Man's private journal ruled obscene: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "Brian Dalton wrote fictitious tales of sexually abusing children in his private journal, intending that no one else see them, he said. But when his probation officer found the...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Brian Dalton wrote fictitious tales of sexually abusing children in his private journal, intending that no one else see them, he said. But when his probation officer found the journal during a routine search of Dalton's Columbus home, prosecutors charged him with pandering obscenity involving a minor. In Franklin County Common Pleas Court yesterday, the 22-year-old man's written words cost him 10 years in prison. The case worries civil-rights lawyer Benson Wolman, who said it has free-speech implications.<br> | Brian Dalton wrote fictitious tales of sexually abusing children in his private journal, intending that no one else see them, he said. But when his probation officer found the journal during a routine search of Dalton's Columbus home, prosecutors charged him with pandering obscenity involving a minor. In Franklin County Common Pleas Court yesterday, the 22-year-old man's written words cost him 10 years in prison. The case worries civil-rights lawyer Benson Wolman, who said it has free-speech implications.<br> | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
<i>source: 'Man's private journal ruled obscene' 4 July 2001</i> | <i>source: 'Man's private journal ruled obscene'; 4 July 2001</i> | ||
[[Category:Brian Dalton]] | [[Category:Brian Dalton]] | ||
Revision as of 20:40, 24 September 2013
Brian Dalton wrote fictitious tales of sexually abusing children in his private journal, intending that no one else see them, he said. But when his probation officer found the journal during a routine search of Dalton's Columbus home, prosecutors charged him with pandering obscenity involving a minor. In Franklin County Common Pleas Court yesterday, the 22-year-old man's written words cost him 10 years in prison. The case worries civil-rights lawyer Benson Wolman, who said it has free-speech implications.
source: 'Man's private journal ruled obscene'; 4 July 2001