Only Words?

The unusual prosecution for obscenity of a person based entirely upon writings has ended in a plea deal. From the WSJ Law Blog:

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, we have news of an interesting obscenity case, long in the making, that reached a conclusion recently when the defendant, Karen Fletcher, agreed to a plea bargain that will keep her confined to her home for the first six months of a five-year probation.

Fletcher, 56, pleaded guilty to violating federal obscenity law based on several stories she wrote for her Web site, “Red Rose Stories,” which depicted the rape, murder and torture of children. According to the Post-Gazette, Fletcher, of Donora, Pa., began writing the stories as “a kind of self-imposed therapy” to help deal with her own sexual abuse, published them on a Web site and charged 29 members a $10-per-month subscription fee. (Click here for the plea agreement, which — be forewarned — contains graphic language.)

“The individuals willing to pay money to subscribe to this Web site clearly have a very strong sexual interest in children — not just a sexual interest, but a violent sexual interest,” said the prosecutor, Stephen Kaufman.

“In my stories, I have created new monsters,” wrote Fletcher in a 2007 affidavit. “[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.”

U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti reportedly told Fletcher that she would have seriously considered a sentence of incarceration had the government not recommended against it. (The sentencing guidelines reportedly called for a range of 27 to 33 months in prison.) “If anyone would have read the story and acted upon it, a little child could have suffered devastation that you would have had to live with for the rest of your life,” Judge Conti said.

I was always troubled by the prosecution of Fletcher even though her stories, by all accounts, were truly horrific. Catherine MacKinnon famously argued against pornography by disputing the liberal idea that "only words" were not harmful enough to warrant regulation. However, MacKinnon's entire aim of her book was not "words", but was instead visual pornography. In the case where the defendant only uses words as a medium, the line between a thought crime and an actual crime is diminished. Fletcher certainly didn't help her case by charging for her stories and marketing them to pedophiles. For that reason, there is reason to think that a person who merely documented bizarre fantasies outside of some commercial enterprise might escape prosecution. However, the modern precedent is now set that prosecution for "only words" is viable.

On a completely unrelated note, I attempted to post this on Google's new browser, Chrome. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like Chrome is completely compatible with Typepad as several buttons and tabs were missing from the interface. I like Chrome overall, but it won't be my normal browser until I can use it for blogging.

Comments

[Ilah]

This should be a disturbing ruling for any writer. Should Grisham be prosecuted for _A Time To Kill_ if it's found many child molestors read the opening scenes over and over? Should Stephen King be prosecuted for _It_ because it includes underage sex, and We All Know underage sex causes Damage they'd have "to live with the rest of your life"?