Dalton was on probation from a 1998 child pornography case when a probation officer searched his home and found the journal. Dalton was not accused of carrying out any of the actions described in his writings, or even of showing the journal to anyone else. In addition to receiving a seven-year sentence on the new pornography charge, he received nine months for violating probation.

Ohio's 1989 child pornography law prohibits possession of any "obscene material"--written or visual--involving children. According to civil liberties lawyers, this is the first case anywhere in the United States where someone was successfully prosecuted for writing child pornography that did not include images.

Robert O'Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression at the University of Virginia, said the case is "astounding" because it goes against Supreme Court rulings that child pornography is limited to images, on grounds that such images are proof that real children were abused.

Gary Daniels of the National Coalition Against Censorship pointed out that the logic of this case "means that any person who writes something in a fictional manner about breaking the law could be breaking the law."

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert noted July 19 that the Ohio law prohibits the creation or distribution not only of "patently obscene material" but "any material that depicts a minor engaged in sexual activity." Under this broad dictate, a wide range of books could be banned and their authors and publishers subject to criminal prosecution, he argued.

Laws against "sex offenders" have proven to be one of the most effective pretexts for the U.S. rulers in curtailing democratic rights, playing on workers' justified abhorrence of the abuse of women and children. Last January, for instance, the Supreme Court upheld a Washington State law that allows those convicted of sexual offenses to be kept in prison even after serving their sentences. Sixteen states now have such "civil commitment" laws for sex offenders.

As of early 2001, nearly 900 people had been involuntarily committed to psychiatric hospitals under these laws after serving out criminal sentences. Only 44 of these prisoners have been judged "cured" by authorities and released. The forced "treatment" is degrading and punitive, sometimes lasting longer than the original prison sentence.

As an "alternative" to post-prison detainment, some state authorities force persons on parole for sexual crimes to wear electronic tracking devices or submit to regular lie-detector tests.

In addition, a 1996 federal law, passed by Congress and signed by then president William Clinton, requires state authorities to notify communities when a person previously convicted of a sex offense moves into the area. U.S. appeals courts have upheld the constitutionality of similar state laws in New York and New Jersey. Under these statutes many people who have served their sentences are subjected to continued hounding from capitalist politicians, cops, and rightists.

The New Jersey Supreme Court has now decided to allow one exception to this law. The court ruled July 17 that a child found guilty of sexual crimes before the age of 14 can petition to have the notification requirement removed when they turn 18--if they can convince the court they do not pose a risk of committing another offense.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home