Briefly, we have a 22-year-old man sentenced by an Ohio court to 10 years in jail for having written fictional tales of sexually abusing and torturing children in a private journal, with no evidence that anyone else ever saw it. This supposedly violated a law against “pandering obscenity”. The man was also on probation from a '98 child porn conviction involving photographs.
Granted, this guy sounds like the scum of the earth, and I would have been all for authorities diligently searching for ways to revoke his probation due to his keeping this “journal”, and getting him locked up for the remainder of his sentence. But “pandering obscenity”? Don’t you have to “pander” to someone else’s tastes?
Is this just another case of someone who indulges in kiddie porn getting what’s coming to him, or is it an example of abusing the law in an attempt to protect children?
Theres nothing wrong with kiddy porn if no one was actually hurt by it. Locking him away is simply to keep some peoples delicate sensibilities from being offended.
The guy is a sicko who needed to be put away and government like to play protector of the place (isn’t that what the government was created for in the first place?)
This guy was on probation for child pornography, and he’s got something like this lying around his house? When he knows his probation officer is gonna come visit, and do what’s described as a “routine search” for dirty pix?
Guy deserves what he gets, is what I’m thinking. Get him a Darwin Award Honorable Mention or somethin’.
Sheesh. :rolleyes:
From Merriam-Webster:
As I understand it, the charge is not so much “pandering”, as in merely “procuring” or “pimping”, but is phrased as “pandering obscenity”, in other words, “producing obscene materials for other people’s perusal”. A Google search for “pandering obscenity” turns up a number of cases involving “sex shop” owners who are selling obscene videos.
Child molesters, behaviorally speaking, don’t keep it to themselves. They share with others. Pictures, videos, journals. Law enforcement agencies know this, hence the “routine search” for “obscene materials”.
Frankly, I don’t think the guy has a case. I notice he pleaded guilty and has already been sentenced, so I think “civil rights lawyer Benson Wolman” (whose connection with the case is unclear) is just kinda blowin’ smoke, looking for the next client. I find this statement of his–
–disingenuous. Based on child molesters’ track records, the materials WERE intended to be disseminated, eventually, which I think is what the Authorities were assuming.
The only problem is that there’s this minor technichality called the First Amendment. The only reason it doesn’t protect real child porn is that the manufacture of child porn involves sexually exploiting children. No real-life exploitation, no excuse to prosecute.
There is absolutely no evidence that he actually did what he wrote about, or that he intended to distribute it.
So is violating the Constitution, regardless of what he did before.
I think the concerns of the civil rights lawyer are justified.
What’s most bothersome about images of child pornography is that they are also direct evidence that the crime took place. Anyone who buys or sells these images is creating an industry which likely encourages the perpetration of these crimes. But I think the written word deserves some protection.
All that they proved was that he wrote in his journal.If there was such a charge as “intent to pander” I think they would have a case. If there were stipulations in his parole not to write about children, then they would also have a case. But he was being tried as if they knew he was trying to sell this stuff when they apparently didn’t have the evidence.
If fictional accounts of having sex with children is child pornography, could someone be jailed for having a copy of “Lolita”? I doubt his writing had the same merit as Nabokov’s but that’s not my point.
The capture and torture of any human being is reprehensible no matter what age. If he changed the age of the victims to 18 and 19 it would be no less disgusting to me, but then it would all be perfectly legal and not that far from Stephen King. Heck, if he hadn’t included anything sexual and just fantasized about torturing them, that would be legal too.
Doubtless, the parole officer was deeply disturbed by his writings, and it seems like it should be a violation of his parole, but that wasn’t the charge leveled against him. Granted, the man had a track record, but a track record is not (or shouldn’t be)the only evidence needed in a court of law. Just saying,“the guy had it coming” doesn’t consider the gravity of the situation. When people can be locked away without sufficient evidence we all stand to suffer for it.
Slippery slope-type arguments make me uneasy, but what about the following scenario:
You, Mr. Reasonably Solid Citizen, have a thing for 13-year-old Lolita next door. You’d never act on it, but you scrawl sleazy fantasies in your journal about her.
One day the cops search your home on a tip that you’re a drug dealer (I never said you were more than a Reasonably Solid Citizen) and come up with the journal. The county prosecutor, who is up for re-election, throws the book at you “to protect our children”, and, based on established precedent, you get 10 years in the slam.
I don’t expect local politicos to jump to Mr. Ohio Pervo’s defense, but I’d expect some civil rights types to be a little noisier about the case. The ACLU has gotten involved in situations grimier than this one.
Hmm. I’d definitely think this was an injustice if he wasn’t already on probation for related offenses. He wasn’t ‘pandering’, he was writing for his own benefit. Even if he did publish or distribute his stories, I’ve seen ‘legit’ authors publish stuff in a similar vein (Anne Rice, Piers Anthony). As much as I hate child molestation, no children were being molested.
I reread the article and I guess I’m going to have to side against the prosecutors…I thought at first they got him on violation of his probation by having these materials - you have to follow the terms of your probation, even if they prohibit things that are otherwise legal (I’ve known people who were sent away for drinking alcohol in the privacy of their own home because it was in violation of their probation) but they made new charges against this guy, for a crime that I thought had to involve other people.
I highly suggest the first chapter of the book “Bound and Gagged”, which gives an thought provokeing analysis of how fantasy is prosecuted in America. Basically, if you have sexual fantasys that do not fit our accepted norm, you are at risk, even if you never act on them. I find it terrible that we condemn people for what they’d like to do, as opposed to what they do do. We all have our dark sides- not one of us can claim that we havn’t wanted to kill, hurt, or otherwise harm someone. Heck, we might even have fantasized about it in our journal. What makes us human is the ability to recognize those actions as wrong and not act on them. But there is never anything wrong about a thought or a fantasy.
Holy Shit! I see half this thread as the self riteous-thinking they have never been bad assholes. Die fuckers! You are not innocent either of anything!!
I am a registered republican. Granted, I rarely vote republican because of fellow jackasses who cannot see more than their own black side of the picture, but I wish to hope that some of us can.
You fucking self-righteous sluts act as if he re-committed a crime. He did not! He wrote in his journal. Sure he was an offender, but he did NOT do anything again.
Now, he chose to write down his thoughts. What if YOU wrote down your thoughts. Would you be guilty of anything, you self-riteous Christian (death-to-the-world) motherfuckers?!
I hate that the Republican party is full of clowns. I hate that the Republican party likes to think they are smart by attacking gays, non-Christians, foreigners, and especially felons.
I know not what this guy planned to do. Until he actually DOES something in America that is not a crime. Speculation never jailed anyone.
I definitely do think that writing in a journal and taking pictures of naked kids are two different things, but I also realize that the man was, by society’s standards, a sicko.
The way I see it, he should be able to write anything he damn well pleases, especially if he keeps it to himself.
I was onced harassed by customs because I had an unused, (ornamental ;)) pipe and a large collection of Reggea CDs with pictures of pot on the front. I didn’t have anything illegal, but they called the cops in to have a look at this stuff anyway!
The point is, no matter how guilty you are of something, only evidence of THAT CRIME should be used against you. Thought-crimes are a slippery slope for a society that prides itself on freedom of expression.
Well, newspapers sometimes get their stories wrong, and there may be other aspects to this case that aren’t reported, but on the basis of the linked article (assuming that it’s essentially correct), I’d have to agree with Jackmanni and others who see the verdict as a violation of the man’s rights. What’s worse, getting these fantasies out of his head and down on paper could arguably have some therapeutic effect for this guy: at least I’ve read other cases in which people found that being able to express violent fantasies and the like in writing helped prevent them from acting on those fantasies. So writing them down might have been one of few healthy things this guy was doing.
Most disturbing in the article was this statement, I thought:
Well, regardless of what else he’s done, I have a bit of a problem with someone getting in trouble for a work of fiction. Why hold someone accountable for something they write or do fictionally? If so, I could probably be nailed for all sorts of “murders” (Or worse), because of various computer or roleplaying games I’ve played, or stories I’ve written (Stretching it a bit… But not a whole lot).
Plus… There isn’t too much difference between “getting in trouble for something he did in fiction”, and “getting in trouble for something he didn’t do at all”.
“Breakthrough in the battle against child pornography” my ass. More like a breakthrough in the battle against indipendent thought… Sure, what he wrote is disturbing, and it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he could use some serious therapy, but illegal? That’s just excessive. Wether or not he planned to distribute it, it’s a work of FICTION…
Do we have any idea of the conditions of this pervert’s probation?
If he pled to some disgusting crime against children, and part of his plea agreement was that he seek treatment, I could see this as a violation of the good faith agreement that he be serious about trying to learn not to rape children. I am assuming treatment for child molestors includes at least trying not to harbor fantasies about raping and murdering them.
If he were never convicted of anything, I guess I might feel differently, but as long as he is on probation, he has to prove that he is not up to something (hence the word “probation”).
Regards,
Shodan
PS - I thank God from the bottom of his heart that neither I nor my children have any contact with the individual in question.
Shodan, I don’t think people can control their fantasies. They can choose how they express those fantasies. Wether by writing in a book or trying to suppress them and having the fantasies manifest in unusual ways. Treatment deals with reality, usually.