Prosecutor Goes Too Far in War on Smut

Thursday, September 28, 2006  -  reddit

A federal grand jury has filed charges against a woman who runs a website that contains fictional stories of children being molested, murdered, and other heinous acts. It didn't specify what the charges were, or whether or not she as being charged for putting the stories on the website, or writing them.
There was a quote from U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan, saying "Use of the Internet to distribute obscene stories like these not only violates federal law, but also emboldens sex offenders who would target children."

The latter bit sounds suspiciously like the kind of nonsense Republicans use to scare people into disliking Democrats, and having been appointed by John Ashcroft, it's hardly a surprise that somebody more interested in throwing around rhetorical statements than prosecuting actual criminals is involved in this.

Under Bush, Ashcroft, and Gonzalez, the Justice Department has promised to go after websites they believe offer obscene material, which could literally be the entire porn industry which has long been deemed legal in this country. They began by going after the most extreme sites that featured simulated rape, miscellaneous acts of violence, and deification in combination with sex acts.

While it's hard to argue in favor of these things, it's often a matter of personal choice. There are many people on this planet that want that stuff, but there are far more in a position of power than would rather just have it not exist at all, rather than than simply avoid seeing it themselves.

This battle began the day President Bush set foot in office, and it was only a matter of time before his minions of morality at Justice pushed too far. That day has come, and here it stands.

Things are often given the protection of speech in the United States that doesn't really qualify as actual speech. The clothing you wear, for instance, or the entertainment you provide. These fall under the guise of creativity, and creativity is a form of speech.

The assault on smut can be easily dismissed given its visual and commercial nature, but pure speech in the form of fictional stories is a whole other universe.

This column you are reading today is protected by the Constitution's First Amendment. If it contained a threat or a knowing untruth that negatively effects another person, it would lose those protections because society has recognized that speech must have its limits. None of those things are present either in this column, nor in the fictional stories at the center of this legal dispute.

There is an independent film making the rounds at the festivals that I've written about before that raised the ire of Senator Hillary Clinton. The film featured the fictional assassination of President George W. Bush, and as far as anyone knows, is entirely legal in this country as it does not constitute a threat to the Presidents life. It is protected by the First Amendment, but she wants it gone. She wants that topic to be untouchable.

For shame.

Many films and books contain threats where children are abused or die, and those too are legal. In fact, the former Chief of Staff for Vice President Dick Cheney would be the very next to fall to this assault, should things continue as they have been.

One of Lewis Libby's many erotic novels, according to The New Yorker, contains many things Buchanan would find offensive, and illegal.

Homoeroticism and incest also figure as themes. The main female character, Yukiko, draws hair on the “mound” of a little girl. The brothers of a dead samurai have sex with his daughter.

One wonders if this Ashcroft-appointed prosecutor would have the courage of her convictions to prosecute Libby for obscenity, given his book differs little in content. One wonders if anything is safe anymore.