Freedom of speech?

[southernsc]

PITTSBURGH, PA - The FBI raided the home of a controversial erotic stories website owner on Friday, apparently on charges of obscenity. The website, red-rose-stories.com, posted a notice on its home page announcing the raid and warning customers that the FBI now has access to all past customer information.

“I am sorry to inform all interested parties that Red Rose Stories is a DEAD site,” read a statement posted on the website by operator Rosie. “The FBI has suceeded [sic] in closing me down. I am being charged with 'OBSCENITIES' and face charges for having posted such stories. Our stories are NOT protected speech. Please, please, be careful out there.”

The stories in question, according to the website’s announcements, include no images or videos, but describe acts of bestiality, urination, scat, BDSM, slavery, threesomes, orgies and sex with children.

According to Rosie’s post, the FBI entered her home while she was away and seized several items before leaving.

“The men in black (FBI) took ALL of my computer equipment, and many of my diskettes, and have access to ALL my files and site information,” Rosie warned on her site. “They came when I was NOT home and siezed [sic] my belongings, I had no choice, and no recourse.”

Rosie’s attorney Larry Walters, of Weston, Garrou, DeWitt and Walters, said that the FBI will have a difficult case if the raid was merely over the content of text stories.


Source: http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=m...ticle&sid=9839

Some of you may know that Dubya is having FBI agents search the internet for porn and lock down sites. Most of this is for graphic pictures of S&M acts, but recently they cracked down on a site about stories, no pictures, no videos. Now I dont agree with the stories, and some of it is just sick. But I feel that this is going against freedom of speech. Opinions?

[WhiteTiger]

I have never seen where freedom of speech is guaranteed in EACH and EVERY AVENUE possible. Unfortunately no one really wants any standards set (i.e., not being able to yell fire in a crowded movie theatre when no fire exists, etc.).

IMO, the person must be willing to tell the general public the virtues and values of whatever it is they want by speaking from the steps of the state capital or some other public venue that puts a name and face with whatever they are saying. (remember this is how it was done back in the 1770's, there was no TV or Radio or Internet). If they aren't willing to do that, then they shouldn't be allowed to hide behind an electronic curtain to say it.

The Man-Boy love case is a great example of this. These men are not willing to tell their wives, children, co-workers etc. that they like to sodomize, etc. little boys but they want the right to hide behind an electronic website in order to entice them to meet them and have sex with them. And the ACLU wants you believe this is protected by free speech.

Now I know this case is only about stories with no pictures or videos. But the line or responsibility has to be drawn somewhere. IMO, with free speech comes the responsibility to use it with care and thought.

I know I'll probably get flamed, but hey, it's my opinion. I've known worse.

[GS wanted]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

IMO, the person must be willing to tell the general public the virtues and values of whatever it is they want by speaking from the steps of the state capital or some other public venue that puts a name and face with whatever they are saying. (remember this is how it was done back in the 1770's, there was no TV or Radio or Internet). If they aren't willing to do that, then they shouldn't be allowed to hide behind an electronic curtain to say it.

So turning back the clock solves the problem? I disagree with that in this example and probably most other examples as well. There's a difference between freedom of speech and criminal behavior. There are laws against statutory rape, child porn, sodomy (oops, that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003 IIRC ) , etc. so those things are illegal and thus criminal behavior.
Sharing descriptive sexual text over the internet? It might be in bad taste but being illegal sounds like a stretch to me.

[drink300]

The child porn and beastiality were probably the main reasons the FBI raided this target. You should not be able to promote abuse of children or animals in any form. This is not covered under the free speech rights because it harms others in the process, directly and indirectly.

drink300

[Lexmex]

Normally, this stuff is community standards. However, I guarantee you the reason why the FBI got involved was the child porn.

Freedom of Speech is not guaranteed. Advertising is regulated for example. What about yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is not one. Oral or written threats against the President are another example.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by GS wanted

So turning back the clock solves the problem?

To a certain extent yes. To the standard of what existed and what could have reasonably been expected by those who created it. Our Founding Forefathers. Many of the outlets avaiable today did not exist back then, nor could they have fathomed what has become of the concept of free speech.

All I'm saying is that if someone is not willing to stand behind what they say and take credit for it publicly, then they shouldn't be allowed any and all avenues possible to distribute their message. Plain and simple.

Also my concepts were only my belief of a standard that should be used when determining the limits of free speech, it wasn't directed at how the law currently works as Drink300 and Lexmex aptly mentioned.

[Lil4X]

Originally Posted by Lexmex

Normally, this stuff is community standards. However, I guarantee you the reason why the FBI got involved was the child porn.

Freedom of Speech is not guaranteed. Advertising is regulated for example. What about yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is not one. Oral or written threats against the President are another example.

Very true, freedom of speech is not absolute. Many other considerations are involved - shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater could easily cause a panic that would injure others. In the same way, the use of "free speech" as a defense of criminal behavior, or actions that are in themselves criminal, is not protected under the constitution.

Although the founding fathers did not anticipate our media-saturated society, the basic concepts penned over 200 years ago are still viable in our day, with broadcast and internet media so common. We are still free to publish what we will, but that freedom ends when it impinges on the rights and safety of others. Freedom is access, not what we can get away with.

[GS wanted]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

All I'm saying is that if someone is not willing to stand behind what they say and take credit for it publicly, then they shouldn't be allowed any and all avenues possible to distribute their message. Plain and simple.

So, conversely if someone is willing to publicly stand behind whatever odd behavior then they should be "allowed any and all avenues possible to distribute their message?"

If so, then the whacked out pedophile who doesn't care about public scrutiny and decides to publicly stand up for his indescretions and therefore should be allowed to distribute whatever child related pornographic material he/she wants? NO. Because he/she is breaking the law.

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Also my concepts were only my belief of a standard that should be used when determining the limits of free speech, it wasn't directed at how the law currently works as Drink300 and Lexmex aptly mentioned.

Cool. Everyone is entitled to their view/opinion. But subjective "standards" are not equivalent to established law. For example, standards for San Fran and/or Berkeley, Ca. likely differ greatly than standards in the bible belt or elsewhere. I know I've seen some wild and crazy stuff that people do publicly in S.F. (ha ha) So for the question of where do we draw the line on freedom of speech the universal standard, in a sense, defaults to whether a law has been broken.
The Klan, skinheads, or any other radical group want to march and publicly share their views and it is O.K. as long as they don't break any law, right? They can even get a police escort.

Originally Posted by Lil4X

We are still free to publish what we will, but that freedom ends when it impinges on the rights and safety of others. Freedom is access, not what we can get away with.

Agreed. I guess I'm just not seeing where descriptive sexual text on the internet impinges on the rights and safety of others. Again, I don't condone it but I don't see where anybody is endangered by reading text. Should the FBI raid libraries for books with descriptive sexual content next? I'd say efforts would be better spent finding people who are actually committing the criminal sexual acts.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by GS wanted

So, conversely if someone is willing to publicly stand behind whatever odd behavior then they should be "allowed any and all avenues possible to distribute their message?"

If so, then the whacked out pediphile who doesn't care about public scrutiny and decides to publicly stand up for his indescretions and therefore should be allowed to distribute whatever child related pornographic material he/she wants? NO. Because he/she is breaking the law.

Jesus, I'm talking about the items outside the scope of the law. Of course I don't want pedophiles distributing their message in any form....Stop reading with blinders on!

[GS wanted]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Jesus, I'm talking about the items outside the scope of the law. Of course I don't want pedophiles distributing their message in any form....Stop reading with blinders on!

Reading with blinders on is different than examining the converse of your statement and pointing out potentially flawed (IMO) logic. Don't let it ruffle your feathers.

[Lil4X]

Originally Posted by GS wanted

Agreed. I guess I'm just not seeing where descriptive sexual text on the internet impinges on the rights and safety of others. Again, I don't condone it but I don't see where anybody is endangered by reading text. Should the FBI raid libraries for books with descriptive sexual content next? I'd say efforts would be better spent finding people who are actually committing the criminal sexual acts.

To meet the standards of pornography, a rather nebulous quality called "community standards" gets involved. I served on a jury panel some years back, and the defense attempted to wrap the "adult" book store owner in the flag, the constitution, and several then-current "men's" magazines. It didn't work, because the material in question was blatantly sold, not as a work of art or expression, but as a deliberate attempt to titillate the viewer (customer).

In the same way, text - whether in a book or on the web must meet a similar standard of intent. Text is perhaps more dangerous because the reader uses his imagination to set the scene, rather than rely on a fixed photograph. The reader can take the text on the page and form it into a specific, self-tailored picture that appeals to his individual needs. It plays into “the theater of the mind”.

Writers from James Joyce to Jacqueline Susann (sublime to ridiculous), have ground out prose that shocked community sensibilities - and have been edited by their publisher or faced legal issues in court . . . . which probably enhanced sales. The question usually boils down to the USE of sexual material: does it advance the plot, hone a character, or create dramatic tension? Most usually not.

Like alcohol, porn is an addiction that should not be generally distributed in the marketplace. Often these materials only feed the dark side of particularly susceptible individuals, drawing them deeper into depravity - instead of lifting them up and enlightening them. By feeding these individuals on this kind of "literature", we endanger our children and ourselves by creating a rich growth medium in which depravity can take root. That affects everyone. We try to control the distribution of alcohol for the same reason - there are many of us that cannot deal with its long-term effects.

[GS wanted]

Kinda' curious as to the specifics of the case you were involved with as well as the location and timeframe. I do however agree with some of your premise at least. But, I don't like the idea of Big Brother inside my home moreso than he is already. As for the alcohol example, people are breaking the law if they're consuming alcohol under the age of 21, DUI, serving to minors, etc. Those examples are clear and should be punished. No real argument over standards there IMO.
I just don't see any law being broken by reading porn material for entertainment though.
Note: (Child porn is a different issue. That is clearly breaking the law.)
If adults want to buy movies, magazines, books, or whatever else I'm not gonna' knock them for what they find entertaining. It's definitely not my thing as I don't own or rent the stuff but different strokes for different folks.

[Lil4X]

The trial was in Houston in the late '70's. A Middle-Eastern man who worked in his brother's "adult" bookstore was arrested by police for selling an officer a movie that - well, let's just say had no redeeming social value. The defense tried to throw up a smokescreen of "What is pornography?", in an attempt to sidetrack the jury by raising an issue of validity of the law under which his client was charged. For all of his showboating, counsel made a number of critical errors.

• The man was charged with selling the movie - not with making or distributing the movie, thus the question was whether he did in fact sell an undercover officer the movie in question.
  
  
• This was a low-grade misdemeanor case, punishable by not more than 90 days in jail - not a Supreme Court review of what constitutes pornography. That was never the issue, despite the defense's impassioned, flag-draped speech.
  
  
• The testimony of the arresting officers was cool and professional. There was never a question of the accuracy of their account of the purchase of the movie, or of the subsequent arrest.
  
  
• Defense counsel failed to tell his client not to sit and smirk at the jury panel during the proceeding.

The jury retired to deliberate the case. Inside the jury room two jurors began quoting almost verbatim from "The Playboy Philosophy" - that there were no boundaries, all was permissible. After a couple of hours of this we went home for the night to return to our deliberations the next morning. I suspect that none of us escaped a troubling night’s tossing and turning in our beds, wrestling with what we were going to accept in our communities.

With the dawn came clarity. We had been bamboozled by the defense. The law was clear, the movie met all of the contemporary standards of pornography, and the accused never denied he sold it. In the jury room, I listened to another hour of “free” speech before I had enough. I took control of the deliberations and stood to make my point – reviewing the charge and asking the panel members not if the movie was pornographic, but whether or not the defendant had actually sold it. Yes – all agreed that the defendant sold the movie to the undercover officers.

I asked if the judge in his charge to the jury had asked us to determine the community standards under which the content of the movie was to be judged. No, he had not – we had been asked to determine whether the movie – whatever its content – had or had not been sold. I pointed out that the entire discussion of the movie itself was outside the bounds of the case, and if defense counsel wanted to argue the merits of the movie, it should be brought as a separate case.

In closing, I asked each of my fellow jurors (unfairly I admit) if they lived next door to an “adult” bookstore. None did. Then I asked if they would like to. Again, none volunteered. Finally I asked, “How close are you willing to let them come?” OK, I was borrowing from the defense counsel’s line of reason here . . . At this point several other jurors chimed in, and the “free speech” proponents turned out to be all for free speech – just not in their neighborhood.

After a final vote, the defendant was determined guilty of the sale of the movie, we delivered the verdict and were ushered out of the courtroom. I never learned what punishment the defendant received, but in the hallway waiting for the elevator, a commotion got my attention as one of the other former jurors was pointing me and another panelist out to one of the DA’s assistants. We were taken around the corner in the hallway to a less crowded area and the assistant asked us how we arrived at our decision. I explained our line of reasoning and he grabbed my hand and shook it. It was the first conviction they had ever had on the sale of “adult” products in Houston.

The bottom line was that we evaluated the guilt or innocence of the accused, rather than get hung up trying to judge the law under which he was charged. Many great legal scholars had determined the definition of pornography - purpose, redeeming social value, etc. . . . and had determined that this kind of material would not be sold in the city. (Sadly, times have changed since these proceedings took place.) I often suspect that if judges and juries would simply do the job with which they are charged and leave the making of the law to our legislators we’d not only follow the intent of our Constitution, we’d be more consistent in its application.

[GS wanted]

Thanks for sharing. Sounds pretty cut and dry when you focus on the crime (back then) itself: selling the movie.
Also evidenced here is that times and standards change while the law tends to be more concrete. Hmm, where have I heard/seen that before?

[WhiteTiger]

Very interesting story Lil4X, thanks for sharing.