"You cannot engage or depict children in a harmful relationship," said Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd as he described the Florida obscenity statute that officials used to charge Phillip Greaves with distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct.
I guess it's a good thing that I never checked out "Lolita" from the Polk County library, eh?
I wonder how the Florida arrest will square with the Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. In its majority opinion, the Court acknowledged that "The First Amendment draws a distinction between words and deeds, and does not tolerate banning of mere words simply because those words could lead to bad deeds." Likewise, the Court clearly stated that the burden does not fall on the speaker to prove that his speech is lawful, but rather on the government to prove that it is not. Furthermore, such an affirmative defense is "incomplete on its own terms" because it "allows persons to be convicted in some instances where they can prove children were not exploited in the production."
I'm by no means defending this scumbag, but I think the legal complexities are really interesting:
1. No children were harmed in the production of this publication. Thus, neither child pornography nor child abuse statutes apply.
2. The publication does not meet the Court's strict 3-part definition of "obscene." According to the FL sheriff's office, the book "defends/advocates for illegal sex acts between adults and minors." This would seem to border on political speech (albeit with an evil message).
I suspect that his case will be tossed out of court and he will be set free, but we'll see.
"You cannot engage or depict children in a harmful relationship," said Polk County, Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd as he described the Florida obscenity statute that officials used to charge Phillip Greaves with distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in harmful conduct.
ReplyDeleteI guess it's a good thing that I never checked out "Lolita" from the Polk County library, eh?
I wonder how the Florida arrest will square with the Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. In its majority opinion, the Court acknowledged that "The First Amendment draws a distinction between words and deeds, and does not tolerate banning of mere words simply because those words could lead to bad deeds." Likewise, the Court clearly stated that the burden does not fall on the speaker to prove that his speech is lawful, but rather on the government to prove that it is not. Furthermore, such an affirmative defense is "incomplete on its own terms" because it "allows persons to be convicted in some instances where they can prove children were not exploited in the production."
I'm by no means defending this scumbag, but I think the legal complexities are really interesting:
1. No children were harmed in the production of this publication. Thus, neither child pornography nor child abuse statutes apply.
2. The publication does not meet the Court's strict 3-part definition of "obscene." According to the FL sheriff's office, the book "defends/advocates for illegal sex acts between adults and minors." This would seem to border on political speech (albeit with an evil message).
I suspect that his case will be tossed out of court and he will be set free, but we'll see.
Great points Neo (or is it crunch?).
ReplyDeleteI doubt this would stand up in court either (depending on what he is charged with), but my question is who would publish such a book?
Amazing!
I could be wrong, but I think the book was "self-published" and available for purchase/download on Amazon.
ReplyDelete