Crazy or what?

The human capacity for being 'right', hence designating others as wrong, has known no bounds throughout history, with innumerable examples of groups and individuals wishing to impose their God, their version of right living, or of right sexuality, on others. Ask Salman Rushdie or Kurt Vonnegut who had their novels immolated by fundamentalists of different leanings. (BTW, shouldn't we be re-claiming the word 'fundamentalists'? It has a more sonorous ring to it than 'spankos').
And, Cheery, it's OK, you didn't upset me at all!

Anyone who wants to read about the corporal punishment (or abuse?) of children, doesn't have to come to a Library like this. S/he could read Little Women by Louisa M. Alcott, Dickens' Oliver Twist or David Copperfield, Hardy's Jude the Obscure, Enid Blyton's Six Bad Boys or Children of Holly Farm, The Chrysalids by John Wyndham, The Playroom by Frances Fyfield ... the list goes on and on. Ever read de Sade?

Best selling author Stephen King, translated into numerous languages and sold worldwide, writes about fathers raping their own children!

As far as I'm aware, there are no laws governing what is acceptable in fiction, though here in the Library, we do not accept anything which portrays sexual contact between adults and children.

True, sometimes you don't know what will offend you until you've started reading it, but like they used to say to those who complained about 'filth' on T.V. - there's always the 'off' button!

Okay, I don't want to sound ethnocentric here, so the First Amendment is specifically American (United States Constitution), but other democratic nations have similar documents and/or traditions protecting freedom of expression--which often come under political attack from people claiming a mythical "right not to be offended" which they insist supersedes the basic individual right to free expression.

I apologize if it sounded like I was referring to a principle involved only in the U.S.A.... --C.K.

CrimsonKidCK


Such a 'right' would be interesting. I am offended daily by apple's and banana's for sale, and by steak pie and potatoe's on the menu. (NO, I don't want to start the punctuation debate again!)

Seriously, being 'offended' is part of life and we have to deal with it. If I start watching a film or T.V. programme and find it offensive, I switch it off, or change the channel, or take up my knitting! A book or story I find distasteful, I stop reading. In the Art Gallery, I see something I don't like, I pass it by and find solace in Dali's Christ of St. John of the Cross (though I dare say some might find that offensive!)


I understood exactly what you meant, and no 'offence' was taken.

Technically any matter that meets the legal definition of "obscenity" is not protected speech under the First Amendment. Most people think that text by itself cannot by definition be "obscene". This is incorrect. It has not been that long since the Miller and Roth cases were litigated. What did happen was that, more and more, prosecutors focussed on film and pictures as the porn industry grew. But no appellate court that I know of has ever ruled that merely textual subject matter could not be held to be obscene just because it was text. It has just been a prosecutorial decision not to press those cases. Could it happen? Theorectically yes. Will it? Probably not. But wave a copy of some vile book being sold in Borders under some DA's nose and you might get a different answer.

I think Karen Fletcher's case is an important and recent (2008) one to keep in mind; she ended up in house arrest for putting text stories on the net.

Her crime? Obscenity.

Note that I have not seen any of her stories and from what I've heard about them they weren't something that anyone here would enjoy - but she was arrested and served time in the US for for her text stories.

Here's a link to a wiki article that talks about how it was the first successful "text only" case in 30 years - taken from her prosecutor's bio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Beth_Buchanan#Controversial_cases
(note: don't read it unless you have a strong stomach - they summarise her stories and ... yuck.)

Goodgulf

The issue of censorship is a strange one. I would certainly worry about anyone that wanted to write stories on the subject Karen Fletcher was arrested for but on the whole I would prefer it if governments didn't exercise censorship. I don't need to be told what to think or what I can read. If I couldn't write about spanking I almost certainly wouldn't write at all. I think its good to be creative in some way and writing spanking stories is something I get a kick out of.

I am offended by lots of things. I am offended by countries that still have capital punishment in the twenty first century. I am offended by the wars my country fights in our name. I think both those things are real obscenities. Writing about juvenile spankings is not obscenity. It might not be your cup of tea but no one forces you to read those kind of stories.

Governments are nearly always corrupt to some extent as power corrupts. They are by definition made up of people that seek power, so it's only natural they want power over ordinary peoples lives. Their attitude has always been we know what is best for you. God was used as the ultimate big brother. God wants you to do this or doesn't want you to do that! Now they don't bother so much with God as most people only go to church for weddings and funerals but they still try and control your lives using mealy mouthed terms like "public morality" and the "common good". Mind you complain as I do, we in the west have got it easy. Imagine being hung for being gay or being stoned to death for adultery. In fact in many Islamic countries you can be executed for saying there is no God! Nothing like having a healthy debate on the subject!

Anyway sorry to go on but I thought I would have my say on the censorship debate! Let's have free speech as long as you all agree with me!

While appellate courts might not uphold those convictions, anyone charged would see their names dragged through the mud.

Fletcher had a plea deal, one that no appellate court will ever see. Most cases like that seem to end in plea deals (that comic/manga collector comes to mind) so never hit a higher court.

While I wouldn't read something that Fletcher wrote and would strongly advise others not to write that sort of material (and if it is therapeutic to write then don't post it on the net), but every deal like that one gives certain people that much leverage against the next person charged - and those people always want to try someone else. Fletcher was first, but when you try to start a crackdown you always start with the most extreme cases then move to the more mainstream ones.

Yes, crackdowns like that one do worry me.

Goodgulf

Not to mention the disappearance of their bank accounts and (in general) their future prospects.

Guy