Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
I read a lot every day and I am constantly amazed---saddened actually---to see the lengths some states will go to arrest someone on a sex crime.
This gentleman apparently wrote a fictional story of him have sexual contact with three girls in his church congregation. His wife was putting an ink cartridge in the printer and out popped this sheet of paper with the story on it.
http://tinyurl.com/pssfyvu
http://tinyurl.com/nvqxqvl
So it has come to this----basically prosecuting someone for their inner thoughts.
Did the wife confront her husband about it? Nope, straight to the police. I would think anyone with any sense would have shown him the story and allowed him to explain the paper she found. She even later told the police that several times she saw him viewing pornography on his computer.
Oklahoma apparently has a statute making it against the law to write about fiction stories regarding children. They call it "Possession of Obscene or Indecent Writings." And apparently it is treated like child pornography.
In fact in one article I read, it was equated to child pornography.
Now here is a guy who is just writing his thoughts on a piece of paper. Now let's remember that this story was only a fantasy, a thought in his mind, and there was not evidence that he would commit a crime.
Was what he was writing about distasteful? Probably Icky? For certain. But there were no pictures and it was just his thoughts.
My God, are we now prosecuting thought crimes in this country? Even if you find it terrible that he wrote such a story, it should not have been illegal.
Many people who want to prosecute CP with ridiculous sentences usually point to two things they want us to believe----------1) that every time the image of a child is viewed, it re-victimizes the child, and 2) by downloading the images, it creates a demand for more images to be made.
So I ask, what child was re-victimized in this story? Since it was purely fiction and there was no indication that Mr. Jones planned b a sexual assault against anyone, I ask----what child was re-victimized here?
And did him writing and creating the thoughts in his mind cause a demand and more to be produced?
My fellow friends, this is just a silly law they have passed to give an excuse to arrest more people they "think" "might possibly" "someday" "in the right circumstance" harm a child.
Another aspect of this story is that the wife, after she found the story, went straight to the cops.
I don't even know what to say when I read these articles.
rewdiazepam
This gentleman apparently wrote a fictional story of him have sexual contact with three girls in his church congregation. His wife was putting an ink cartridge in the printer and out popped this sheet of paper with the story on it.
http://tinyurl.com/pssfyvu
http://tinyurl.com/nvqxqvl
So it has come to this----basically prosecuting someone for their inner thoughts.
Did the wife confront her husband about it? Nope, straight to the police. I would think anyone with any sense would have shown him the story and allowed him to explain the paper she found. She even later told the police that several times she saw him viewing pornography on his computer.
Oklahoma apparently has a statute making it against the law to write about fiction stories regarding children. They call it "Possession of Obscene or Indecent Writings." And apparently it is treated like child pornography.
In fact in one article I read, it was equated to child pornography.
Now here is a guy who is just writing his thoughts on a piece of paper. Now let's remember that this story was only a fantasy, a thought in his mind, and there was not evidence that he would commit a crime.
Was what he was writing about distasteful? Probably Icky? For certain. But there were no pictures and it was just his thoughts.
My God, are we now prosecuting thought crimes in this country? Even if you find it terrible that he wrote such a story, it should not have been illegal.
Many people who want to prosecute CP with ridiculous sentences usually point to two things they want us to believe----------1) that every time the image of a child is viewed, it re-victimizes the child, and 2) by downloading the images, it creates a demand for more images to be made.
So I ask, what child was re-victimized in this story? Since it was purely fiction and there was no indication that Mr. Jones planned b a sexual assault against anyone, I ask----what child was re-victimized here?
And did him writing and creating the thoughts in his mind cause a demand and more to be produced?
My fellow friends, this is just a silly law they have passed to give an excuse to arrest more people they "think" "might possibly" "someday" "in the right circumstance" harm a child.
Another aspect of this story is that the wife, after she found the story, went straight to the cops.
I don't even know what to say when I read these articles.
rewdiazepam
By PARKER PERRY STAFF WRITER | Posted 3 months ago
Defense attorneys for a former McAlester pastor accused of possessing obscene writings say their client has been charged under an Oklahoma law that is unconstitutional.
Attorneys Brecken Wagner and Blake Lynch represent Larry Jones, 65, of McAlester. Jones, a former pastor at McAlester Missionary Baptist Church on East Hereford Lane, is charged with one count of felony possessing obscene or indecent writings. Police allege Jones wrote and possessed a letter containing a description of him with three children, as young as 6, engaging in sexual acts.
Those children attended the church Jones pastored. He was arrested after his wife, Patsy Jones, found the letter on a computer printer in their home, but Larry Jones’ attorneys argue the writings are protected under the principles of free speech.
“We are now criminalizing any reference of child pornography,” Wagner said during a recent hearing to argue the attorneys’ motion to dismiss case based on the constitutionality of the law. “It is all encompassing.”
The attorneys contend that the letter police say was possessed by Larry Jones is protected by the First Amendment.
“It is a wide, wide definition of the statute,” Wagner said of the law. “We don’t stick to the purposes to protect a victim. We start outlawing speech, infringing upon it.”
The statute Larry Jones is charged under is statute 21 O.S. 1021 (A)(3). It reads:
“Every person who willfully and knowingly, writes, composes, stereotypes, prints, photographs, designs, copies, draws, engraves, paints, molds, cut, or otherwise prepares, publishes, sells, distributes, keeps for sale, knowingly downloads on a computer, or exhibits any obscene material or child pornography; shall be guilty upon conviction.”
Prosecutors are not arguing whether the contents of the letters were acted upon, but rather that the writing itself is a crime.
Wagner and Lynch spent little time Monday disputing whether the former pastor had possession of the material, although they argued there is no proof he ever had it. The attorneys focused more on their claim that the law infringes upon Oklahomans’ rights to free speech.
“It creates no victim. It harms no one,” Wagner said of the writings. “It wasn’t even published. Think about that for a moment.”
“How close is that to thought control?” he said to the judge.
Lynch argued the law was too broad. He also argued it was healthy for people with bad desires to write them out.
“If you are an alcoholic, they want you to discuss it, (and) write it down,” Lynch said.
District 18 District Attorney Farley Ward represented the state in the case. He said it was too early for a decision from th e courts as to whether the law is constitutional or not. Associate District Judge Tim Mills agreed.
“At this point, I’ve looked at it and studied it,” Mills said. “I’ve tried to look at cases in the court of criminal appeals, it’s very little.
“I, at this point, am not prepared to go as far as the defense wants me to and declaring it unconstitutional,” Mills said. “Looking at it and the way it reads, I am not prepared to go that far. If the court of criminal appeals or Supreme Court wants to take a look at it, fine.
“I am not going to declare it unconstitutional,” he said. “I do understand the arguments that counsel has made, but at this point I am overruling the motion.”
Mills’ ruling led to a preliminary hearing for Larry Jones in which the prosecution called Jones’ now estranged wife, Patsy Jones, to the stand.
Patsy Jones said her husband had a lot of interaction with the youths described in the story.
“He would use the van to pick them up at their home and he would see them at church,” said Patsy Jones.
The prosecution also called three law enforcement agents: Det. Sgt. Chris Morris, Det. Brant Gamble and Officer Chris Skinner —all from the McAlester Police Department. The officers described their work to put the investigation together against Larry Jones.
Mills elected to bound Larry Jones over for District Court arraignment after the hearing. He is scheduled to appear in front of District Judge James Bland on April 8 where a trial date could potentially be set.
Larry Jones could face up to 10 years in prison if convicted of the charge.
Contact Parker Perry at pperry@mcalesternews.com.
Child porn as defined by the federal government is any visual depiction of a child:
"Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law"
Here is the comment:
Marsha Hubbard Keith
Mar 23, 2015
You are kidding me right??? Freedom of speech baloney!!! He was detailing a crime of child molesttion or the desire to commit the crime that is not freedom of speech or literature under the guise of writing a book as these are people, real children, real victims. He needs to be locked up and the key lost as if he 65 he been doing this for a while and just not been caught. Wow their defense tactics stink on all levels but then look at who his defense attorneys are enough said
Supreme Court Strikes Down Virtual Child Pornography Law
http://www.silha.umn.edu/news/spring2002.php?entry+203455
I remember the Supreme Court case to which you referred.
I also seem to remember that several years ago a couple of authors of child erotica stories, in which children were used as sex objects, were arrested, but I don't think there was ever a conviction. I believe one of the authors was from the UK.
I think it is a real stretch to equate someone writing down their thoughts to child pornography and I doubt that if Mr. Jones is convicted that the conviction would be upheld in a higher court.
Oklahoma often passes laws that they admit might not be constitutional, but they pass them anyway. They will enact these laws with the usual remarks, "Don't know if this is constitutional, but we will let the courts decide."
It is interesting that the newspaper articles concerning this incident keep equating this with child pornography, when the charge is "Possession of Obscene Writings."
The detective mentioned in the article stated that "This is probably one of the worst things I ever read." Have you ever noticed that each new crime is always "the worst I have seen?" After all these years one would think that we have finally reached the ultimate in depravity----according to the police and the DAs----but each case seems to trump the previous ones.
The big mistake this guy made was using the children's names in the story and making his story specifically about the three children in the church.
rewdiazepam
Thanks for your insights on this.
You may be thinking of Elonis vs The United States, which was a Supreme Court decision handed down recently.
http://tinyurl.com/pn6hfcs
Here is the interpretation of the decision on a law blog. It is the very last paragraph on the blog-------
" So, while this ruling - as well as the Cannibal Cop reversal - seem to stand for the general principle that, without some physical or other manifestation of intent, someone cannot be convicted on their words or thoughts alone, there are sure to be future conspiracy and harassment cases built on mere "words" or "thoughts."
I think that is pretty clear that someone cannot be convicted on their words or thoughts alone.
rewdiazepam