You may remember Darryn Walker. He was the 35-year-old UK civil servant who posted a graphic Sickfic story on the Internet in which the singers in the group Girls Aloud were kidnapped, tortured, raped, and mutilated. He was arrested and charged with violating the Obscene Publications Act. Yesterday he was acquitted on all charges.
Walker's lawyer Tim Owen told reporters that "the effect of this prosecution on Mr Walker has been devastating. He has lost his job and has not managed to get further employment. Hopefully he can now recommence his life. […] It was never his intention to frighten or intimidate the members of Girls Aloud."
Owen said Walker wrote the story as "an adult celebrity parody" and that it was only meant "for an audience of like-minded people."
Can you imagine what those "like-minded people" must be like?
(Thanks to PM Rommel for alerting me to the news)
Not my cup of spiteful anger, but I’d hate to see VANILLA RIDE or even crap like various Edward Lee stories banned because they are seen as being Generally Derogatory, if not specificaly targeted at a particular kids’ pop group.
Avedon Carol makes a rather obvious point in a BBC article up about this…that the best way to combat misogyny, if that’s what we’re worried about here, is to have the discussion out in the open…
Nasty? Yes. Civilly actionable? Maybe, but proving actual damages would be interesting.
Criminal? No way.
After writing that I put myself in that band’s place wondering how I’d feel if some twisted fuck wrote a piece of sicfic using me as the subject, and I doubt I’d like it anymore than that band did. It’s tough when you start blurring the line between freedom of speech/parody and this type of stuff. It’s clearly not right what this guy did, and I’d love to hear from civil rights lawyer about their opinion on this. JD Rhoades??
It’s interesting how sometimes intent matters and sometimes it doesn’t. “It was never his intention to frighten or intimidate the members of Girls Aloud.”
I have a friend who spent eight years in prison for killing someone in a bar fight. It was never his intention to kill someone, (in fact, he could just as easily have been the victim).
So, when exactly does intent matter?
Well, civil rights is part of the criminal practice, but I’m not a civil rights lawyer per se. With that caveat, I stand by my opinion above. The State has no business charging people criminally for what a band or other celebrity may or may not like or for what may or may not offend an individual or group. If someone can prove a credible threat by an individual towards an individual, it’s a different matter. (The key word being credible.)
No matter what the courts say or what his intent was, I’d be very leery of the guy and his like-minded friends. This is just too creepy for words.