Why did they pick Frank? I’ve wondered that for a long time, and the only conclusion I can come to is that he was low hanging fruit, i.e. an easy target. He could have made himself a hard target, but he refused to do so, with the result that he spent close to 10% of his total lifespan in prison.
The supreme irony is that his stories can still be downloaded off the net, even though he is almost 2 years dead and buried.
But why don’t they prosecute Stephen King? He wrote a child orgy scene. Why didn’t they prosecute Anne Rice while alive? She wrote Belinda. Or what about Chuck Palahniuk? He wrote scenes of 13 year olds masturbating. Is it because they have money? What about those who buy their books? Or those who sell them on Amazon?
I think the feds thought he was dangerous for wanting to overturn obscenity law. Reminds me a bit of the Mike Diana case.
That was not my recollection, but it’s been a decade since I last looked at the subject, so you could be right.
I also remembered something about someone complaining to the police about Frank’s stories. I have been looking for that document but can’t find it.
And yes, his stories are still online. Just like most, if not all all “obscenity”.
Not only that, but also plenty of manga depicting minors in sexual conduct being sold on Barnes and Noble and Amazon/ebay.
I think McCoy had really really bad luck, because there is plenty of written material out there with minors in it. And it’s not like not using your real name does much, as they can see I.P addresses if asked, and from there identify who it is. People who look at child pornography and try to hide their tracks are eventually caught, or at least many of them, many more than people doing alleged obscenity.
I think it is very wrong that this happened to that man, and it’s a shame it didn’t catch more attention as it was abuse of the law.
May McCoy rest in peace.
There was at least one Usenet troll Bob&Carole, who claimed to have turned Frank in. Naturally, there was never any way of validating any of their claims.
Suggesting a political motive for committing a sexually related criminal act is often shot-down by LEAs and prosecutors etc. as the accused trying to “justify their actions” in a way that infers they are trying to use this as an excuse to lessen the impact of the crime, either to the authorities or to themselves. Especially so in relation to obscene or abusive media etc. It’s ironic then that those same authorities feel the need to “justify” the use of custodial (not to mention capital) punishments in determining the response to such acts.
I’ve come to the realisation - especially since being active on the Prostasia forum - that criminal (sex) acts may often have a political aspect in their commission, despite the actual offender not even being aware of that aspect.
At first glance, it may seem inconceivable that someone does not know the reason why they are committing a crime, but this just shows the power of shame.
Most of us live in a society where people are indoctrinated from the earliest opportunity into thinking sexual desires are base and reprehensible; that they indicate a “susceptibility to depravity” that one must continually exercise restraint from. Therefore, it shouldn’t really be surprising that any motive other than that of the neurological functioning of the sexual appetite (lust) is totally obliterated when analysed retrospectively. Even whilst the offense is in progress, thoughts other than the immediate gratification coupled with a deep self-loathing for having said gratification conspire to suppress any nuanced purpose that may have had a much greater basis in precipitating the offense.
I’m not saying that people don’t commit sex offenses for the purpose of sexual self-gratification. I’m saying that if this was the only reason, I believe a far greater (even a majority) of offenders would never have actually committed their offenses, as I believe the human ability to restrain oneself from surrendering to carnal desires alone is both substantial and ubiquitous; it has to be.
In relation to your friend Frank McCoy: ‘Amnesty International’ describe those punished by the state for their political beliefs (including the actions carried out in support of those beliefs) as “Prisoners of Conscience”.
That reminds me of the drawing I made of a loli showing the middle finger and discharging on top of a big “18 U.S.C. 1466A” legend on the floor.
In relation to your friend Frank McCoy: ‘Amnesty International’ describe those punished by the state for their political beliefs (including the actions carried out in support of those beliefs) as “Prisoners of Conscience”.
I strongly suspect that Amnesty would not have supported Frank McCoy, Karen “Red Rose” Fletcher, or Thomas “Mr. Double” Arthur, because of the nature of their published works.
If they were to support these authors, then they open themselves to accusations of supporting criminal activity, which would cause them to lose a lot of support – they’re not going to dare risk their reputations on people like this.
Well of course not. I wasn’t suggesting Amnesty would support them (Frank esp) both for those reasons and the liklihood they wouldn’t want to on principle. It’s just that in the great scheme of things, if someone is prepared to break the law and risk so much as a consequence, there has to be a much more driving impetus than simply because they felt horny.
It may be that in “feeling horny” they believe (somewhat psychopathically) that society should have no say in what media they should be allowed to produce or consume (as that would be censorship). Regardless of the rightly immoral or unethical perspective of this, it is still an argument based on principle rather than bodily desires.
Where many are liable to assume that such people are making excuses for their own degeneracy, this assumption comes from a common inclination to project their own insecurities: like they refuse to acknowledge that a certain “condition” or “concept” has any validity (because to do so would acknowledge their own potential susceptibility to it), thus they’re unable to confront it or push through to consider any associated issues, such as censorship and freedom of speech etc.
Then again, no one predicted that Amnesty International would have supported decriminalization of prostitution a couple of decades back, certainly not against the arguably less controversial option of “The Nordic Model”.
Well of course not. I wasn’t suggesting Amnesty would support them (Frank esp) both for those reasons and the liklihood they wouldn’t want to on principle. It’s just that in the great scheme of things, if someone is prepared to break the law and risk so much as a consequence, there has to be a much more driving impetus than simply because they felt horny.
IIRC, Frank made his motivations known, in that his desire was to overturn Miller. I’m not even sure that this entered into the court’s reasoning at all.
It may be that in “feeling horny” they believe (somewhat psychopathically) that society should have no say in what media they should be allowed to produce or consume (as that would be censorship). Regardless of the rightly immoral or unethical perspective of this, it is still an argument based on principle rather than bodily desires.
That basically echoes my position. A little over 50 years ago, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau famously stated, “The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.” That is when homosexuality was removed from the Criminal Code of Canada, in 1969. Less than 25 years later, circa 1992, Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code was passed which outlawed child pornography. The definition of child pornography was so broad and all-encompassing, that it even covers fictional text. When Harper was Prime Minister (ending in 2015) he removed or weakened what few affirmative defences there were in the law.
Where many are liable to assume that such people are making excuses for their own degeneracy, this assumption comes from a common inclination to project their own insecurities: like they refuse to acknowledge that a certain “condition” or “concept” has any validity (because to do so would acknowledge their own potential susceptibility to it), thus they’re unable to confront it or push through to consider any associated issues, such as censorship and freedom of speech etc.
Their reactions are purely emotional – there was one Liberal cabinet minister who stated, “… they should not have these thoughts, and they should not write them down.” I seem to recall that someone attempted to challenge the Canadian child pornography statute, saying it was not based on any evidence whatsoever. I seem to recall that a court ruled that Parliament is not required to have any evidence in order to pass any law – that they are free to pass any law they see fit, without restrictions.
Then again, no one predicted that Amnesty International would have supported decriminalization of prostitution a couple of decades back, certainly not against the arguably less controversial option of “The Nordic Model”.
Technically, prositution is NOT illegal in Canada, but communication for the purposes of prostitution is illegal. Go figure, eh?
Most people hate MAPS and lolicon so if you were to cut people off for that you would have quite few friends.
And a fine filter that would be.
I have always had quite few friends. Makes no difference to me.
I have no friends and I manage to go through life just fine… 
As in UK and many other (particularly “western”) countries; although prostitution is legal, many things that a low it to take place are not. (“Keeping a brothel” for instance, which here could be 2 working girls sharing a flat.)
Funny how all those rich and powerful men who have run the country over the ages could never quite bring themselves to actually make prostitution itself illegal, eh?
However, if I have strayed a bit from the original thread’s intent; I would personally consider anyone who is brave enough to allow others to have intimate carnal knowledge of them for nothing more than money a friend. Despite that I no longer avail myself of their services.
@Freyr @LegalLoliLover1 @suky @Jigsy @Thoughtcrime
With friends like you, who needs enemas?
Anyone???
I’m not sure if i would need “enamas”
While trying to challenge the ban on child sex dolls in Germany, we made the same experience. We contacted a lot of lawyers, and those who answered us at all basically made the same statement: that there is little hope of success because the state is entitled to outlaw things they deem dangerous without having to prove that they actually are dangerous, and the only way to even have the slightest chance is if we can definitely prove that allowing child sex dolls prevents CSA.
So basically, the state can outlaw things without having any evidence of their harmfulness, but if you want to challenge that law you need to have impossible standards of evidence showing that they are not only not harmful, but even helpful. And of course this standard is now even harder to reach because criminalizing dolls is only going to make it much more difficult to research them. Great, right?
This entire affair turned my whole naive view on democracy, law and state completely upside down and made me lose all trust in the justice system. After all, what good are freedom and individual rights if the government can take them away at any point, citing no other evidence but “you are disgusting and therefore don’t deserve those freedoms”? (paraphrasing a bit, but this is basically what all the arguments boild down to)
Tbh, getting a bit fed-up of posting this…
