Fed. Judge Refuses to Dismiss Red Rose Obscenity Charges
 

PITTSBURGH —U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti has refused to dismiss the federal obscenity charges pending against Karen Fletcher, aka Red Rose, according to media reports.

As reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Conti’s refusal to dismiss the case stemmed from the fact that Fletcher's attorney's arguments were similar to those made in the Extreme Associates case , which recently were rejected by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Fletcher was indicted last year on six counts of transmission of obscene material in connection with short stories that she posted on the Internet for a $10 monthly fee. Fletcher’s website had 29 subscribers, according to evidence submitted in the case.

Jerome Mooney, one of Fletcher’s attorneys, described her as a “poor, damaged woman” who writes the stories as a therapeutic measure to alleviate the emotional pain caused by her own history of abuse.

Mooney attempted to distinguish Fletcher’s work from graphic visual depictions involving real people and real sex, like the materi View the full story

Man that sucks :( Pretty soon we're going to put warnings on our text links.

"See some hot (censored) action at (censored)"


Ok so they're saying ultimately that the problem is that she SOLD access to them for profit. But the prosecutor says there is no prohibition from giving them to her neighbors. So how about if she had free access to them?
Is that as retarded as it sounds? Pretty sure it is.

I'm looking forward to this one eventually being dismissed.

Seems the judge had cause to refuse the last motion... but I'm sure the defendant's lawyers will prevail, provided they're competent.

Based on this.....

All authors of murder mysteries & sexual encounters being sold via amazon.com should be tried right now.

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in my entire life.

This judge SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEM SELF.

This is a direct attack on the 1st amendment & basic human rights. The ability to put your thoughts & fantasy's down on paper, on this this case notepad should be protected NO MATTER THE CONTEXT.

I would take this one straight to the supreme court. Set a fucking precedence for any future fucking bitch of a judge who decides she wants to try someone for writing a story.

THIS IS TOTALLY FUCKED, & IF YOUR NOT WITH ME ON THIS 100% YOU NEED YOUR HEAD CHECKED.

If anyone has this womans information please post it, I'd actually like to contribute to her legal fund.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar.../book-burn.jpg

http://www.victorystore.com/Flags/im...rican_flag.jpg

Well thats the thing. It's not that she wrote it, or gave it to someone. It's that she sold them online to people. "transmission of obscene materials"

It's ridiculous. And the community standard being applied is the community in which the trial will happen. And thats chosen based on where she lives evidently.

People (judges) need to understand how the internet works. "Server" is so named because it does nothing whatsoever that is not requested of it to do. A user will send a request, the server will check their credentials, and if OK, allow a document to be transmitted.

They should go after the 29 members of her website who requested and initiated the transmissions of "obscene materials" to the privacy of their own computers if that's what the charges truly are.

Bottom line is that they think her material is SOOOOOOOOOO obscene that the 12 jury members will be grossed out and convict her. Never minding that the users ASKED FOR THE MATERIAL, and not only that, they PAID TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASK FOR IT.

It's complete bullshit. You're telling me that if I want to download stories about slaughtering pigs in the pork industry, I may not be able to because 12 random strangers think it's obscene? Well fuck you.

The thing is, from what I recall, she wrote stories about sex with *gasp* children.

Obviously, that should not matter at all. They're stories, after all.

Nevertheless, once the word "children" is mentioned, most people suddenly lose any possible semblance of rationality.

Yeah look out hollywood, you've been selling the same shit for decades.

As disgusting as a persons mind might be, it is their mind. And a notepad, or a piece of paper is just an extension of that mind. NO MATTER HOW DEPRAVED THE CONTEXT OF IT IS.

So long as an innocent person is not harmed by the thoughts of a person, thoughts & fantasies should never fall into the realm of law.

Otherwise every single dream I've had this week while sleeping would land me in prison for 25 to life (yes i like to go GTA style in my dreams, sue me). Now lets say i wanted to keep a dream journal which others showed interest in & in order to pay my server fee's i asked people to donate (x) dollars for access. I'm now transmitting obscene materials & can goto jail?

This is ridiculous.....

Just for this, I'm going to start writing fictional sex stories involving goats & charge a membership fee.

^ look at this everyone....conspiracy to commit thought crimes on a goat, someone call the cops!

I completely agree with you.

The problem, however, is that most people will theoretically agree - right up until the point where they hear the word "children" or, even worse, "pedophiles".

last time i checked, theres only 2 things you can't say/write in America

one involves a certain politician obviously & the other involves saying "fire" in a crowd, which are both common sense

am i right?

the problem is (as a proud member of the aclu & protector of 1st amendment) i have to protect all speech, not just the speech i agree with

no matter how totally fucked up & disgusting that speech might be in my mind

and hopefully this case will be taken to the supreme court & they will see it the way we do.........

Justice Stewart's "I know it when I see it" definition of obscenity continues to be a double-edged sword, for sure.

Obscenity should not be applied to textual fantasy.....period.....would you agree?

Quentin Tarantino.....how is he in business?

I know for a fact that From Dawn Till Dusk would fail community standards where i live.

These Christian moral crusaders get worse by the day....meanwhile their just suppressing strong homosexual tendencies i believe.

They'd rather not think about sex, because every time they do, they get closer to falling out of the closet. :2 cents:

Another thread the GFY Republicans will skip over.

I don't think it's just christians, I myself an appalled someone is allowed to write about sexual experiences (fantasy or otherwise) with children for sale on the internet, for that sole purpose. If you make a business to appeal to pedophiles and profit from it, you're clearly fucked in the head and should be spit on.

Let's turn the tables: What if it wasn't so "fantasy" ? What if it was a real child molester writing "fantasy" about what they do/have done? If my son or daughter were molested by some twisted fuck, I sure as hell wouldn't want them to WRITE A FUCKING BOOK ABOUT IT.

Yes, I'd agree 100%.

I'm a card-carrying member of the ACLU, myself.


As I've said in other threads before this... I believe in a system where one can opt to shield oneself and/or one's family from any genres of material that you may choose to shield yourself- but where any form of expression - textual, graphical, whatever - up until the point that it plainly affects another person's right to life, liberty, or property - is allowable.

Hmm... that judge should know better than that.

this is scary, going after written word.

So ridiculous.

Graphic sexual fantasy stories about 5 year old children getting raped. Is there any need for this?

Humpy, a book written about being molested as a child wouldn't read the same as a pedophile rape fantasy story. In the same manner that hollywood movies and porn movies both have sex in them, but porn chooses to focus on the ins and outs and fluid exchanges and hollywood chooses to focus on the romantic or emotional moment of sex as part of a larger story. There are many ways to tell a story about child abuse without turning it into spank material for pedos.

A little self control would go a long way to keeping to government off our asses.

Catcher in the Rye.

I don't think anyone really expected the judge to just dismiss the charges out of hand, the govt wouldn't have brought a case so weak that it would get thrown out on a motion to dismiss.

Sorry man, you can't go after one written word, without going after another.

By taking one brick out of a house (no matter how fucked up & ugly it is) the house will eventually crumble.

It's just the way it is. The constitution was written the way it was for a reason.

If writing about illegal activities is against the law, it shouldn't only apply to these guys. It should apply to movies, books, TV shows, video games, etc. I'm not defending their actions, and I personally find what they do disgusting, but people write about illegal activities daily.

The subject matter being distasteful (to an extent that each measures for themselves) can be a given as far as I'm concerned.

But dont try to prosecute on behalf of the people that it's obscene, when the 29 members who viewed the material CHOSE to receive it, and explicitly requested that it be transmitted to them.

All that this and the other extreme obscenity cases is about is forcing 12 people to watch material they never wanted to watch, then pass a moral judgement on behalf of ALL the people in the community, INCLUDING all the ones who have already voted that they want it(by ORDERING it).

I couldnt of said it better myself.

why is it not a normal reaction for people to react strongly (namely parents) to issues of child rape?

i think its pretty normal. being rational or logical has nothing to do with anything. if we all cared about was being rational and logical, we wouldn't speak more than 5 words a year to our wives.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. That is the mentality that has turned the US constitution from a guideline into a series of bizarre absolutes. We have to support people's right to whack off to 5 year old children getting rapes so that we can be able to sell regular straight porn featuring two adults fucking... that is truly dumb.

Not all speech is protected speech. In the same manner that some visual material can be obscene, certain types of speech can be obscene or objectionable as well. It really shouldn't be that hard to say "explicit sexual material of any sort involving minors is not permissible". I cannot picture any sane adult saying "we need to protect the child porn stories and kiddie abuse stories for people to whack off to".

Don't fall into the trap of bizarre absolutes... it is what the people who seek to abuse the rights do to try to make themselves blend in.

What would you say if 29 people want to see 13 year old girls raped on video? Would you find that objectionable? What happened if their parents approved? Maybe the movie was made in Mexico or Japan, which both have consent laws at that age. Perhaps the girl is acting. Maybe she isn't. Should those 29 people have less rights than the people who want to read about the same thing happened? After all, if the action in the video was "consentual and legal" in the country it happened, who are we to judge, right?

Your logic fails.

Yes we have to protect that persons right. Free speech was set up to protect the most vile, most distastefull, and or hatefull speech that the majority of the population would rather see prevented. It is to protect that .000001% and not the rest.
We are not protecting people wacking off to thought crimes envolving children, we are protecting all forms of speech that the majority may not like.

People dont realize this, you have protect the speech that you hate not love. It's a slippery slope must wont see until its too late.Also this isnt about porn its about to be able to read thought that goes against popular thought.

That is the problem. Being unable to say "no sexual explicit material involving children" in print is a real problem. With the new 2257, you essentially cannot create a fantasy drawing of a child having sex, yet you can write about it.

Bizarre absolutes. Absolute freedom shouldn't be absolute.

And thus one of the many reasons that the new 2257 should be considered unconstitutional. Someone should be able to draw, or digitally create a child having sex if they choose. Nobody is a victim and it still would remain a thought crime.

Do you honestly think that free speech is an absolute? By that definition, all of 2257 is illegal. Why should there be an age of 18 to appear in porn? Doesn't that limit a 17 year olds freedom of speech? Why do you have to wait until 21 to drink in many places? Shouldn't you be free to express yourself drunk?

The reality is there isn't a total absolute anything. If there are laws that can be applied to images, videos, and drawn art, there can and should be similar restrictions on writing about the same thing. Why are there two standards?

The idea of "free speech" is about speaking out against a government... not about screaming "FIRE!!" in a movie theater. "Free speech" doesn't mean "say anything you want, anywhere you want to anyone you want about anything you want"

Everyone loves to drag the Constitution into the discussion and start talking about "Free Speech" as if there are no laws that define what you can and can't say and under what circumstances and where you can say things.

The argument about protecting the speech you hate is retarded... you wouldn't tolerate people calling you a rapist or pedophile and printing that in a magazine or newspaper... yet all your arguments defend that very thing.

some of you kids really neeed to grow up. life is not about you against authority... its a shame that so many of you live your lives as if it is. what a waste.

We really have to stop agreeing... this is ruining everything! :)

I am far from a kid. Yelling FIRE! in a crowd can and typically will cause panic and more than likely injuries to people. Yelling BOMB, and so forth are all the same. There is a perfectly valid reason why you can not yell such a statement.

Also if I was a rapist then I would have to tolerate them calling me one. However if I was not a rapist and someone called me or printed that I was without the word alleged, etc. and it was not true then you have a victim (me) and a law to deal with the circumstances of it. Where as fictional text or the drawing of something that is illegal has no victim and is not in the same category as inciting a mob to kill someone or screaming "he has a gun" on an airplane.

haha... yeah.... all those years leading to no real climax at all. :)




its always fun to see all the maladjusted kids inadvertantly defending someones alleged "right" to scream "there's a bomb on this plane, you're all going to die" as "free speech" through the course of their arguments.