Afraid of public trial, author to plead guilty in online obscenity case

Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 17, 2008

She battled the federal government's allegations for more than a year 
and a half, but in the end, Karen Fletcher's mental health will win out 
over her principles. And First Amendment lawyers will lose a key chance 
to have a court determine whether text-only material can be considered 
obscene.

Ms. Fletcher has decided to plead guilty to six counts of distributing 
obscenity online stemming from fictional stories published on a 
members-only Web site.

First Amendment lawyers thought an acquittal in the case could have 
begun a trend -- proving that text-only cases do not rise to the level 
of obscenity standards.

The Donora woman was charged in September 2006 based on her "Red Rose" 
Web site, where Ms. Fletcher, 56, and others posted fictional stories 
that depicted the rape and torture of children -- including infants.

She and her high-profile First Amendment lawyers claimed that what she'd 
written was not obscene, and they hoped to prevail before a jury.

In their favor, they thought, was the fact that the federal government 
has never won a conviction based solely on text under current obscenity 
law.

But Ms. Fletcher, who has agoraphobia -- a fear of public places -- is 
not capable of sitting through what likely would be a weeklong trial, 
said one of her attorneys, Lawrence Walters.

"With a different client, with somebody who had the strength to fight, 
there might have been a different outcome," Mr. Walters said. "While 
we'd like her to be a standard-bearer on First Amendment issues, this is 
not the person to endure a trial.

"Even worse, should she be convicted, I don't know that she'd be able to 
withstand a jail sentence."

Instead of taking the risk, Ms. Fletcher is scheduled to plead guilty on 
Aug. 8 before U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti.

Under the proposed plea agreement, Ms. Fletcher would avoid prison and 
be sentenced to a term of home detention.

"Our first obligation is always to our client, even though it may not be 
in the best interest of constitutional rights, in general," Mr. Walters 
said.

Throughout the duration of her case, Ms. Fletcher has appeared in court 
on the charges only once, though there have been a number of hearings.

In an affidavit, Ms. Fletcher wrote that she has almost no memory of her 
childhood up until the age of 14.

She explained that her writing started out just for her and was 
cathartic because she had been sexually abused as a child.

"At first I would capture a particular feeling of dread and try to weave 
it into a scenario that explained the feeling," she wrote.

She went on to say that she didn't know if the stories were based on her 
experiences or if they were completely fictitious.

Later in the affidavit, Ms. Fletcher described what she called her 
"monsters."

"I have always been afraid of monsters. The monsters in my life had 
always been real; for too long they were always there with unlimited 
access to me, and I was helpless to do anything about it," she wrote. 
"In my stories, I have created new monsters. [They] rise above the 
horror of the real life monsters. Somehow, making these monsters so much 
worse makes me feel better, and makes my life seem more bearable.

"I may still be afraid of the monsters, but at least in the stories, 
they prey on someone else, not me."

Throughout the case, Ms. Fletcher defended herself by noting that she 
required a $10 monthly membership fee to prevent minors from viewing the 
site, and that she carefully monitored it to prevent the posting of any 
pictures.

Reed Lee, a First Amendment attorney who has successfully defended a 
number of obscenity cases, said he believed Ms. Fletcher had a viable 
defense.

In today's society, he said, it's more difficult to find something that 
patently offends "contemporary community standards," which is required 
under obscenity law.

"I don't think many people think the standards are getting stricter. 
With text, you can always stop reading," Mr. Lee said. "You're less 
likely to be offended than if an image is just splashed at you."

The other requirements of the so-called "Miller test," set by the U.S. 
Supreme Court in 1973, include that the material appeals only to 
"prurient interests," and that it has no serious artistic, literary, 
social or political value.

"Even if we don't think there's political value in it, there's 
tremendous social value in breaking that spiral between silence and 
shame," Mr. Lee said, referring to people who realize there might be 
others in the world who share interests that some consider outside the 
norm.