A hundred years ago, you could be arrested if your drawing, writing or other form of creative expression was considered obscene by the authorities. Artistic freedom was not as important as preserving public morality. And the idea that a century on, pornography could be displayed and sold in perfectly legal shops was unthinkable.
For good or bad, those times are far behind us. One of the greatest jewels of the United States is her First Amendment, a piece of law enshrined in her constitution and systematically strengthened by the courts through the last century - that guarantees the freedom of expression for all. In modern day USA you can depict anything and not worry about the moral police coming after you. Of course you can still be charged if your work is libelous or directly incites violence or violates someone else’s rights. But other than that, the idea that someone can be put in jail simply for expressing distasteful thoughts or fantasies is preposterous. This is a free country, right?
Wrong.
Karen Fletcher, a reclusive woman living in Pittsburgh, recently began posting short stories on the Internet that describe, in graphic detail, the sexual abuse of children – in order, she says, to cope with her own history of childhood abuse. The internet abounds in pornography, much of it visual. Fletcher’s stories had no illustrations, were obvious works of fantasy, and were not displayed publicly. The only way to read these stories was by paying a modest sum of ten dollars a month, so that - Fletcher says - she could she could keep the website running and also protect children (and unwilling adults) from accessing it. Yet those stories, read by about 29 paying subscribers, have made Fletcher one of the few people facing federal criminal charges for obscenity.
In many ways, Fletcher’s case is unusual. A obscenity charge is rare these days, and almost unheard of in situations where no one has been harmed in the making of the offending material. And a case like Fletcher’s, which involves only the written word, has not been successfully prosecuted in the last thirty five years in this country.
So if this case feels like a throwback to the dark ages, it indeed is. But it should not be viewed in isolation. Recent years have witnessed an increasing clamping down on civil liberties in the US, accompanied by the passage of the Patriot Act, draconian anti-discrimination laws, hate-crime laws and an atmosphere of extreme political correctness. This particular case seems to be an example of the Bush administration’s efforts to cater to the religious right and reinvigorate the Obscenity Act. It is a long, slippery slope. Once a certain level of freedom becomes unacceptable, the bar is lowered and the next act of censorship is not only easier but also more extreme. Intolerance begets greater intolerance and by the time you realise the value of what you have lost, it is too late. Once these freedoms are gone, the wheels of motion are much harder to turn in the opposite direction. Illiberality and offended sensibilities make for excellent political nourishment. Those of us from India will attest to that.
It is possible that Karen Fletcher will not be convicted. If she is, God save us all.
Am not aware of the daily happenings in the US on issues such as these. But I can say one thing. The Patriot Act was a hard slap on the face of every one who fought for the rights of the individual and those who considered the US to be the last bastion of true freedom on the planet since it has the only constitution in the world that guarantees freedom to its citizens, unlike others which have a whole series of ifs and buts attached to them.
The U.S. wants to regain control and regulation of the Internet. A case like this would set a precedent and carve out another exception to free speech on the Internet. The biggest fear of most governments is the Internet.
Check out http://amjur.wordpress.com/ for another obscene case that should have made front page news.
[...] are, and the need to fight constantly to prevent them from getting eroded. As I’ve noted previously, once a certain level of freedom becomes unacceptable, the bar is lowered and the next act of [...]
[...] by Abhishek Remember Karen Fletcher? The woman in the centre of the high-profile obscenity case I wrote about earlier? The reclusive, unsocial lady who wrote violent sexual stories involving children in an [...]
Freedom of Speech. It’s a funny thing in that to TRULY uphold it, means you must allow for people to say, write, publish things that YOU would never support. The best argument I’ve ever heard comes from a movie. ‘The American President’.
“America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the “land of the free”
mystica — well said. That is why I view this as the most important truth.
Personally, I find child-porn stories (as distinguished from literature involving underage sex), racist or homophobic speech, discrimination, religious bigotry and expressions of irrational hate distasteful; much of it indeed makes me mad. But I uphold their right to make such speech and when I defend this right, I feel the same degree of passion as towards the people and things that are dearest to me.
[...] the one who carry him over the top, and most certainly they will be rewarded. The Bush era has seen the reinvigoration of the obscenity law, and a ban on stem cell research. McCain will carry all these things forward. He is also likely to [...]
[...] Stagliano: http://musefree.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/porn-producer-gets-it-law-professor-doesnt/ [...]