Dramatis Personae:

Judge Bullingham, one of Her Majesty's more cantankerous judges.
Mr. Maurice Micklewhite, Q.C., M.P., acting for the prosecution.
Mr. Horace Rumpole, acting for the defense.
Ms. Stacy Vatne, witness for the prosecution.
Prof. David Sutton, defendant.

Scene:

A courtroom much like one would find in the Old Bailey, the city of London's central criminal court building. The jury has been chosen and duly sworn. Both the prosecution and defense have made their opening statements. Ms. Vatne stands in the witness box.

BULLINGHAM: Mr. Micklewhite, is the prosecution ready to examine this witness?

MICKLEWHITE: Yes, my lord.

BULLINGHAM: You may proceed.

MICKLEWHITE: As your lordship pleases. (Bows to judge. Turns to witness.) You are Ms. Stacy Vatne of Carmel, IN?

VATNE: I am.

MICKLEWHITE: Do you subscribe to CRTNET?

BULLINGHAM: To what, Mr. Micklewhite?

MICKLEWHITE: The Communication Research and Theory Network, my lord.

BULLINGHAM: I don't understand, Mr. Micklewhite.

MICKLEWHITE: One can imagine it as a virtual reality salon, my lord, where communication scholars use their computers to engage in discussions of issues relevant to their field of study.

RUMPOLE: (Mumbles to Micklewhite.) Why can't you just say it is an academic chat room?

BULLINGHAM: What was that, Mr. Rumpole?

RUMPOLE: (Much louder.) These days CRTNET is enjoying quite a boom, my lord.

BULLINGHAM: (Looking suspiciously at Rumpole.) Yes, I think I get it now. Proceed, Mr. Micklewhite.

MICKLEWHITE: Ms. Vatne, do you subscribe to CRTNET?

VATNE: Yes, I do.

MICKLEWHITE: And did you read CRTNET posting number 1714 dated February 6th, 1997?

VATNE: Yes, I did.

MICKLEWHITE: Can you describe the contents of this posting for his lordship?

VATNE: It consisted mainly of a dialogue between Professor Sutton and a persona named Goldfish.

BULLINGHAM: His what, Mr. Micklewhite?

MICKLEWHITE: Goldfish, my lord. You have the transcript in front of you, my lord.

BULLINGHAM: (Fumbles through papers on the bench.) Ah, yes, here it is. Do the members of the jury have their copies? (The jury members nod. Bullingham pauses for a moment.) Yes, I see. It looks like a discussion between the defendant and a goldfish. Is that what I'm reading, Mr. Micklewhite?

MICKLEWHITE: Yes, my lord.

BULLINGHAM: Why is he talking to a goldfish? Doesn't he have anyone else to talk to? (Chuckles.)

RUMPOLE: My client was writing an essay in dialogue form, my lord, much like the dialogues of Plato. His lordship is, I imagine, familiar with those philosophical discussions between Socrates and various members of ancient Athenean society?

BULLINGHAM: (Sharply.) I am well acquainted with the dialogues of Plato, Mr. Rumpole. Unlike the present day, such material was required reading when I was at university. However, I don't remember Socrates ever having a conversation with a goldfish, or a salamander, or any other animal for that matter.

RUMPOLE: My client was merely exercising his poetic license, my lord.

BULLINGHAM: (Obviously annoyed.) Yes, yes, Mr. Rumpole. We all have a poetic license and we are all free to exercise it. Let's proceed, Mr. Micklewhite.

MICKLEWHITE: And can you tell his lordship, Ms. Vatne, your reactions to this conversation between Professor Sutton and his goldfish?

VATNE: "David Sutton lacks respect for the sensibilities of his fellow rhetoricians."

RUMPOLE: I object, my lord. How can this witness know what my client does or does not respect?

BULLINGHAM: You are overruled, Mr. Rumpole. Proceed, Mr. Micklewhite.

MICKLEWHITE: And can you tell his lordship, Ms. Vatne, how came you to have that reaction?

VATNE: "In commenting on an article in Text and Performance Quarterly, his persona Goldfish uses highly graphic sexual imagery. As a Christian and a lover of metaphor, I was saddened to see our incredible gift--language--degraded."

RUMPOLE: I object, my lord. The religion of the witness and her love of metaphor are irrelevant to these proceedings.

BULLINGHAM: Overruled, Mr. Rumpole. (Smiling at witness.) Don't be alarmed at Mr. Rumpole's constant objections, Ms. Vatne. It is one of his more common courtroom tactics. You are doing splendidly. Proceed, Mr. Micklewhite.

MICKLEWHITE: Do go on, Ms. Vatne.

VATNE: "Surely, Goldfish could have just as creatively presented his argument using a vehicle other than the sexual. Even if Goldfish uses sexual imagery because he thinks that that is the best way to criticize the Text and Performance Quarterly article, it is still an unacceptable method. Sometimes employing the most rhetorically effective technique is not the most honorable and pure way to respond in life."

MICKLEWHITE: Thank you, Ms. Vatne. That is all the questions I have for this witness, my lord.

BULLINGHAM: (Smiling at witness.) Now, Ms. Vatne, I'd like to ask you to please remain in the witness box for just a few more minutes. (Turns to look at Rumpole. Scowls.) Do you have any questions to ask this young woman, Mr. Rumpole?

RUMPOLE: No, my lord.

BULLINGHAM: (Surprised, then pleased.) Very well. (Turning to witness and smiling.) You may step down, Ms. Vatne. (Vatne exits the witness box.) Mr. Micklewhite, does the prosecution have any other witnesses they wish to call?

MICKLEWHITE: No, my lord.

BULLINGHAM: Very well. You may call your first witness, Mr. Rumpole.

RUMPOLE: The defense calls Professor David Sutton. (Sutton walks from the dock to the witness box, escorted by two burly dock officers. After Sutton has duly sworn to tell the truth, Rumpole clears his throat.) You are Professor David Sutton?

SUTTON: Yes, I am.

RUMPOLE: And are you an assistant professor in the department of communication at Auburn University?

SUTTON: Yes, I am.

RUMPOLE: And are you also a subscriber to CRTNET, that virtual reality salon in which you and other communication scholars meet over virtual sherry and virtual sandwiches to engage in the discussion of issues relevant to your field of study?

SUTTON: Yes, I am.

RUMPOLE: And using your office computer, did you contribute a message to this ongoing discussion which was later posted as number 1714?

SUTTON: Yes, I did.

RUMPOLE: And in this message did you have a conversation with a character known as Goldfish?

SUTTON: Yes, I did.

RUMPOLE: Can you tell his lordship what prompted this message?

SUTTON: There was quite a flurry of activity on CRTNET about an article entitled "Sextext" which appeared in the scholarly journal Text and Performance Quarterly (Volume 17, Number 1, January 1997, pp. 58-68). I wanted to join in the discussion.

RUMPOLE: And can you describe the nature of your response?

SUTTON: I was attempting to be satirical.

BULLINGHAM: He was attempting what, Mr. Rumpole?

RUMPOLE: To be satirical, my lord, as in to employ satire, a form of argument that uses caricature, irony, parody, or sarcasm as a means to comment on a subject, idea, or person.

BULLINGHAM: I know the definition of satire, Mr. Rumpole. Get on with your questions.

RUMPOLE: You have heard Ms. Vatne testify that in your satirical response the character Goldfish used "highly graphic sexual imagery." Do you agree with her assessment?

SUTTON: No, I do not. Goldfish was being sexually suggestive, not sexually graphic.

RUMPOLE: Professor Sutton, when Goldfish was presenting his opinion of the article "Sextext," did he at any time use "highly graphic sexual imagery" in describing the shaving of his genitalia?

SUTTON: No, he did not.

RUMPOLE: Professor Sutton, when Goldfish was presenting his opinion of the article "Sextext," did he at any time use "highly graphic sexual imagery" in describing how he performed an act of oral sex in the filming of a gay pornographic movie?

SUTTON: No, he did not.

RUMPOLE: Professor Sutton, when Goldfish was presenting his opinion of the article "Sextext," did he at any time use "highly graphic sexual imagery" to, and I quote, "put into words the best blow job my ex-boyfriend ever gave me"?

SUTTON: No, he did not.

RUMPOLE: And yet this type of "highly graphic sexual imagery" appears throughout the article "Sextext"?

SUTTON: Yes, it does.

RUMPOLE: And so you wrote your satirical response, mimicking the style of the article "Sextext" to express what opinions?

SUTTON: That as a member of the Speech Communication Association, I did not think that the article "Sextext" should have been printed in a journal published by SCA. I believe there are other more appropriate outlets for the publication of pornography, whatever the sexual orientation.

RUMPOLE: And what else?

SUTTON: That as a reader I saw little value in this example of autoethnography. I believe I had Goldfish label it as "autoerotic asphyxiation."

RUMPOLE: And why did you choose to voice these opinions from the mouth of a goldfish?

SUTTON: If I expressed them in a normal manner, then nobody would pay attention to them.

RUMPOLE: Professor Sutton, are you troubled by Ms. Vatne's reaction to your dialogue?

SUTTON: Yes, I am. I had two reactions when I first read her response. One was to immediately apologize to her for causing her any offense.

RUMPOLE: And the second response?

SUTTON: To ask her if she had read "Sextext." If she is troubled by highly graphic sexual imagery then she should steer clear of that article.

BULLINGHAM: Mr. Rumpole, are you going to be at it much longer?

RUMPOLE: My lord, I intend to "be at it" for as long as it takes to ensure that my client receives a fair hearing.

BULLINGHAM: Then we shall break for lunch, members of the jury. Kindly return at ten past two o'clock.