Re: UMich student arrested for rape story

> From:          "L. McCarthy" <lmccarth@ducie.cs.umass.edu>

> Rich Dutcher writes:
> > They *do* have to prove intent -- as to how, that's what juries are 
> > for.  BTW, he used her real name in the post, with no disclaimers 
> > about fiction.  From what I have heard, if he had said the same thing 
> > in her presence, he could have been arrested for assault.
> 
> Based on the NY Times article I've read, you're omitting some important
> extenuating circumstances here. For one thing, it was apparently posted to
> alt.sex.stories, which seems to obviate the use of "fictional" disclaimers.
> Furthermore, he did _not_ identify her as a UMich student.
> 
Well, I was quoting a small AP story in a paper notorious for
clipping articles short, so I knew that some [if not many]
circumstances would be missing.  In conversations today at
Potlatch 4 I learned of other circumstances, albeit not
necessarily what I would call "extenuating" ones.  And the
lawyers, of course, will be spin controlling from now until a
verdict.

> I don't see the relevance of "if he had said the same thing in her presence".
> He *didn't* !  There's an enormous difference between making a comment about
> a person to third parties, and making the comment to that person.
> 
Not necessarily -- there's lots of case law that the threatened
person need not be present to be threatened.  The people present
are still witnesses.  I agree there's a difference, but its nature
isn't obvious.  Precisely what that difference is is up to judges,
juries and [goddess help us!] legislators.

> According to the NY Times story, the woman mentioned in the story only heard
> about it because reporters asked her about it !  I find a great deal of irony
> in the report that the controversy started because an alt.sex.stories reader
> in _Moscow_ tipped off the UMich authorities.
> 
Irony noted and appreciated -- but it does illustrate the "public" 
nature of the forum.

> It appears that the Russians are allowed to read erotic fiction, while the
> Americans are forbidden to read it, and get tossed in jail for writing it.
> We've come a long way, baby. Yeah.
> 
>  -L. Futplex McCarthy

I was in high school while the Supremes [the real Supremes, with 
Earl Warren, not the bogus nostalgia group currently wearing the 
black robes] were doing the decisions that allowed Joyce and Lawrence 
to be sold in bookstores, and I was taught Shakespeare from a 
bowlderized edition of Romeo & Juliet.  Trust me, we aren't in a 
place remotely like that now [not that there aren't plenty of people 
trying to get back there].

Which is not to say I'm complacent -- when I have money to spare from 
Green work, it goes to the ACLU.  Eternal vigilance and all that.  
And this dude is entitled to presumption of innocence, a jury trial, 
and all the other paraphenalia of procedural liberty.

However, given the information available to date, I see no reason to 
believe that he's been busted for writing "erotic fiction"  rather than 
threatening a woman.  Violence against women is too real, and in 
other contexts courts have held to a standard of what a "reasonable 
woman" might fear.

BTW, does alt.sex.stories presume fiction, or is it pretend truth 
like the readers' sex stories in Penthouse?

Rich Dutcher writes:
> However, given the information available to date, I see no reason to 
> believe that he's been busted for writing "erotic fiction"  rather than 
> threatening a woman.  

The July `94 issue of Harper's described the case of a Menlo Park city 
employee who claimed in 1993 to be harassed by some paintings of female nudes
hanging in a hallway. The city removed the paintings the following day. It
used to be that when the majority of people in some state/county/town 
disapproved of some instance of expression, they could suppress it. This was
bad. Nowadays, it takes just one zealot to suppress it. This is much worse.
As far as I can see, anyone can claim to be harassed/threatened/offended by
just about anything, and get away with it.  Just the other day, I heard that
in Vermont (or was it New Hampshire ?), they're still talking seriously about
an amendment to the state constitution against burning the U.S. flag. Between
the censors on the left and the censors on the right, there's precious little
room remaining for those of us in the middle who believe in tolerating
divergent views.

It appears to me that people on the left are choosing (wrongly, IMHO) to 
interpret a work of fiction as a threat, and proceed from there. I imagine
that people on the right don't see the work of fiction as a threat to her, but 
simply want to ban fictional works they dislike anyway.

> Violence against women is too real, 

Strongly agreed, but a newsgroup article is not an act of violence.

> and in other contexts courts have held to a standard of what a "reasonable 
> woman" might fear.

Well, we'll have to see how it goes. It's tough for me to see why a 
"reasonable woman" would fear an article of which she was totally unaware.

I get the impression that neither did he imply a threat, nor did she infer a
threat. 

> BTW, does alt.sex.stories presume fiction, or is it pretend truth 
> like the readers' sex stories in Penthouse?

I don't know for sure, though I expect alt.sex.wizards would be more likely
to fall in the latter category :] .

-L. Futplex McCarthy

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In list.cypherpunks, L. Futplex McCarthy writes:

> It appears to me that people on the left are choosing (wrongly, IMHO) to 
> interpret a work of fiction as a threat, and proceed from there. I imagine
> that people on the right don't see the work of fiction as a threat to her, 
> but simply want to ban fictional works they dislike anyway.

Given the current "regulate the Internet" frenzy we're seeing almost
everywhere, couldn't this be an example of grabbing a scapegoat?  I see
this whole deal as opportunistic, especially since the alleged victim of
the "threat" appeared unaware that the "threat" had even been made.
- -- 
Roy M. Silvernail --  roy@cybrspc.mn.org
  perl -e '$x = 1/20; print "Just my \$$x! (adjusted for inflation)\n"'
        "What do you mean, you've never been to Alpha Centauri?"
                                               -- Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.1

iQCVAwUBLz6g2hvikii9febJAQEi7AP+IuDcbHY/PjI7HC3j29jtHFiMbFIS5fdG
2c08NQgnjiA8ul3fsJUUcmQ/sdr0WxZrR0qIRTwzBoX1baVDr0POARn4DY/5TrbH
Qmav0KW/kJQEqaX2uvu2MvdF5NFWiYlXB06ZysOhgHuj7wcAsCGyTwTpA5hpKmFj
3ZAP0vHuLaM=
=iXE+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----