your thoughts against the government hurts children so it has to be banned?

[softball]

A couple of observations:

Again, you are making some pretty fundamental errors in logic here. First, quoting a man who was President 200 years ago and assuming his opinion would account for the rapid increase in the flow of information and "speech" is a pretty big jump. During the term of his Presidency, people were lucky to see a newspaper once a week (once a month in many areas) and news took weeks to travel from point to point. The vast majority of people would never do any more "speech" than to write a letter to a relative in another part of the country to tell them about the church social and the spring crops.

I would assume then that the right to bear arms is totally outdated because long bore rifles and peacemakers have no place in modern defense. Though it made sense at the time, it has little relevance today.

The miracle of free speech should always be limited by it's harm to others. In Canada, we don't put up with Holocaust deniers, consider the case of Ernst Zundle... you can always donate to the cause of his lack of free speech on his website http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_per...is_zundel.html - Should he have the right to free speech, to teach what is clearly a lie, only because he has MUST have that right? Would you approve of him as a history teacher for your family school? After all, he has the right, no?

Now I would agree that you have no protected right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, but Zundel? I also wouldn't approve of a history teacher that believed Kennedy was shot by a lone gunman or anyone who ever taught the domino theory in South East Asia. Zundel should be allowed to howl at the moon as long and loud as he likes. Many would say pornography crosses the line and does more harm than good buddy Ernst.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

A couple of observations:

I would assume then that the right to bear arms is totally outdated because long bore rifles and peacemakers have no place in modern defense. Though it made sense at the time, it has little relevance today.

Actually, you are correct. First off, I don't see any (needed) militias, which sort of negates the whole deal. Second, the framing fathers didn't consider for a second the idea of some nutjob wandering around with an AK and a couple of large clips being able to take out a small town in minutes. When they wrote that stuff, it is was "put in the bullet, add in the powder, plan your action, cock the lever and fire, repeat if you don't get killed in the next 10 minutes or so". Weapons have a place in modern defence, but they don't have a place next to the schoolyard fence. There is no justification (besides the very tired "because the bad guys have them") that can say why a person living in the US needs a gun. If they were not produced in insane numbers (in the millions each year) the bad guys wouldn't have them because they wouldn't be able to find them.

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Now I would agree that you have no protected right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, but Zundel? I also wouldn't approve of a history teacher that believed Kennedy was shot by a lone gunman or anyone who ever taught the domino theory in South East Asia. Zundel should be allowed to howl at the moon as long and loud as he likes. Many would say pornography crosses the line and does more harm than good buddy Ernst.

Well, I always think Mr Zundle is entitled to have an opinion (in the same manner as I have an opinion of Shaggy, example). When he opens his mouth and expresses that opinion, and agressively does so, attempting to teach others in his "view" that he crosses the line, because his opinion causes hurt to those who were involved, families involved, etc. It is a hurtful message that isn't supported by the facts, by history, by eye witness accounts, and by the evidence on the ground.

Are you suggesting that Mr Zundle should be allowed to publish his book in the US, perhaps buy airtime on TV during the infomercial segments and run a 30 minute "why the jews are lying bastards" information show?

Come on.

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Actually, you are correct. First off, I don't see any (needed) militias, which sort of negates the whole deal. Second, the framing fathers didn't consider for a second the idea of some nutjob wandering around with an AK and a couple of large clips being able to take out a small town in minutes. When they wrote that stuff, it is was "put in the bullet, add in the powder, plan your action, cock the lever and fire, repeat if you don't get killed in the next 10 minutes or so". Weapons have a place in modern defence, but they don't have a place next to the schoolyard fence. There is no justification (besides the very tired "because the bad guys have them") that can say why a person living in the US needs a gun. If they were not produced in insane numbers (in the millions each year) the bad guys wouldn't have them because they wouldn't be able to find them.



Well, I always think Mr Zundle is entitled to have an opinion (in the same manner as I have an opinion of Shaggy, example). When he opens his mouth and expresses that opinion, and agressively does so, attempting to teach others in his "view" that he crosses the line, because his opinion causes hurt to those who were involved, families involved, etc. It is a hurtful message that isn't supported by the facts, by history, by eye witness accounts, and by the evidence on the ground.

Are you suggesting that Mr Zundle should be allowed to publish his book in the US, perhaps buy airtime on TV during the infomercial segments and run a 30 minute "why the jews are lying bastards" information show?

Come on.

I am. I am not sure anyone would run them, but hey, if he can find someone who is whippo enough, good luck to him. Do you think that

BlacksOnBoys dot com contains gay interracial sex videos and movies and pics. If you enter, you will see bareback gay porn with huge black cocks and white studs ...

should be allowed to advertise on tv and and newspapers?
I don't actually, but do you think they should be shut down and run out of dodge? BTW, we both know there are way more extreme sites than this.

[RawAlex]

Actually, you could very likely buy ad spaces on AVN and in other adult oriented magazines. Sexuality in and of itself, between consenting adults, doesn't not damage the reputation of others or cause hurt to large groups. You are attempting an apples and oranges play that ends up creating another bizarre absolute in free speech.

I am not sure anyone would run them, but hey, if he can find someone who is whippo enough, good luck to him. Do you think that

What would happen if he was refused space? Could he sue? After all, if the message is free speech and the airwaves are being sold with a "this station is not responsible for and doesn't support the message..." disclaimers, they why would it be refused?

It is, after all, FREE SPEECH.

Wait... does that mean free speech has limits? FIRE!

[gonzo]

I knew you guys could do it! This exchange reminds me that buying this board wasnt a total loss.

Im waiting for Micheal to jump in on this one.

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Actually, you could very likely buy ad spaces on AVN and in other adult oriented magazines. Sexuality in and of itself, between consenting adults, doesn't not damage the reputation of others or cause hurt to large groups. You are attempting an apples and oranges play that ends up creating another bizarre absolute in free speech.



What would happen if he was refused space? Could he sue? After all, if the message is free speech and the airwaves are being sold with a "this station is not responsible for and doesn't support the message..." disclaimers, they why would it be refused?

It is, after all, FREE SPEECH.

Wait... does that mean free speech has limits? FIRE!

Simply denying the holocaust is just dumb. But it does not cross the line into hate. In fact "the" holocaust is a pr campaign. There were many "holocausts". So, you could, in fact, deny it was "the" holocaust. I am sure many in Cambodia would agree. So there are arguments there. As far as some of his other beliefs, well I suppose he needs to keep them to himself. But "the" holocaust denial is a valid argument not a criminal act. Again, history is full of lies written by victors. Bust Ernst on a lot of things, but it is his right to deny "the" holocaust and howl it as loud as he likes.

[RawAlex]

Rhet, you need to read up a little more about Mr Zundle, and his bum-buddy in hate Jim Keegstra ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra ) and you might get a little better idea of the issue. I don't care what his PERSONAL opinion is, one that he can hopefully keep to himself. However, when you cross the line from having an opinion to expressing it, teaching it, and inciting others with your speech to take action then you have crossed the line in free speech.

Free Speech isn't an absolute. Please consider the ideas of libel or slander. With absolute free speech, neither of those two things could exist. Proof as it were that all the huffing and puffing it but lawyerly hot air.

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Rhet, you need to read up a little more about Mr Zundle, and his bum-buddy in hate Jim Keegstra ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra ) and you might get a little better idea of the issue. I don't care what his PERSONAL opinion is, one that he can hopefully keep to himself. However, when you cross the line from having an opinion to expressing it, teaching it, and inciting others with your speech to take action then you have crossed the line in free speech.

Free Speech isn't an absolute. Please consider the ideas of libel or slander. With absolute free speech, neither of those two things could exist. Proof as it were that all the huffing and puffing it but lawyerly hot air.

There is a big difference between teaching it in school and blowing smoke in public. It is the overall spin of "holocaust" deniar that I object to. I want kids to be taught the facts as well as we know them as well as educate them well enough to recognise guys like these. However calling a holocaust, "the" holocaust and teaching that in school is using words as weapons and I object to that as well. I don't deny that a holocaust took place. I also believe man landed on the moon. And maybe there is a Sasquatch. However, just denying a holocaust is not grounds for conviction of anything.

[RawAlex]

"the" holocaust is name, just like "the" world series or "the" super bowl. It is what we call it. There have been any number of genocides that might qualify, but so rarely has the state at the time agressively expanded their territory with the goal of the elimination of an entire cultural group, although a few of the deals in Africa recently have been pretty serious.

If true free speech existed, then why can't we use words like nigger or kyke?

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

"the" holocaust is name, just like "the" world series or "the" super bowl. It is what we call it. There have been any number of genocides that might qualify, but so rarely has the state at the time agressively expanded their territory with the goal of the elimination of an entire cultural group, although a few of the deals in Africa recently have been pretty serious.

If true free speech existed, then why can't we use words like nigger or kyke?

we can. I don't think you would face deportation or jail for calling someone a nigger or a kike. However, you may lose your career like Mel Gibson did. That is the way we take care of that shit. Free speech also allows for free retribution.

Would you call this the holocaust???

http://www.cambcomm.org.uk/holocaust.html

or perhaps a holocaust. See the difference? What happened in Germany did not define holocaust. You see the super bowl is the only super bowl. The world series is the only world series. Unless you know of others.

[RawAlex]

Travel to Japan. They play baseball and have a champion. The champion of the Japanese league doesn't play against any American team, so there is no way that the World Series is in fact a world series... or perhaps the world series of poker? World series of golf? I could go on, but it is a meaningless distraction that goes away from the main point.

If you started a website called "Kill All Niggers Now" and started to teach killing black people in school, would that still be your free speech? The parents are aware and willingly send their children. Free speech or hate crime?

It comes back to the very basics of the issue here: Had the material that this woman published been presented in a format other than as pedophile spank material, written in a format other than for the prurient interest, she very likely wouldn't have had an issue. If it was part of a study, say relating in detail (but not gyno porn style detail) what happened to her (or others) in their childhood, I don't think there would be a big deal. In the same manner, if you made a documentary about the N word, some people might be a little upset, but you likely would still have a job the next day. Let's not forget that "nappy haired hos" is enough to have cost a certain radio personality a TV show and put him on the bench for more than a year.

Free speech isn't absolute.

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Travel to Japan. They play baseball and have a champion. The champion of the Japanese league doesn't play against any American team, so there is no way that the World Series is in fact a world series... or perhaps the world series of poker? World series of golf? I could go on, but it is a meaningless distraction that goes away from the main point.

If you started a website called "Kill All Niggers Now" and started to teach killing black people in school, would that still be your free speech? The parents are aware and willingly send their children. Free speech or hate crime?

It comes back to the very basics of the issue here: Had the material that this woman published been presented in a format other than as pedophile spank material, written in a format other than for the prurient interest, she very likely wouldn't have had an issue. If it was part of a study, say relating in detail (but not gyno porn style detail) what happened to her (or others) in their childhood, I don't think there would be a big deal. In the same manner, if you made a documentary about the N word, some people might be a little upset, but you likely would still have a job the next day. Let's not forget that "nappy haired hos" is enough to have cost a certain radio personality a TV show and put him on the bench for more than a year.

Free speech isn't absolute.

The world series is not the world championship of baseball. It was a tournament named for the New York World newspaper, so there is, indeed only the World Series.
As for killing niggers, what you would be in trouble for is not saying nigger, but advocating killing people. Nothing to do with niggers, everything to do with murder.
As for your final discussion point, it all gets back to that old, old argument, is it art or is it porn.
Personally, I am not on this woman's side in this issue. I, in fact, detest violent pornography and violent music because I think that it breeds stronger violence and even glamorizes it making it cool and respectable.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

There was a line that was crossed in this case, sadly hard to define, but it had to do a bunch with the intent.

My personal example is the first Death Wish movie. In that movie, the mother and daugher are followed home, the mother killed after she is forced to watch her daughter be violently raped and left for dead as well. It is an integral part of the story, and the scene was (especially for the times) very graphic and rather disturbing.

However, and this is important: It was part of a greater whole, the movie didn't dwell on the rape. It wasn't a 2 hour movie with 90 minutes of rape of 30 minutes of seeking revenge, but rather a transient (about 2 minutes total) part of a 2 hour movie. They didn't show gyno shots, they didn't show her bleeding pubis, they didn't show the perp's cum dribbling out of her bleeding ass... they didn't discuss it in detail, they didn't have to - it wasn't important, it wasn't the object of the story, and it wasn't needed.
.

What a really great example....let's see now....rape bad...Ok. Anal rape bad...Ok. Torture and rape bad...Ok
So, then, you are saying the rest of the movie, where he hunts down and kills everyone else was good? Is that your example?

Yea....I'm not sure promoting "killing" is a good way to talk about this "as a whole."


But then again, I've got a real problem with most censorship. I don't like what she did, didn't like her website, and wouldn't get out of my chair to defend it.
But I worry it sets a dangerous precedent.

It's a WHOLE LOT EASIER now to find "other words" obscene. THAT'S the part that worries me.

When they outlawed machine guns, nobody was really concerned. Then they slowly worked down the list, bit by bit......and they are still working on it.

America always over reacts to everything. And children? Forget about it.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Actually, you are correct. First off, I don't see any (needed) militias, which sort of negates the whole deal. Second, the framing fathers didn't consider for a second the idea of some nutjob wandering around with an AK and a couple of large clips being able to take out a small town in minutes. When they wrote that stuff, it is was "put in the bullet, add in the powder, plan your action, cock the lever and fire, repeat if you don't get killed in the next 10 minutes or so". Weapons have a place in modern defence, but they don't have a place next to the schoolyard fence. There is no justification (besides the very tired "because the bad guys have them") that can say why a person living in the US needs a gun. If they were not produced in insane numbers (in the millions each year) the bad guys wouldn't have them because they wouldn't be able to find them.

.

You don't have a clue....
First of all, "right to bear arms," has nothing to do with the "well regulated militia" part.
You anti-gun types want to make the argument that guns are for people formed militias, and since we have a military, why would you need it?

Think about when the right was "writ."
They were DEFENDING against the government's "militia." Understanding that a military is necessary to the free state, there will always be some kind of govt. run military. But when the existing Government becomes oppressive, it is the right of the people to overthrow that government. (see the other important documents stating this, written around the same era.)

THAT is why the people should ALWAYS be entitled to keep and bear arms. To ENSURE their freedoms, for all times.

And yes, there are plenty of justifications for it, but here's the thing: I don't NEED a justification, and more importantly, I don't need to justify it to you, or anyone else.

I've managed to keep and bear arms, with a license to carry, for the past 22 years without having to kill anyone, let alone children. And next to a schoolyard, or in the middle of a bar, It's just as safe for me to be carrying a weapon. But try breaking into my "castle," or "harming my person," and you'll find out real quick why I carry it. The "bad guys have them," is a REAL good reason why "the good guys" should be able have them, but that's a reactive statement, not a proactive statement.

But here's the best part.....you can have it your way, and I can have it my way. You don't need to carry, and I can. And we both get what we want. I don't care that you don't carry, so why do you care that I do?

And "if they wouldn't be produced" is a childish statement. They are, and they will always be. Even if you could magically get rid of all the guns.....then what? Would knives be next?

It's an age old axiom; Guns don't kill people....people kill people.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

It's an age old axiom; Guns don't kill people....people kill people.

The framers don't shade things to make their point, only pro-gun people do.

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

You don't have a clue....
First of all, "right to bear arms," has nothing to do with the "well regulated militia" part.
You anti-gun types want to make the argument that guns are for people formed militias, and since we have a military, why would you need it?

Think about when the right was "writ."
They were DEFENDING against the government's "militia." Understanding that a military is necessary to the free state, there will always be some kind of govt. run military. But when the existing Government becomes oppressive, it is the right of the people to overthrow that government. (see the other important documents stating this, written around the same era.)

THAT is why the people should ALWAYS be entitled to keep and bear arms. To ENSURE their freedoms, for all times.

And yes, there are plenty of justifications for it, but here's the thing: I don't NEED a justification, and more importantly, I don't need to justify it to you, or anyone else.

I've managed to keep and bear arms, with a license to carry, for the past 22 years without having to kill anyone, let alone children. And next to a schoolyard, or in the middle of a bar, It's just as safe for me to be carrying a weapon. But try breaking into my "castle," or "harming my person," and you'll find out real quick why I carry it. The "bad guys have them," is a REAL good reason why "the good guys" should be able have them, but that's a reactive statement, not a proactive statement.

But here's the best part.....you can have it your way, and I can have it my way. You don't need to carry, and I can. And we both get what we want. I don't care that you don't carry, so why do you care that I do?

And "if they wouldn't be produced" is a childish statement. They are, and they will always be. Even if you could magically get rid of all the guns.....then what? Would knives be next?

It's an age old axiom; Guns don't kill people....people kill people.

Same thing applies. If you were in a position to take on the US Army, Navy, and Airforce, your little pea shooter would be useless anyway. The right to bear arms was actually a typical american abuse of the language. The original draft was the right to bare arms and a printer's error has cause all this grief.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

The framers don't shade things to make their point, only pro-gun people do.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

The "framers" would be a "didn't," but even with that, your statement makes no sense.

[RawAlex]

They should have made it a right to bare bums... that would have solved so many things.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

The "framers" would be a "didn't," but even with that, your statement makes no sense.

Sorry for the one letter typo. The point is you are attempting to make an absolute statement on something that even the surpreme court hasn't been able to completely agree on. If it was strictly a right to bear arms, there would be no need to mention militias, now would there?

Sorry if we can't make reality meet up with the facts you are attempting to create.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Sorry for the one letter typo. The point is you are attempting to make an absolute statement on something that even the surpreme court hasn't been able to completely agree on. If it was strictly a right to bear arms, there would be no need to mention militias, now would there?

Sorry if we can't make reality meet up with the facts you are attempting to create.

Once again, it has been the law of the land for more than 200 years now, the supreme court doesn't need to "agree" on it.
Your statment is inaccurate. Despite many attempts by anti-gun groups, the Supreme ciurt has UPHELD the right. That isn't "surpreme court hasn't been able to completely agree on," that is very clear.

YOUR creation of the facts is what's in question. My version is the law of the land. My gun sits comfortably in my pocket.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

They should have made it a right to bare bums... that would have solved so many things.

In the British slang of the term, I certainly can't disagree with you there....

[softball]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

In the British slang of the term, I certainly can't disagree with you there....

I believe he is Canadian.

Hey Emp, you gotta name for your heater?

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I believe he is Canadian.

Hey Emp, you gotta name for your heater?

Smith and Wesson