July 24, 2001

11:10 PM

Man goes to jail for writing pornographic thoughts about children in his journal. Read carefully and you'll notice he was on probation. Even so -- doesn't this go too far? Yes, says Philip Jenkins over at nerve.com. (Found on A & L Daily.)
posted by argybarg (33 comments total)

Now you can be arrested for what you say in your sleep.
posted by pracowity at 11:17 PM on July 24, 2001

I think this is a double post, but I'll be damned if I'm gunna actually search for the original.
posted by Doug at 11:17 PM on July 24, 2001

I gotch'your double post right here.

And yes it does go too far.
posted by sylloge at 11:25 PM on July 24, 2001

Whee, a double post. That means we get the chance to talk about anything we like for a brief but brilliant moment in the metafilter space-time continuum

So howabout that Big Brother hey?
posted by lucien at 12:10 AM on July 25, 2001

Fire in the head, and rage. Rage at a system that now punishes us for our thoughts, rage at the ratcage of life on planet earth, rage at the self-righteous "double-post, double-post" mentality that refuses to recognize that, for instance, the content of the two articles is not entirely the same (for instance, the second one contains the information that Dalton is considering changing his plea, and is clearly more about the First Amendment situation than the original article was) and for that matter, maybe we should talk about this anyway.

Because there are steps in a continuum of loss, and if you can be punished for what you think and express in a private journal, then how about a public forum such as, say, MetaFilter?

Sure, Dalton wrote disgusting shit. But to convict him of pandering implies that he wrote it for dissemination, and he did not. So what happens once this particular crack in that First Amendment wall gets through? MetaFilter is very vulnerable as long as it physically exists in the United States as long as this kind of thing keeps rolling along. Unless the server is going to be shipped to Canada next, or an island off the coast of South America, or what have you.

By all means, let's lock up anyone who might disturb us with their thoughts, even if they don't intend to share them with us. That will safeguard us. And hey, when we're done, why not lock up the malcontents who do share them?
posted by Ezrael at 5:01 AM on July 25, 2001

Funny, I've been censored from even reading the Yahoo article or the Nerve article by the corporate powers at work behind my computer. The naughty stuff filter they have running told me both are "forbidden", blocked them from viewing, and informed me it's going to report me to "my superiors". I wonder what they're going to do to me.
So out of curiosity...was this a web journal? Or a paper journal? And does it make a difference?
From the description, it sounds like he's being accused of a thought crime. Scary stuff indeed.
posted by hazyjane at 5:32 AM on July 25, 2001

Let's look at the other side of this, though. IF this is just this nutjob's private journal, then obviously he can't be arrested for this - I mean, if that were true, Stephen King would be doing Life ten times over. BUT, if this guy has a history of committing crimes against kids - and he does, since he was already on probation for having child pornography and, let's be honest here, for every crime you get caught for in this country, the likelihood exists there are a dozen you didn't - then this journal starts to look less like a private thing and more like intent. And if it does show evidence of intent to commit a crime, then the police are justified in arresting him. At the very least, the cops are caught in a wedge - if they know about the journal but leave him alone and he subsequently tortures and murders somebody's kid, they are going to nail the cops right along with this Dalton scumbag. I think the cops decided to play it safe and violate his ass back to the joint (and Meldrick would have put it).

Does anyone know how the cops got hold of the journal anyway? It doesn't sound like the sort of thing you carry around on your person.
posted by UncleFes at 6:46 AM on July 25, 2001

He was on probation, and his probation offier did a routine search and found it. From what I understand, it wasn't a journal per se, it was a notebook with 14 or 15 stories in it. While I agree that virtual child pornography (in which absolutely no children were involved in its making) should be legal under the first Amendment, probationers frequently give up rights ordinary citizens have, as a condition of their early release from prison. So if this guy had been a drunk driver and been caught with liquor, he'd go back to jail. If he'd been an armed robber and got caught with a gun, he'd go back to jail. A contract killer who got out on probation and "went back to work" would both have his probation yanked and be charged with a new crime. In this case, because all child pornography is illegal (and the matter of virtual child pornography is currently in front of the Supreme Court to decide whether it is protected by the First Amendment) this child pornographer's probation was revoked, and he was charged with a new crime. The police are not busting down the doors of Jane Q. Citizen and reading her journal; the guy had conditions of probation, knew those conditions of probation, and got caught breaking those conditions of probation.

I will not disagree that virtual child pornography, as disgusting as I may find it, should be protected by the First Amendment. However, it is not protected speech right now, that's why Dalton did not pass go, did not collect 200 dollars, and went directly to his jail. Personally, I find it baffling why his lawyer did not argue the new charges (no way to fight the violation of his probation, even if virtual child porn were legal,) I can only imagine it came down to somebody not wanting to represent a scumbag. That's unfortunate for Dalton- he should consider hiring another attorney.
posted by headspace at 7:00 AM on July 25, 2001

I will not disagree that virtual child pornography, as disgusting as I may find it, should be protected by the First Amendment. However, it is not protected speech right now, that's why Dalton did not pass go, did not collect 200 dollars, and went directly to his jail.

The real issue here is that he never published or attempted to diseminate the information in any way. All the laws regarding child pornography (of the non-photographic kind) involve the exchange of information not mere possession. This is a dangerous precidence which could then be applied elsewhere. Could it set up a situation where possession of almost ANY literature that described an "illegal" act could be grounds for arrest? I don't want to know...
posted by RevGreg at 9:00 AM on July 25, 2001

there was no chance here to test the legality of virtual child porn or whether or not the pandering charge would have stuck. the guy pleaded guilty to the pandering charge, thereby giving himself prison time and no chance to appeal.
posted by tolkhan at 9:32 AM on July 25, 2001

This is a dangerous precidence which could then be applied elsewhere. Could it set up a situation where possession of almost ANY literature that described an "illegal" act could be grounds for arrest? I don't want to know...

Bah. This isn't a paperback copy of Lolita with little pencilled notes in the margins, this is a handwritten notebook of this guy's repulsive fantasies. And he's a probationer for having kiddie porn, so the argument could be made that, whereas my handwritten notebook of fantasies doesn't mean a whole lot, HIS could be (as I mentioned before) indicative of intent AND if these were his intentions, then the cops were obliged to do something, and the only real recourse they have is to arrest the guy. We could argue slippery slope all day here, but I still think the cops felt they had no choice other than to grab up this pile of shit.

But let's talk worst case scenario here, since we're doing so the other way. Let's say the cops ignore this document, and Dalton decides to enact his sick little fantasies. There were, what, 15 of them? That's 15 kids dead or abused so badly they may never fully recover (if reports of the contents of the notebook are accurate); and let's say the cops are forced to admit that (a) they knew that Dalton was a pedophile, and (b) they knew that he had a written document that outlined what eventually became his actions. What THEN? I'll tell you what - there'd be a mob of parents outside the police station, not for Dalton but for the cops themselves who "let this happen."

But he pled guilty and is headed for prison. Good! With luck, he'll never leave prison alive, we won't have to worry about his intent, and no kid will never have to go through hell to feed this sick fuck's sexual pecadilloes.
posted by UncleFes at 9:39 AM on July 25, 2001

Here's a Washington Post story on the case. It characterizes the notebook/journal/whatever as a "diary".

That someone can be jailed for any fantasy written in a private diary, no matter how disgusting that fantasy may be, is utterly terrifying.

This guy is a sick puppy, but there's a difference between fantasy and action. There's no way in hell anyone should ever be jailed for *a crime he might, someday commit*. Not in a country that calls itself free.
posted by Sapphireblue at 9:45 AM on July 25, 2001

I just love reading the same debate twice.
posted by DiplomaticImmunity at 10:32 AM on July 25, 2001

There's no way in hell anyone should ever be jailed for *a crime he might, someday commit*. Not in a country that calls itself free.

But as I pointed out, what happens if/when he commits the crimes he describes? I imagine your "free country" defense will cut exactly zero ice with the grieving parents of his victims.

Challenge to the Dalton Defense Department: you're the cop who finds that diary. What do you do? Please keep in mind that your name and badge number goes on the report.

I love WRITING the same debate twice! and is it really a "debate" if one's points get ignored in favor of continuing communal outrage over the abrogation of Dalton's first amendment rights?
posted by UncleFes at 10:58 AM on July 25, 2001

I'm trying to find where I read the story, but apparently this journal is several years old, too....so, saying it might be his CURRENT mental state is dangerous.

Anyone else read that?
posted by dwivian at 12:08 PM on July 25, 2001

But as I pointed out, what happens if/when he commits the crimes he describes? I imagine your "free country" defense will cut exactly zero ice with the grieving parents of his victims.


If/when he commits them is when he gets arrested and punished, if convicted. And the feelings of the grieving parents, while wrenching, are supposed to cut zero ice with the way the law works. It's why we have the jury system complete with voir dire.

If I'm the cop who finds the diary? What can I do? I note that I found a diary, and it had disturbing crap in it. Why isn't anyone locking up G. Gordon Liddy for the crackpot vengeance crap he spews, if we're going to allow this?
posted by Skot at 12:18 PM on July 25, 2001

I just love reading the same debate twice.

Good. Keep reading, then. Unless that was an attempt at sarcasm, in which case stop reading and let us get on with it. I personally get tired of people deciding they are the ultimate arbiters of what other people should discuss, myself. Irritates me.

UncleFes, the point is, as horrible as what he wrote about in that journal/diary/notebook is, he didn't do it. Sometimes writing is cathartic. I write about things I'm not about to do. Admittedly, as a parolee, he has lost the right to, say, tell people not to read his private journal. But has he lost the right to have one? Does he have to repress every negative emotion he has for fear of punishment? You want to watch someone explode, do that to him.

Your point about what, if anything, the cop in question should have done is valid. I'd personally write down what I read and say that we should watch him. But I wouldn't arrest the man out of hand for merely writing his thoughts down.
posted by Ezrael at 12:32 PM on July 25, 2001

DiplomaticImmunity: let me introduce you to your back button.

UncleFes: when he commits a crime, lock him up and throw away the key. But I'm sorry, you can't make arbitrary decisions about who's *potentially dangerous* and lock those people up.

I mean, what, do you advocate executions of people who fantasize about murder?
posted by Sapphireblue at 12:51 PM on July 25, 2001

If I'm the cop who finds the diary? What can I do? I note that I found a diary, and it had disturbing crap in it.

Guess who gets his career tanked at best and maybe goes to prison along with Dalton if/when he commits crimes? That'd be you, Skot. My uncle and two cousins are cops, and their answer to this would be "confiscate the diary, take Dalton down to the station on 'suspicion of suspicion,' and let the lawyers sort it out." Which is both the CYA response, and seemingly exactly what happened.

Why isn't anyone locking up G. Gordon Liddy for the crackpot vengeance crap he spews, if we're going to allow this?

Is he on parole anymore? I do remember him getting hassled about "Mrs. Liddy's Guns" a time or two when he was still on parole. I kinda like ol' G. Gordon. I'd certainly rather have my sister marry G. Gordon than this Dalton guy.

Does he have to repress every negative emotion he has for fear of punishment? You want to watch someone explode, do that to him

Very valid point. But in this case, is that what he's doing? Is he working out his demons on paper - in which case he should not only be let out of jail, he should be given a gift certificate to the local stationer - or is he feeding the fire, so to speak? From how I've heard the diary described - very violent, very pornographic, and very lengthy - I might think the latter. And if it's old... why (if he's trying to reform) does he still have it? Part of curing oneself of an addiction is removing oneself from the environment - friends, haunts, trappings - of that addiction, correct? In which case, perhaps Dalton isn't the First Amendment champion his defenders are making him out to be.

But I'm sorry, you can't make arbitrary decisions about who's *potentially dangerous* and lock those people up.

Well, OK, why not? I mean, it's not as if this guy is the local library lady, he's a guy with a record of criminal activity, on probation for criminal activities, and found to have produced some fairly significant statements of intent regarding the commission of other crimes. I agree with you that you can't just arrest ANYONE, but we have some serious prior considerations here.

I mean, what, do you advocate executions of people who fantasize about murder?

Of course not - but I might consider having a serious discussion with someone if they wrote fantasies of committing murder if they had a record for murder or attempted murder, and were on probation for trying to murder someone.
posted by UncleFes at 1:09 PM on July 25, 2001

Guess who gets his career tanked at best and maybe goes to prison along with Dalton if/when he commits crimes? That'd be you, Skot.

Not me, buddy. I've got my hands full with this Liddy guy waving a gun around and trying to feed me dead rats.
posted by Skot at 1:19 PM on July 25, 2001

Damn, I was gonna mention catharsis, but Ezrael beat me to it. I always feel compelled to insert the word catharsis into any debate about obscenity or censorship... we don't know what he would have done, or not have done, but it's very possible that writing stories like these gives him a much healthier (well, you know what I mean) outlet than supressing all "inappropriate" thoughts until they boil over.
As for UncleFes, it is my understanding that the stories were fiction, containing fictional characters, and thus aren't statements of intent. I'm not saying the probation officer who finds this journal shouldn't set up a session with a psychiatrist for this guy (if he isn't already seeing one, that is) as part of his probation, but arrest and criminal charges? What does that solve?
posted by hincandenza at 1:21 PM on July 25, 2001

I've got my hands full with this Liddy guy waving a gun around and trying to feed me dead rats.

Just remember that that piece belongs to MISSUS Liddy :)

I can't believe there is someone else here who's read Will. Makes me want to get my lighter out :)

What does that solve?

Maybe nothing. Hell, probably nothing. But, otoh, maybe something. How do you know if you've prevented a violent crime?

I'm not sure that probation officers have that sort of latitude, either, to recommend psychiatric help as opposed to violating his probation.
posted by UncleFes at 1:25 PM on July 25, 2001

Part of curing oneself of an addiction is removing oneself from the environment - friends, haunts, trappings - of that addiction, correct?

"Part of" for some perhaps. Not all people respond to any one mode of therapy. This does resonate a bit with my recent viewing of Quills. It's nice to see time hasn't changed much. Ah, progress.

And...I bite my tongue daily on the subject of double-posting since I find that in the topical arena everything is a shade redundant. With the daily volume of posts, I skip more than I read. I turn the other cheek rather than smite those failing to master the search feature. If there is more to say about a subject, I am willing to suffer a thousand double-posts.
posted by john at 1:52 PM on July 25, 2001

UncleFes says:

statements of intent

The writing has been described as "fantasies", in a "diary". Doesn't sound like a "statement of intent" to me.

UncleFes also says:

I might consider having a serious discussion

Oh yeah. Absolutely. Discuss away. Scare the shit out of our child-porn-mongering buddy there, be good for him. But there's still miles of difference between a *serious discussion* and *seven years in jail*.
posted by Sapphireblue at 2:22 PM on July 25, 2001

The writing has been described as "fantasies", in a "diary".

Yes, let's talk about that: what good is a diary that isn't read? IF these are simply just his freakish fantasies, why does he not keep them where you (presumably) and I keep our fantasies - in our heads? Instead, we have 15 or so lengthy, detailed, violent stories written by a pedophile and discussing the sexual torture and murder of children. Are you seriously going to tell me you believe that the cops should have stood around like Officer Barbrady going "nope, nothing wrong here..."? There is definitely something very damned wrong going on here.

Doesn't sound like a "statement of intent" to me.

I haven't read them, but OK; my point was that if you are a convicted criminal pedophile and you are found to have been writing up a goodly stack of violent pedophiliac imagery - fiction or no - you have some explaining to do.

But there's still miles of difference between a *serious discussion* and *seven years in jail*.

He pled guilty, so who's to blame for the 7 years? Not the cops. He's got lawyers and the support of the ACLU, he could easily have gone to trial and (probably) won. Those seven years were his decision. Innocent men may be wrongly convicted, but they certainly don't plead guilty.

Overall, we all know that the pandering charge, in addition to probably being unconstitutional, was bullshit. BUT what we will never know is how close Dalton was to enacting his fantasies. Who's rights trump - Dalton's, or the children who would have been his victims? Because we are suggesting here that the police MUST be an absolutely reactive force - and that as such, they cannot protect us from criminals, they can ONLY punish the criminals after the fact. That being the case, the public has a right and a duty to protect itself, both collectively and individually... you see where I'm going here, don't you?
posted by UncleFes at 2:50 PM on July 25, 2001

what good is a diary that isn't read?

What? That's not a serious question, is it?
posted by kindall at 2:55 PM on July 25, 2001

Pandering in Ohio includes the creation and/or possession of child pornography in any form, regardless of intent to disseminate it. Therefore, he is guilty, though guilty under an apparently unconstitutional law. His lawyer shouldn't have let him plea, and he should have fought the additional charges on a First Amendment basis. Like I said, there was nothing he could do about his probation being violated, but there was quite a bit he could have done in defense of creating his own virtual pornography. No matter how evil he is, and I do indeed, think he is evil, we simply cannot arrest people for what they might do. Every human being on Earth is capable of committing murder, and may well do it under the right circumstances; if we start arresting for intent we may as well be a police state.
posted by headspace at 3:11 PM on July 25, 2001

Every human being on Earth is capable of committing murder, and may well do it under the right circumstances; if we start arresting for intent we may as well be a police state.

I agree; what I'm saying is that they simply couldn't ethically ignore the diary, even though that would have been the constitutionally correct behavior. And I pointed out what the logical end result of an absolutely reactive police force would necessarily be.
posted by UncleFes at 3:25 PM on July 25, 2001

Innocent men may be wrongly convicted, but they certainly don't plead guilty.

Have you ever been arrested, charged, and tried for anything at all?

I have a steak dinner with all the fixin's that says you haven't. Because if you had, you'd know better than this.

I'm obviously not going to change your mind, UncleFes, no matter how impassioned the circles I talk in, so I'll be excusing myself after this, but really, I wish I could convey the extent of my horror that there could be people who think this guy got what he deserved. I didn't suggest that there was "nope, nothing wrong here", because quite obviously there's all *kinds* of stuff wrong with that guy. Rather, my problem here is that fantasy is not a crime. This is up there with gradeschoolers being expelled or even arrested for writing *fiction stories* about kids killing their schoolmates. Worse, even, because most people expect their diaries to remain private.

I don't think the police should be only reactive. After all, their mere presence surely prevents more crime than any of us can imagine. But jail time sure as hell ought to be reactive and no more. The nullification of a person's civil liberties sure as hell ought to come in response to something that person did, not the kind of person he is.

So maybe the real question is: is to throw a guy like this in jail the only thing that can be done with him? There *must* be a middle ground between "turn a blind eye" and "scumbags like this don't deserve their freedom, make room down at the pen."

I guess that's all I have to say, and now that I've said it for the third time or so, I'm going to go see if my ACLU dues are paid up. If this sort of thing is acceptable in American society, they need all the help they can get.
posted by Sapphireblue at 3:40 PM on July 25, 2001

Imagine somebody fantasizing torturing, raping and killing YOU. What would you have done about it?
posted by semmi at 11:35 PM on July 25, 2001

Imagine somebody fantasizing torturing, raping and killing YOU. What would you have done about it?

To say that this is a tragically stupid argument is to insult genuine stupidity, not to mention sincere tragedy. But really nice capitalization of the "YOU." That's what gave me the howling fantods! I will sleep with the light on tonight.

In case anyone is too embarrassed or polite to point out that someone's personal heebie-jeebies towards another is irrelevant until an actual act or overt threat is committed, then I will. I regularly fantasize about the extravagant deaths of many motorists as I dodge them on my way to and from work. Of course, I also committed a federal offense when I was much younger, so maybe I should just keep those to myself.
posted by Skot at 1:12 AM on July 26, 2001

"...rage at the ratcage of life on planet earth, rage at the self-righteous "double-post, double-post" mentality that refuses to recognize that, for instance, the content of the two articles is not entirely the same (for instance, the second one contains the information that Dalton is considering changing his plea, and is clearly more about the First Amendment situation than the original article was)"

That may be so Ezrael, and I must admit that I had trouble getting my head around some of the MeFi conventions at first also, but If you can claim to be being "silenced" because of the "no double post" rule, then I can claim to be being silenced by you, for speaking up in support of it when you say things like:

"in which case stop reading and let us get on with it."

I don't buy your example that "the content of the two articles is not entirely the same" since every case undergoes a variety of permutations, and people's responses here seem to be in the order of -

1) Hasn't talked about it in the first thread, thus give their opinion.

2) Has spoken about it in the first thread, now recants POV.

Hence nobody's view has changed because "Dalton is considering changing his plea" Which means that this thread really is a continuation of the first thread.

Which is fine, if this is what the community wants. But let's not pretend otherwise.

As I said, one of the most appealing things about MeFi is that unlike so many other places on the net, it gives everyone their chance to have a say. You tell me to "go away and just ignore it" But every content that is here encourages more of the same, be it good or bad. I am perfectly entitled to have my say about it.

Yes, this note would have been better posted at MeFi, in the "double post" thread there. But you have addressed me here, and you don't seem to be engaging in that (other) thread, so this is my reply.

We all have different opinions about which topics "should" be kept in the public eye. So I find MeFi's conventional approach to topics to be quite useful. There are hundreds of forums on the web which take a diffenerent approach, and get bound down by the same arguments for weeks.

Notification: Metatalk thread is here
posted by lucien at 2:17 PM on July 26, 2001

Well skot, I may be stupid but your comment worth horse dung with you sitting ltightly locked up in your room breathing heavy on your computer. Now if you'd put your name and address out for those who'd like to fantasize about you then my point would have some emotional significance to you, I think. But then again....
posted by semmi at 7:35 PM on July 27, 2001