If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 US 557, 566 (1969) (Marshall, J.) At 11:22 AM -0400 7/5/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:

[A followup to a cpunx thread, and a link to the statute.]

...

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 11:15:01 -0400 To: politech@politechbot.com From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Ohio man convicted for "obscene" stories in his private journal Cc: tdoulin@dispatch.com

This is an unusual case. The Ohio law -- a 1970s version of which Politech member Bruce Taylor successfully defended before a federal appeals court -- applies not only to dirty pictures, but also to written material:

http://www.moralityinmedia.org/obsclawlinks.htm#oh "No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, shall do any of the following... Create, reproduce, or publish any obscene material that has a minor as one of its participants or portrayed observers... Buy, procure, possess, or control any obscene material, that has a minor as one of its participants..."

Anyone who possesses such a visual or written description -- including a diary entry or an erotic story -- is guilty of a felony. That means Ohioans who have on their hard drive an "obscene" text file from alt.sex.stories are felons.

Other coverage: http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-07-05/News_and_Views/Beyond_the_City /a-117267.asp http://enquirer.com/editions/2001/07/05/loc_tristate_a_m_report.html

-Declan

*********

From: "Robert V. Zwink" To: Subject: Man's journal ruled obscene Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 10:24:08 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

This is possibly one for your list. A 22-year old wrote extensively about his pedophile delusions in a daily personal journal. Law enforcement found the journal, today he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Seems he should be in an addiction clinic not a prison. The journal was never published.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From The Columbus Dispatch http://www.dispatch.com/news/news01/july01/755632.html

Man's journal ruled obscene

Wednesday, July 4, 2001

Tim Doulin Dispatch Staff Reporter

Brian Dalton wrote fictitious tales of sexually abusing and torturing children in his private journal, intending that no one else see them, he said.

But when his probation officer found the journal during a routine search of Dalton's Columbus home, prosecutors charged him with pandering obscenity involving a minor.

In Franklin County Common Pleas Court yesterday, the 22-year-old man's written words cost him 10 years in prison.

The case worries civil-rights lawyer Benson Wolman, who said it has free-speech implications.

"What you're saying is somebody can't, in essence, confess their fantasy into a personal journal for fear they have socially unacceptable fantasies, then ultimately they end up getting prosecuted,'' said Wolman, former director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Ohio.

"This is the only case that I know of where we are talking about a journal -- just written words. It surprises and offends me that an action should be brought based on a journal.''

But Franklin County Prosecutor Ron O'Brien called the case a "breakthrough'' in the battle against child pornography.

[...]

"This is one of the first felony cases in Franklin County that involves the written word -- a writing somebody created on their own,'' he said.

"Even without passing it on to anyone else, he committed a felony.''

[...]

At 11:22 AM 7/5/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:

[A followup to a cpunx thread, and a link to the statute.]

...

Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 11:15:01 -0400 To: politech@politechbot.com From: Declan McCullagh Subject: Ohio man convicted for "obscene" stories in his private journal Cc: tdoulin@dispatch.com

This is an unusual case. The Ohio law -- a 1970s version of which Politech member Bruce Taylor successfully defended before a federal appeals court -- applies not only to dirty pictures, but also to written material:

http://www.moralityinmedia.org/obsclawlinks.htm#oh "No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, shall do any of the following... Create, reproduce, or publish any obscene material that has a minor as one of its participants or portrayed observers... Buy, procure, possess, or control any obscene material, that has a minor as one of its participants..."

Anyone who possesses such a visual or written description -- including a diary entry or an erotic story -- is guilty of a felony. That means Ohioans who have on their hard drive an "obscene" text file from alt.sex.stories are felons.

Other coverage: http://www.nydailynews.com/2001-07-05/News_and_Views/Beyond_the_City/a-11726... http://enquirer.com/editions/2001/07/05/loc_tristate_a_m_report.html

"What's the difference between the Russian Constitution and the American Constitution? They both guarantee freedom of speech, but the U.S. Constitution also guarantees freedom after the words are uttered." Dmitry Perevozhkin, "Anecdotes about Putin"