Should these scoundrels be allowed to speak?
October 9, 2006 7:46 PM   Subscribe

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed - H. L. Mencken (Still, if I were you, I'd ditch my copy of Blue Lagoon . . .)
posted by Crotalus (40 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
Your tax dollars at work!
posted by papakwanz at 8:08 PM on October 9, 2006


You might want to ditch the Brothers Grimm and just about any other non-disneyfied folk tradition as well.
posted by 2sheets at 8:14 PM on October 9, 2006


From the Salt Lake Tribune article:

"Assistant U.S. District Attorney Karin Fojtik said Congress made it clear that nudity does not have to be present to consider something pornographic. 'The big difference is these are children,' Fojtik said."

So much for naked babies on bear skin rugs; now it can be pr0n if s/he's wearing a rented tux.
posted by davy at 8:15 PM on October 9, 2006


does jon benet ramsey qualify?
posted by brandz at 8:38 PM on October 9, 2006


Am I going to hell for seeing the Lewis Carroll exhibit?
posted by Holy foxy moxie batman! at 8:39 PM on October 9, 2006


i thought obscenity laws were all gone? And what happened to free speech? Did she have a warning on the site?
posted by amberglow at 8:45 PM on October 9, 2006


There was a famous case a few years ago where a judge ruled that just zooming a video camera into the crotch of clothed underage girls was legally pornography.

Then again I think the main thing influincing the decision was that the tapes seemed to be sold as pornography. (or maybe just to "art lovers").

I don't have the stomach to tolerate all the off hits were I to try to research this. (Let someone else do this)
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 8:46 PM on October 9, 2006


From last year, Daze Reader on the Red Rose shutdown (second "scoundrel" link). The website was limited entirely to text stories, albeit a portion were objectionable.

U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan has been charged by Attorney General Gonzales with being the spearhead of the DOJ's assault on free expression. 2004 profile. The FBI is helping out with a massive expansion of the creaky porn squad.

Nervously eyeing my Nabokov collection.
posted by dhartung at 8:52 PM on October 9, 2006


Still, if I were you, I'd ditch my copy of Blue Lagoon

Fine. But you'll have to pry my Atkins poster from my cold, dead ... uh, hand.
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:04 PM on October 9, 2006


"Am I going to hell for seeing the Lewis Carroll exhibit?"

Going to Hell is not the issue; the issue is whether you'll go to the Hoosegow.
posted by davy at 9:04 PM on October 9, 2006


The website was limited entirely to text stories, albeit a portion were objectionable.

Ahem. Free speech is not so much a question as free expression, here. I myself draw the line, even in fantasy, at consent, and although I recognize people's views may differ on their own limits, stories about raping the underage never sat well with me. But then again, I identified with Hayley in Hard Candy, so what do I know?
posted by StrikeTheViol at 9:10 PM on October 9, 2006


As a fellow pervert, I am always inclined to speak out in support of my pedophile brothers and sisters. They are like the miner's canary; when they are punished for their lusts, you can be sure you will be punished for your lusts soon.

And because I somehow want to stress that I support the freedom to lust, I am going to sign this post with my full name, so that anyone who should happen to do a search on me will find that I have spoken out in favor of pedophiles. I am not ashamed to support liberty.

I know, I'm a mushy internet activist.

--David Horvitz
posted by Citizen Premier at 9:14 PM on October 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


Prediction: any day now we'll hear about the prosecution of proprietors of "barely legal" teen sites that are fully USC 2257 compliant, but that feature girls that look young for their age.
posted by Crotalus at 9:15 PM on October 9, 2006


Henry Miller is spinning in his grave...but not quite as fast as the heads of those who're (pun intended) apparently lining up to trouble Amazon.com!
posted by objet at 9:32 PM on October 9, 2006


Google turns up at least four David Horvitzes...are you musical, a scientist, both, or neither? (for the sake of posterity, of course)

Metafilter's made me so worldly, I have trouble distinguishing real beliefs from strawman sockpuppets in this thread.
posted by StrikeTheViol at 9:52 PM on October 9, 2006


The indictment was brought in the Western District of Pennsylvania; that's the preferred jurisdiction to bring obscenity charges, because of conservative rural jurors and conservative judges.
posted by orthogonality at 9:53 PM on October 9, 2006


I heard the Taliban were back, but I thought that was Afghanistan.
posted by homunculus at 10:14 PM on October 9, 2006


In other news: Supreme Court Rejects Texas Sex-Toy Case
posted by homunculus at 10:20 PM on October 9, 2006


I dearly hope that I will never comprehend the mind of a man who looks at ideas and becomes fearful.
posted by Skorgu at 10:22 PM on October 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


So much for naked babies on bear skin rugs; now it can be pr0n if s/he's wearing a rented tux.

According to charging documents, one photo of a 9-year-old girl shows her dressed in 'black stiletto pumps, a black lace thong, black bra, and black jacket' sitting on a dining room table.

Anyone who puts a 9 year old girl into a thong should be locked up to keep them away from perverts like me who think stuff like this is sick and twisted.
posted by three blind mice at 10:55 PM on October 9, 2006


Is the court here asserting that if these images are pornographic, then the children are ipso facto being exploited in a way which is harmful, or does that not even enter into it? I seem to recall a case recently where virtual child pornography was found not to be illegal by virtue of the fact that no children were actually involved.
posted by TheNewWazoo at 10:57 PM on October 9, 2006


TNW, cases seem to still go either way.

I think the theory — in so far as there is a legal theory at all — is that the availability of even virtual child pornography will inflame the depraved lusts of pedophiles, causing them to rise from their kleenex-scattered basements and roam the land in search of children to molest.
posted by hattifattener at 12:09 AM on October 10, 2006


Question: why is the man from the second link a "scoundrel?" I didn't delve too deep into the legal document, but what's the problem? Not a fan of shit porn myself,* but is there any indication that the performers were underage or unwilling?

*Really... No, really!
posted by brundlefly at 12:27 AM on October 10, 2006


So an underage girl who dresses herself in sexy stuff should be plucked from the street and forced to cover up, right? Because if a picture of her is porn, then in person she's a live sex show.
posted by pracowity at 12:38 AM on October 10, 2006 [1 favorite]


Uhm. I call shenanigans. There's a major ethical difference between the first two links and the third one, seeing as how the third one actually involves non-fictional, prepubescent minors who were being exploited. Perhaps you're trying to bring up some kind of "where do we draw the line?" productive discussion, but I still call shenanigans. We draw the line at real 9 year-olds in lingerie. Give me a break.

There are better examples of the morality police ruining lives over this shit without resorting to defending actual child exploitation. Perhaps someone could help me out with a link to the story about the father who was detained at customs for having pictures of his sons during bathtime on his cell phone.
posted by Skwirl at 12:56 AM on October 10, 2006


without resorting to defending actual child exploitation

I'm not defending anything or anyone. Note the title of my post. The third link points out that by removing nudity from the definition of porn, one makes all kinds of advertisements, as well as movies like Blue Lagoon, potentially child porn. This does not diminish, in any way, from the fact that the defendants in the Salt Lake case are twisted fucks.
posted by Crotalus at 2:01 AM on October 10, 2006


Well there goes my plan for a scratch 'n' sniff Scat Mag.
posted by econous at 2:10 AM on October 10, 2006


So, can a bookstore owner be arrested for selling an undercover federal agent a copy of Nabokov's Lolita?
posted by clevershark at 5:38 AM on October 10, 2006


Comstockery is alive and well it seems, despite the evidence. The debate goes on.
posted by cal71 at 6:03 AM on October 10, 2006


Who knows, we might see a court case involving Lolita again in the near future. The fact is, that book was controvertial when it was written, and it has been controvertial ever since. This country has never been free of debate over what is pornography, what is obscene, and what is illegal. The definition changes as frequently as the material being produced. And personally, I'm all for finding a workable solution where Lolita is protected and websites selling pre-teen girls in thongs are not. That won't be easy, but I'm up for the challenge. And I think our courts are, too.
posted by Banky_Edwards at 6:45 AM on October 10, 2006


Good post Crotalus. And Homunculus' link to the Texas dildo brouhaha! Jeez come on now. The guy's hauled up on charges cuz he showed a couple of cops dildoes? Which they asked to see? Crazy. Those cops and prosecutors ought to be up on malpractice charges - why are they wasting time and money on this shit when there's real crime going on?

PS not just shitting on Texas here - Mississippi and Georgia have apparently solved all their problems too, and are free to concentrate on the dildonic menace.
posted by Mister_A at 7:53 AM on October 10, 2006


TheNewWazoo: Is the court here asserting that if these images are pornographic, then the children are ipso facto being exploited in a way which is harmful, or does that not even enter into it? I seem to recall a case recently where virtual child pornography was found not to be illegal by virtue of the fact that no children were actually involved.

Well, actually in the case of of the third link, the actual decision was this: "She added the determination of whether the images on Granere and Duhamel's Web site were pornographic should be made by a jury."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:56 AM on October 10, 2006


Metafilter: Monitoring the dildonic menace since 1999TM
posted by jonp72 at 8:24 AM on October 10, 2006


First link:
Fletcher, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press, said Wednesday that federal authorities "didn't like my site." She had no other comment on the charges.


Awesome.
posted by zekinskia at 8:31 AM on October 10, 2006


Second link:
In a communication last year to the FBI's 56 field offices, the anti-obscenity campaign was described as "one of the top priorities" of Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and FBI Director Robert Mueller.


Double awesome.
posted by zekinskia at 8:35 AM on October 10, 2006


KirkJobSluder: Yes, I saw that; it's what prompted my question. I was wondering if the court is saying that such an if-then relationship exists, not necessarily whether the antecedent is true. hattifattener's link seems to indicate that it's not necessary that someone actually be exploited/injured for something to be found illegal.

That, incombination with my libertarian streak and my personal opinion that pedophilia is a particularly pernicious paraphilia, and thus its sufferers should be treated instead of incarcerated, irritates me quite a bit. It all seems like so much fear-mongering.
posted by TheNewWazoo at 9:36 AM on October 10, 2006


The fact that the US has an attorney-general who is pro-torture, pro-warrantless wiretapping and anti-habeas corpus is far more obscene to me than any fictional story could ever be. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who holds that opinion.
posted by clevershark at 9:37 AM on October 10, 2006


Scoundrel....I like the sound of that.
posted by Smedleyman at 9:42 AM on October 10, 2006


You better watch what you say think.
posted by Goofyy at 10:31 AM on October 10, 2006


This is the same judge that almost killed the internet. No joke.
posted by Brian B. at 11:23 AM on October 10, 2006


« Older NaNoWriMo   |   Tail Fins Rising aka Our father who art in styling... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments