Freedom of speach? What say you.

[olevetonahill]

http://newsok.com/bond-set-in-florida-for-author-of-pedophile-guide/article/3525906

[JohnnyMack]

I actually thought about starting this thread the other day. I'm curious how this one turns out.

[pphilfran]

No pictures it should be legal...

What if I wrote a novel that went into detail about the rape of a child...how the guy set up the victim...would that be legal?

How about the Anarchist Cookbook? Should it be for sale?

[DIB]

That is a tough situation. The guy is pretty despicable, but I fear that he will be covered by free speech. I assume it will be treated similar to the Anarchist Cookbook, which is still being fought over after almost 40 years of publication.

[FirstandGoal]

There is no way this is going to end well.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

It will be interesting how the courts interpret the word "depicting" ... does it encompass "describing" in a positive light? or is positive light irrelevant?

[olevetonahill]

There is no way this is going to end well.

I agree, Im assuming the Fl. PoPos extradited him from Co.

[Leroy Lizard]

It seems to me that a deliberate attempt to provide information for the sole purpose of carrying out a crime would fall under aiding and abetting and that the information would not be protected under free speech.

I own a copy of The Poor Man's James Bond, so don't anyone disagree with me. Ya' hear?

[My Opinion Matters]

I won't pretend to understand the legal intricacies of a situation like this, but if I wrote a book titled "How to Assasinate a President" or "How to Smuggle Weapons-Grade Plutonium" would my rights be constitutionally protected?

[Frozen Sooner]

In very general terms, and based only on the descriptions of what he's selling in the article, what he's peddling seems to be constitutionally-protected speech. The outer boundaries of what the government can forbid as obscenity in the child "pornography" arena was set fairly recently. The upshot was that to limit "artistic" speech, you have to have a compelling state interest and narrowly tailor the limit to fit the state interest. The compelling state interest in forbidding child pornography is in stopping the victimization of children: therefore, if no actual children are photographed or filmed, then there's no compelling interest.

Leroy, you can't charge someone as an accomplice if no crime is actually committed. Even then, you generally have to meet a standard of material aid. I don't think publishing a general set of instructions meets that standard. If this guy's book is what he says it is (which I'm not going to say that it is) then there's no way you can tag him as an accomplice: his instructions are how to have a legal and non-sexual relationship with a kid. Which is still creepy, but not a crime.

NOTE: I'm not defending this guy, I'm just saying that based on the facts in the article he's got a legitimate case that his conduct was constitutionally protected as-applied. He's also attempting to set up an overbreadth claim, based on his attorney's comments: if the court decides that HIS conduct was not constitutionally protected, he may still win because the statute under which he was charged reaches protected speech.

Guy's a turd.

[olevetonahill]

Why you wanta insult Turd?;)
I agree. Now heres a question Mike. As hard and strict as the Fed are getting on Child pron. Why aint The Feds after him for using the Mail or Interstate transportation or sompun like that ?

[Frozen Sooner]

Based on what he's said he's selling, I don't think it's illegal to send it in the mail.

Mind you, I haven't looked at the statute under which he's been charged nor have I read his book, so I don't have a real solid opinion either way as to whether it's protected or not.

I'm also trying really hard to make a distinction here, by the way, between what I think should be illegal and what you can make illegal under existing precedent.

[usaosooner]

Gross but it seems it is within his rights

[olevetonahill]

Kinda what i was tryin to ax was that IF this is child Pron, then shouldnt the Feds have Jurisdiction?

Plus if we have to put up with that Phelps bunch then we have to put up with this dooshnozzel :mad:

[Frozen Sooner]

The general presumption is that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over crimes that are defined under both federal and state statutes. Federal jurisdiction is only exclusive if it is made explicitly so, if the purposes of the federal statute would be seriously undermined if there were concurrent jurisdiction, or if the federal and state statutes are incompatible.

You can even prosecute a federal crime in state court.

[olevetonahill]

Ok heres another. If hes tried in State court on this and found Innocent or even Not to have committed a crime Can the feds come in then and charge him ?

[Frozen Sooner]

Yes, two ways:

Under dual sovereignty, double jeopardy doesn't forbid two different sovereigns from trying someone for the same crime, even if both charges have the same elements. Therefore, the exact same conduct can be tried as both a federal crime and a state crime. Doesn't apply to municipalities/counties and states, though.

US Attorney guidelines forbid charging a guy under dual sovereignty unless the prior prosecution left a substantial federal interest unvindicated.

Also, under the Blockburger test, DJ doesn't apply when each crime charges an element the other doesn't.

[Frozen Sooner]

Good illustration of how dual sovereignty works:

Several years back, a white supremacist mailed a bomb to a federal judge here in Alabama. Killed him. The feds prosecuted the guy and got a conviction with life in prison.

Alabama said "**** that" and tried him for capital murder. Sent him to the chair.

[Penguin]

I think he's completely protected by the 1st Amendment, like it or not. This simply sounds like a country bumpkin sheriff wants to make a name for himself.

[Leroy Lizard]

Yes, two ways:

Under dual sovereignty, double jeopardy doesn't forbid two different sovereigns from trying someone for the same crime, even if both charges have the same elements.

Grrrrrrr!!!! (Not disagreeing, but you know my feelings about this one.)

[Soonerfan88]

Gross but it seems it is within his rights


Plus if we have to put up with that Phelps bunch then we have to put up with this dooshnozzel :mad:

Unfortunately, I agree. As long as the book is what the scum states, don't see how he has technically violated any laws.

[Leroy Lizard]

Good illustration of how dual sovereignty works:

Several years back, a white supremacist mailed a bomb to a federal judge here in Alabama. Killed him. The feds prosecuted the guy and got a conviction with life in prison.

Alabama said "**** that" and tried him for capital murder. Sent him to the chair.

An example of where a man was found innocent in one court but tried again in another court is a better example. That has happened, and I think it is an abomination. But the SC never bothered to ask me for my opinions.

[Frozen Sooner]

It was a graphic illustration, nothing more. As a general rule, a prosecutor can't retry you to get a tougher verdict under double jeopardy.

[TVKaleen]

An example of where a man was found innocent in one court but tried again in another court is a better example. That has happened, and I think it is an abomination. But the SC never bothered to ask me for my opinions.

Stacey Koon was acquitted by California on a charged of use of excessive force but then tried by the Feds and found guilty of violating the civil rights of one Rodney King.

[Leroy Lizard]

Stacey Koon was acquitted by California on a charged of use of excessive force but then tried by the Feds and found guilty of violating the civil rights of one Rodney King.

The problem I have with these trials is they are designed to pacify the public. "Don't worry, we'll try him again for something else (even though it was the same act) and we'll keep trying until we get a conviction." IMO, that was exactly what the Founding Fathers set out to avoid by creating the double jeopardy clause in the Bill of Rights.

[AlbqSooner]

Violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is not a crime. It gives rise to a CIVIL cause of action. Double jeopardy does not apply to civil actions.

For example, if you are tried for murdering your wife and her male friend and found not guilty, you can still be tried for wrongful death in a civil action. See O.J. Simpson.

[Frozen Sooner]

Albq, Koon was charged under a criminal statute, not § 1983: he spent 30 months in jail. 18 USC § 242, I believe. § 242 provides criminal penalties for the same kind of actions that get you in hock under § 1983.

[GKeeper316]

its sort of the same arguement about 2 computer generated images of children having sex.

disgusting, but protected.

[Frozen Sooner]

Here's something that'll really get your noodle smoking, Leroy:

A judge, when setting a sentence under an indeterminate sentencing scheme, may consider a person's commission or uncharged or unconvicted crimes in setting that sentence. So long as the sentence imposed doesn't go beyond the statutory maximum penalty, the sentencing judge only has to be convinced the guy did it by a preponderance of evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[StoopTroup]

I got to tell ya. I saw a couple interviews with the guy and there's just something creepy as to how he nonchalantly answered some of those questions. He might be protected but if he came near one of my kids, I'd ask for a restraining order on him and if he broke it....I'd smoke him right between the eyes.

[yermom]

this all sounds similar to our NAMBLA debates back in the day :O

[Mississippi Sooner]

All I can think of is that High Times magazine has been legally published since the 1970s, and every issue of that magazine gives step by step instructions on how to do something that is a felony in most of the United States, regardless of whether a segment of the population feels that it should be illegal or not.

It's hard to say that a step by step instruction on how to commit a crime should be illegal, but it does seem that the author and everyone who purchases or possesses the book would and should be open to suspicion by the authorities.

That's how it seems to me, anyway.

[dwarthog]

Wouldn't it be just horrific if an accident befell the dude? :D

[FirstandGoal]

Wouldn't it be just horrific if an accident befell the dude? :D

My thoughts exactly. If I'm the popo in whatever city this ****head lives in, I'd spend all my time making sure the dude didn't break any other laws. Bet the local cops would love any good reason to put him in the slammer for just a few hours.
Lotsa accidents can happen in jail. :)

[2121Sooner]

Unfortunately I feel he has the right to write this nonsense. Dont think any self respecting print company should print it, or distribute it, but just because I dont agree with what he has to say and think it is disgusting means he doesnt have the right.