- action | issues
- Academic Freedom
- Books
- Classrooms
- Copyright
- Film
- Government Secrecy
- Hate Speech
- Internet
- LGBT
- Libraries
- Music
- Nudity & Pornography
- Political Correctness
- Political Dissent
- Public Spaces
- Race Ethnicity Gender
- Radio & Television
- Religion
- Science
- Sex Education
- Theater & Performance
- Video Games
- Violence
- Visual Art
- Youth
- advocacy | projects
- education | resources
in support of free expression
The information presented here by the National
Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety,
provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from
NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source
of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information
obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering
unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here
may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without
the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.
©Copyright 2005 NCAC
WEB DESIGN
Jeanne Criscola Criscola Design
free speech first amendment censorship
Obscenity Charges Against Internet Fiction
In 2007, the U.S. Attorney in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, brought obscenity charges against Karen Fletcher, because of stories, which Fletcher had written and posted on the Internet under the pseudonym Red Rose. The stories involved torture and sex with children. In an effort to make them inaccessible to minors, Fletcher charged a subscription fee of $10. There were twenty-nine subscribers. Fletcher, an agoraphobe with severe emotional difficulties, claimed that writing the stories provided some therapeutic relief for her with regard to her own history of child and sexual abuse. Fearing a public trial, she took a plea bargain in May 2008 – pleading guilty and accepting a sentence of house arrest for one year. If found guilty at trial, she could have been sentenced for up to thirty years in prison.
If the case had gone to trial, it would have been the first time since the 1970’s that the courts would have to decide whether written text could be obscene. Ms. Fletcher’s attorneys planned to argue that her stories did have literary and scientific merit, and, therefore, could not be obscene. Some familiar with the case are of the opinion that the U.S. Attorney’s office specifically targeted Ms. Fletcher to bring these kinds of charges, instead of pursuing a website with more reach, because they knew Ms. Fletcher’s emotional problems would make her reticent to go to trial.
Action Alerts
