Who said writing isn’t dangerous? Writing a short story can be a federal crime. 

Karen Fletcher, a 56-year-old woman from Donora, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty in the first text-based case of obscenity prosecution in more than 30 years. 

Fletcher ran a members-only website called “Red Rose,” and charged 29 subscribers $10 a month to read stories describing the rape and torture of young children.  

In an affidavit, Fletcher said she had been sexually abused as a child and her writing was cathartic. She said she didn’t know if the stories were based on her experiences or whether they were fictitious.  

“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,” she wrote. “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.” 

 

A federal grand jury indicted Fletcher in 2006. A few days ago, she pleaded guilty a few days ago to six counts of distributing obscenity online. 

I haven’t read her writing, and I don’t intend to. Some of her stories involve 2-year-olds; I have a 2-year-old son. U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan called it “some of the most disturbing, disgusting and vile material I’ve ever viewed.” I’ll take her word for it.

What interests me is that Fletcher only used words, not pictures. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that text can be obscene, but there has not been a successful obscenity prosecution in the United States in the past 25 years that did not involve drawings or photos.

The Supreme Court has also defined the qualities of an obscene work:

1. the work appeals to prurient interest in sex;
2. it portrays sexual acts in a patently offensive way; 
3. it has no serious literary, artistic, social or political value. 

Before the Court imposed its obscenity standard in the 1960s, works by James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence and others that are now regarded as works of literature were banned as obscene.

While I refuse to read what Fletcher appears to have written, I defend her right to write and share it. Here’s why:

The image can’t be blocked out, but no one can force us to read against our will

It’s not the government’s job to decide what we should or should not read; it’s our job. 

Reading and writing fiction is an act of imagination. Banning fiction is like outlawing imagination.

There has long been a religious, puritan strain in this country that has chafed at the notion of a free and unregulated market of ideas, however vile. I think this is what Supreme Court Justice William Douglas was getting at when he wrote in a 1966 ruling that overturned the obscenity ban on Fanny Hill: 

Every time an obscenity case is to be argued here, my office is flooded with letters and postal cards urging me to protect the community or the Nation by striking down the publication. The messages are often identical even down to commas and semicolons. The inference is irresistible that they were all copied from a school or church blackboard. Dozens of postal cards often are mailed from the same precinct. The drives are incessant, and the pressures are great. Happily, we do not bow to them. I mention them only to emphasize the lack of popular understanding of our constitutional system. Publications and utterances were made immune from majoritarian control by the First Amendment, applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth. No exceptions were made, not even for obscenity. 

  

Hey, good to see you!

How’s it going? It’s been a while. Really? Six months? Wow, time flies doesn’t it.

Me? I’ve been busy. Working on some things. Check back with me. Might have more for you soon.So how are things with you?

Democrats:Hillary Clinton: Maya Angelou, 50 Cent, Barbra Streisand, Pauly Shore, Madonna, Earvin “Magic” Johnson.

Barack Obama: Oprah, Usher, George Clooney, Matt Damon.

John Edwards: Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, Jean Smart, Madeline Stowe, Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Harry Belafonte.

Chris Dodd: Paul Simon

Bill Richardson: Martin Sheen, Carlos Alazraqui (the voice of the Taco Bell Chihuahua)

Dennis Kucinich: Sean Penn, Robin Wright Penn, Willie Nelson, Esai Morales, Ed Begley Jr., Hector Elizondo, James Cromwell, Alexandra Paul, Paul Haggis, Frances Fisher, Ani DiFranco, Larry Flynt.

Joe Biden: ?

Mike Gravel: ?

Republicans:

Rudy Giuliani: Robert Duvall, Ron Silver, Adam Sandler, Kelsey Grammar.

John McCain: Curt Schilling.

Mitt Romney: ?

Mike Huckabee: Chuck Norris, Ted Nugent, Rick “Nature Boy” Flair.

Fred Thompson: Fred Thompson

Ron Paul: John Mayer (love the video).

Tom Tancredo: ?

Duncan Hunter: Chuck Yeager.

Please e-mail me with suggestions and links.

From Cogitamus: “Kevin Bacon is now campaigning for John Edwards in Iowa.  Bacon’s extensive connections to every single person in Iowa just might give Edwards the edge he’s looking for next month.”

I spent a bit of time reading over Hizzoner Larry Burns’ order on the subpoenas that weren’t and I now realize that I dodged a bullet.

It turns out that Burns never considered the First Amendment arguments made by The Associated Press and NBC’s Lisa Myers.

He didn’t need to because the jury that convicted Brent Wilkes of supplying Randy “Duke” Cunningham with hookers and cash wasn’t influenced by grand jury leaks. And Burns couldn’t go Matlock on us and investigate the leaks himself. That was the Justice Department’s job, “slipshod” as the judge felt it was.

Good thing too because Burns give a sneak peek at how he might have ruled by citing the case of two San Francisco Chronicle reporters who were leaked grand jury testimony of Barry Bonds and other elite athletes.

The court notes, however, that the very same arguments were recently considered by the United States District Court for Northern California and rejected (emphasis added)

Yikes! I could have wound up in jail!

Good thing I never wrote about how Burns was rushing the Wilkes case along at breakneck speed to avoid postponing an upcoming border bust trial. And I guess it was a good idea to avoid examining the whispers of Burns as “a prosecutor in a robe.”

Ohmigod! I did not just say that! I take that back. Judge Burns is a most wise and benevolent jurist, a very fair judge, and a very nice man.

O yes my precious, very nice.