Simpsons Cartoon Porn Deemed "Child Pornography"

[XnavxeMiyyep]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge/2008/12/08/1228584707575.html

In the current trend of declining free spech, a man in Australia has been convicted for possessing cartoon pictures, and the conviction was upheld by their Supreme Court.

[themoonisdown09]

Although I've never been into cartoon porn, I could see why they would deem this as child pornography.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Although I've never been into cartoon porn, I could see why they would deem this as child pornography.

I've actually had the misfortune of coming across said Simpsons pictures on an image board; they're rather grotesque and meant as shock value.

But regardless of that, no children were harmed or exploited by these pictures. They're cartoons. Just because something is gross or makes you uncomfortable, doesn't mean that people who have these images should be sentenced by the government.

[themoonisdown09]

But regardless of that, no children were harmed or exploited by these pictures. They're cartoons. Just because something is gross or makes you uncomfortable, doesn't mean that people who have these images should be sentenced by the government.

Just because no real children were depicted in the pictures, doesn't mean it can't be child porn.

[mkrishnan]

I've actually had the misfortune of comingn across them on an image board; they're rather grotesque and meant as shock value.

This is precisely the biggest problem with this kind of judgment. The prevalence of this material on the internet basically precludes jurisprudence.

If you troll along the internet looking at various things, it's not that hard to end up seeing adult smut (it's not impossible to avoid this, so admittedly I don't make the active effort to avoid it). But I never accidentally browse child pornography. In fact, although I haven't tried it, I suspect you can't just use Google Images and find child pornography (in the traditional sense) on the internet in two minutes.

Things like the picture involved here do just show up here and there, unfortunately. No one should be held liable on an individual basis until there's a sweeping of the availability of the material first. If XnavxeMiyyep had surfed a forum page that had this content in it (as they said they did) would it be reasonable for them to be guilty of possessing child pornography because it was in their cache? I don't think that's a reasonable standard at all.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Just because no real children were depicted in the pictures, doesn't mean it can't be child porn.

Child pornography laws are meant to protect real children from being molested. These pictures are imaginary characters (also, since the Simpsons have been around since 1989, they're 19 now ;) ). Convicting a man for having a gross picture is the antithesis of free speech.


Things like the picture involved here do just show up here and there, unfortunately. No one should be held liable on an individual basis until there's a sweeping of the availability of the material first. If XnavxeMiyyep had surfed a forum page that had this content in it (as they said they did) would it be reasonable for them to be guilty of possessing child pornography because it was in their cache? I don't think that's a reasonable standard at all.
Yes, this is definitely one of the problems. It wouldn't be his fault if they were accidentally there.

That being said:
Even if he intentionally kept these images, there was no harm done to anyone in making them, thus they should not be illegal in any way.

[BoyBach]

Just because no real children were depicted in the pictures, doesn't mean it can't be child porn.


If I draw a picture of a dead child am I a child murderer?

[themoonisdown09]

Child pornography laws are meant to protect real children from being molested. These pictures are imaginary characters (also, since the Simpsons have been around since 1989, they're 19 now ;) ). Convicting a man for having a gross picture is the antithesis of free speech.

So it's just a "gross picture" if you have a cartoon child involved in sexual acts, but it's "child pornography" if it's a real child involved in a sexual act? I realize that a real child is much worse than a cartoon child, but they both still should be called child pornography.

Just so you know, I agree that the legal punishment should not be the same. I do agree that it should be punishable.

If I draw a picture of a dead child am I a child murderer?

That's a really bad analogy. You're not a child molester if you look at child porn. You're a child molester if you molest a child and you're a child murderer if you murder a child.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html

Neil Gaiman writes a good summary of my position.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

So it's just a "gross picture" if you have a cartoon child involved in sexual acts, but it's "child pornography" if it's a real child involved in a sexual act? I realize that a real child is much worse than a cartoon child, but they both still should be called child pornography.
Since you cannot prove the age of a cartoon character, there should be no legal name for pornography involving cartoon children.

The main issue here is that he was sentenced for it. If it were called "Legal Child Pornography" then there wouldn't be much of a problem.

[themoonisdown09]

Since you cannot prove the age of a cartoon character, there should be no legal name for pornography involving cartoon children.


Have you ever watched The Simpsons? If you did, you would know that they are in elementary school. I would think it's pretty easy to predict their ages by that.

[benthewraith]

I'm kind of torn between this. I can understand both sides.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Have you ever watched The Simpsons? If you did, you would know that they are in elementary school. I would think it's pretty easy to predict their ages by that.

I have. The Simpsons is one of my favorite TV shows, although I have not seen it in awhile.

That being said, that should not be legal precedent. They're cartoon characters, not children. I could argue that they are really wizdards who have managed to keep the appearance of children despite existing for 19 years. The convicted man has done no wrong.

I'm kind of torn between this. I can understand both sides.

This is the same thing that's always happened in history.
First they came for the sexual deviants/internet trolls, and I did not speak out, because I was not a sexual deviant/internet troll....

No one has been harmed. It's the government testing to see if they can get away with arresting people for "offensive" speech.

[themoonisdown09]

That being said, that should not be legal precedent. They're cartoon characters, not children. The convicted man has done no wrong.

The guy didn't get put in jail, he was only fined. I think that was the right decision. I don't think it would be right to get put in jail because it was a cartoon. I do agree that this could lead to worse things in the future.


Justice Adams said the purpose of the legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of "real" children are depicted.

However it was also to deter the production of other material, including cartoons, that could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children".

[XnavxeMiyyep]

The guy didn't get put in jail, he was only fined. I think that was the right decision. I don't think it would be right to get put in jail because it was a cartoon. I do agree that this could lead to worse things in the future.

He was fined $3000. That's a huge chunk of money. He should not have lost money over this. Also, this "two year behavior bond" probably involves reporting in with the government, and possibly being arrested if he does have said images. All for having a picture.

"If the persons were real, such depictions could never be permitted," Justice Adams said in his judgment. "Their creation would constitute crimes at the very highest end of the criminal calendar."

If I killed a real person, that would also constitute a crime at the highest end of the criminal latter, but drawing a picture of such would not and should not be a crime.

[floyde]

Have you ever watched The Simpsons? If you did, you would know that they are in elementary school. I would think it's pretty easy to predict their ages by that.

It's just cartoons. I believe that something should be considered wrong because it causes harm, not because it makes one queasy. The cartoons are in poor taste, for sure, but that's not a crime. I doubt that Bart had to deal with any sort of emotional trauma after this ordeal. So who was hurt in all this, our pure and unassailable sensibilities?

[themoonisdown09]

The article also doesn't say how the pictures were found on his computer. That could've also played a role in him going to court.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

The article also doesn't say how the pictures were found on his computer. That could've also played a role in him going to court.

In him going to court, sure, but what he was convicted of was wrong.

Also, the Simpsons movie itself has a picture of Bart's penis. CHILD PORN!

[themoonisdown09]

Also, the Simpsons movie itself has a picture of Bart's penis. CHILD PORN!

Kind of makes you wonder if this was brought up in court or not.

Edit: I haven't seen The Simpsons movie, but I can probably guess that this was not done in a sexual way. There are diaper commercials that show babies butts and they aren't considered porn.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Kind of makes you wonder if this was brought up in court or not.

There was actually a controversy about it, but luckily it was generally ignored, as this was clearly nonsexual nudity.

[kavika411]

Tricky issue, and I won't pretend to be well-read on it or have an original opinion. With that caveat, I want to point out that the "no child/person harmed" is not the standard in many, many areas of law. Whether we like it or not (and I often do not), there are a legion of laws that protect against the potential of actual harm. In my opinion, DUI is an excellent example. There is not a single thing wrong - if you think about it - with driving drunk. BUT the risk of physical harm to yourself or another is so substantially increased that society says it is illegal to drive to drive drunk. Likewise, there are laws against "possession of burglary tools," even if you have not commenced in the burglary. The same for drug paraphenalia.

Here, I can see the argument being made (and I am not giving my personal opinion one way or another) with regard to no-child-harmed that the circulation of child pornography in any format substantially increases the risk to children in the future so much so that it is illegal, even if no child was harmed in its current incarnation.

[iJohnHenry]

Just because no real children were depicted in the pictures, doesn't mean it can't be child porn.

Right, you might be tempted to go out and do the real thing. :rolleyes:

If I draw a picture of a dead child am I a child murderer?

Yep. Next step, eating dead, burnt bodies. :p

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Tricky issue, and I won't pretend to be well-read on it or have an original opinion. With that caveat, I want to point out that the "no child/person harmed" is not the standard in many, many areas of law. Whether we like it or not (and I often do not), there are a legion of laws that protect against the potential of actual harm. In my opinion, DUI is an excellent example. There is not a single thing wrong - if you think about it - with driving drunk. BUT the risk of physical harm to yourself or another is so substantially increased that society says it is illegal to drive to drive drunk. Likewise, there are laws against "possession of burglary tools," even if you have not commenced in the burglary. The same for drug paraphenalia.

Here, I can see the argument being made (and I am not giving my personal opinion one way or another) with regard to no-child-harmed that the circulation of child pornography in any format substantially increases the risk to children in the future so much so that it is illegal, even if no child was harmed in its current incarnation.

But even DUI is a direct threat to those around you, more akin to swinging a sword around in public as opposed to owning a sword. DUI laws are becoming more and more draconian though; the legal limit in the US keeps getting lowered, police checkpoints are set up, the founder of MADD actually left the group in disgust. Anyway, that's a discussion for another thread.

I don't support laws against drug paraphenalia, and would be happy if they were overturned. That being said, speech is the most important issue. If your speech is curtailed, you cannot do anything else.

[BoyBach]

Yep. Next step, eating dead, burnt bodies. :p


I love children, but I couldn't eat a whole one! :D

It's an oldie but a goodie!

[floyde]

Here, I can see the argument being made (and I am not giving my personal opinion one way or another) with regard to no-child-harmed that the circulation of child pornography in any format substantially increases the risk to children in the future so much so that it is illegal, even if no child was harmed in its current incarnation.

Well perhaps, but they would have to prove that there's such a connection. For now that idea seems a lot like these people's guesswork, which is aiding them to prohibit all that they do not like.

So the first time it's cartoons, the next offense is the real thing... That would be a genuine matter for concern, except, there's no evidence pointing in that direction. I'd say let's put a hold on those convictions until such evidence is gathered.

[themoonisdown09]

I could care less what happens with the law on this issue. I don't plan on looking at cartoon porn, especially The Simpsons, anytime soon.

I might be tempted to look at Peter Griffin and Lois Griffin, but that's it. :D

[XnavxeMiyyep]

I could care less what happens with the law on this issue. I don't plan on looking at cartoon porn, especially The Simpsons, anytime soon.

I might be tempted looking at Peter Griffin and Louis Griffin, but that's it. :D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

[themoonisdown09]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

That's a good poem, but unless they get rid of my wife, I'm okay.

[iJohnHenry]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Hardly at that level ... yet. ;)

Think of this as the death of a thousand cuts.

That's a good poem, but unless they get rid of my wife, I'm okay.

I'd be happier if you just got rid of that knife. :eek:

[themoonisdown09]

Hardly at that level ... yet. ;)

Think of this as the death of a thousand cuts.

Are we talking paper cuts?

[mactastic]

This is going to be a problem area for the law as technological advances allow for more and more realistic depictions of people on screen who do not exist.

On the one hand, I can understand not encouraging people with this drive to delve any further into fantasies of pedophilia than they already do in their own minds. On the other hand, where does it end? If there is no victim to be harmed, how is a cartoon child sex scene any different from cartoon extreme violence, or sadism? What about cartoon bestiality?

If we're going to argue that seeing images of this nature makes one more likely to commit sexual crimes against a child, doesn't it also stand to reason that seeing the images on GTA3 will make you more likely to commit auto thefts? Does watching Kill Bill over and over again make you more likely to bury someone alive? Does watching Up In Smoke make you more likely to use marijuana?

If we're going to allow some visual depictions (however false -- my understanding is that Uma Thurman walked away from the burial scene) of illegal activity to be viewed, how and where do we draw the line?

This just gets too close to criminalizing thought for my comfort.

And it reminds me that Trey Parker and Matt Stone had to cut several minutes from "Team America" to avoid an NC-17 rating. What was so offensive that it could not be seen by people under 17? Puppets having sex.

[Blue Velvet]

This is going to be a problem area for the law as technological advances allow for more and more realistic depictions of people on screen who do not exist.


I've got a friend who illustrates quite convincingly filthy gay porn-ish stills using Poser (http://shop.smithmicro.com/v2.0-img/operations/smicro/site/511179_poser7/poserau.html), just as a hobby. :D

Absolutely no kiddy stuff though.

[mactastic]

I've got a friend who illustrates quite convincingly filthy gay porn-ish stills using Poser (http://shop.smithmicro.com/v2.0-img/operations/smicro/site/511179_poser7/poserau.html), just as a hobby. :D
What, no commercial market for that stuff? Talk to Lee... ;)

But again, where do we draw the line? If we're going to argue that seeing cartoon images causes pedophelia, what about Nabokov's "Lolita"? Is it OK to write about child sex? Sketch it? Think about it?

That's where it all gets fuzzy for me.

[skunk]

The idea of criminalising the act of drawing is what is obscene. The work of Aubrey Beardsley, as well as many Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Roman, Greek and other artists would be criminalised too by this ludicrous ruling.

[Rodimus Prime]

here is the problem is where do you draw the line. Today we have the ablilty to animate and draw people to the point they look real and an expert could not tell the difference between a real person or a fake one.

So we could animate child porn to the point it looks real to both the trained and untrained eye.

They make the law in such a way that there can be no room grey air. It is there to protect the kids from in the gray area and to prevent the defense of well it is animated. Hell we can take real images and degrade them to look animated as well.

SO remove all gray area and just say anything depicting a child in pornographic ways real or unreal is against the law.

In this case they gave the guy a wrist slap but it is a good move to make it Chrystal clear no gray area allowed.

[NT1440]

then you have to define pornographic.

hint: "i cant define it, but i know it when i see it" :rolleyes:

[mkrishnan]

In this case they gave the guy a wrist slap but it is a good move to make it Chrystal clear no gray area allowed.

For the same reason I outlined above, that's not enough. The implication of that -- making the viewing of images that are widely available already on the internet without doing anything to filter, block, or delete them -- is insane. If I inline that picture in this thread (which I guess is legal for me to do as a US citizen), I can contact the British police and inform them that all the British viewers of this post have just broken the law. That's obscene.

If the law is going to change with respect to criminalizing something that is widely spread today, there has to be an implementation program that at minimum allows well intentioned citizens to be able to comply with the law. This is the bedrock of good law in every democracy.

[Blue Velvet]

If I inline that picture in this thread (which I guess is legal for me to do as a US citizen), I can contact the British police and inform them that all the British viewers of this post have just broken the law. That's obscene.

Also useful should you want to get rid of all of us. We put milk in our tea and use millimeters. Eww.

[mkrishnan]

Also useful should you want to get rid of all of us. We put milk in our tea and use millimeters. Eww.

I used to be an engineer. I <3 teh millimeters. And my parents are Indian... who doesn't put milk in their tea? :eek: ;)

[mgguy]

How do you judge the age of a cartoon character? By size, body structure, facial development, ... ? What if someone meant to depict an 18-year-old but drew it in such a way that some might think the character was of a 16-year-old? I think if we are going to punish this type of activity, we need to have set standards of what constitutes a law violation so people will know when they have crossed the line.

[Macky-Mac]

The idea of criminalising the act of drawing is what is obscene. The work of Aubrey Beardsley, as well as many Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Roman, Greek and other artists would be criminalised too by this ludicrous ruling.

agreed

there's always a need to balance competing rights and interests but the ruling in this case seems to go too far

[emt1]

This is the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my life. It's a cartoon. It's not real. No children were harmed. Give me a freakin break! What is this world coming to?

[CalBoy]

Although I've never been into cartoon porn, I could see why they would deem this as child pornography.
Why? There isn't a child involved.

If the artist coerced a child into posing so that he could draw him/her, then we would be able to go after the artist.

In this case someone is being held criminally liable for a drawing. That is absurd. The whole point of child pornography laws is to protect children from manipulation, rape, etc. If no child is ever involved in the making of these cartoons, I'd much rather have the pedophiles have their fill with it than over real pictures; at least this way no one is harmed.
That's a good poem, but unless they get rid of my wife, I'm okay.
Then you're missing the whole point of the poem.

We don't care when governments take away rights from others, but if we allow government to do so, we will eventually find our own rights taken away and no allies left to defend us. That is why we must all defend each other, to retain our rights.
I used to be an engineer. I <3 teh millimeters. And my parents are Indian... who doesn't put milk in their tea? :eek: ;)

Seriously tea without milk does not work.

Just another thing Indians do right. :D

[skunk]

here is the problem is where do you draw the line. Today we have the ablilty to animate and draw people to the point they look real and an expert could not tell the difference between a real person or a fake one.

So we could animate child porn to the point it looks real to both the trained and untrained eye.

They make the law in such a way that there can be no room grey air. It is there to protect the kids from in the gray area and to prevent the defense of well it is animated. Hell we can take real images and degrade them to look animated as well.

SO remove all gray area and just say anything depicting a child in pornographic ways real or unreal is against the law.

In this case they gave the guy a wrist slap but it is a good move to make it Chrystal clear no gray area allowed.Why, why, why? The idea is to protect real children from exploitation. Drawing some arbitrary line is not protecting anyone. If a real child is exploited to make the image, then go ahead and prosecute. Otherwise you have no business in the matter, no matter how realistic the depiction. A large fine is in no way a "slap on the wrist". There are thousands of sites offering pictures of young people of questionable age, the younger the better: what is the difference between a picture of someone who looks like he or she is a child but is older, and someone who looks like he or she is a child but is a construct?

[kavika411]

Hell we can take real images and degrade them to look animated as well.

That's a fair point to make and a good observation. I think my Mac has some free software on it that can take real pictures and animate them. Still, this is a tricky issue.

[iJohnHenry]

Face it skunk, the Religious Right are always moving the goal-posts on this matter.

Even if no children were involved, at any point in the proceedings, they still don't like the (unspoken) idea that some perv is getting his jollies watching a cartoon.

Now we enter the phase of the arguement where one side will say it satiates his "need" for this entertainment, whilst the other will say it encourages further real-life exploration. We need a shrink on-board for that one.

[themoonisdown09]

On the one hand, I can understand not encouraging people with this drive to delve any further into fantasies of pedophilia than they already do in their own minds. On the other hand, where does it end? If there is no victim to be harmed, how is a cartoon child sex scene any different from cartoon extreme violence, or sadism? What about cartoon bestiality?

If we're going to argue that seeing images of this nature makes one more likely to commit sexual crimes against a child, doesn't it also stand to reason that seeing the images on GTA3 will make you more likely to commit auto thefts? Does watching Kill Bill over and over again make you more likely to bury someone alive? Does watching Up In Smoke make you more likely to use marijuana?

I guess this is the way I see it.

Violence:


If you watch movies that contain lots of violence with real people, NOT ILLEGAL.
If you watch cartoons that contain lots of violence, NOT ILLEGAL.


Porn:


If you watch child pornography with real children, IS ILLEGAL.
If you watch cartoon pornography that depicts a child in a sexual act, ILLEGAL/NOT ILLEGAL?


I guess this is just a gray area. I'm not 100% set on either side.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

I guess this is the way I see it.

Violence:


If you watch movies that contain lots of violence with real people, NOT ILLEGAL.
If you watch cartoons that contain lots of violence, NOT ILLEGAL.


Porn:


If you watch child pornography with real children, IS ILLEGAL.
If you watch cartoon pornography that depicts a child in a sexual act, ILLEGAL/NOT ILLEGAL?


I guess this is just a gray area. I'm not 100% set on either side.

But it's possible to make fake violence with real people. It may not be illegal to watch a snuff film, but the process of MAKING one is still illegal, because people are killed. The same thing goes (or should) with Child Porn. No children are harmed when a cartoon is drawn, so it should not be illegal.

[freeny]

My avatar is an image of mickey mouse splat against a wall...
can I be arrested for cruelty to animals?...

I think this ruling sets a bad precedence...

[iJohnHenry]

My avatar is an image of mickey mouse splat against a wall...

Ah, thanks.

I thought it an attempt at a 3-D Rorschach, and I was loath to post my interpretation. :p

[Phil A.]

The issue as I see it is that the definition of pornography in most countries (definitely this is the case in the UK, not sure about Australia) is the depiction of something for the sole purpose of sexual arousal. I'm pretty sure most of these simpsons cartoons were done for humor rather than arousal so that takes them straight out of the Pornography category anyway...

[iJohnHenry]

Back up the bus, Phil.

So you are in effect saying that their intent is to legislate sexual arousal??

Good grief!!

[skunk]

The issue as I see it is that the definition of pornography in most countries (definitely this is the case in the UK, not sure about Australia) is the depiction of something for the sole purpose of sexual arousal. What on earth is wrong with depicting something for the sole purpose of sexual arousal? And how on earth can you tell the artist's intentions?
The whole idea of locking people up for possessing images of any kind is wrong, just as attacks on the freedom of speech are wrong. If children are being exploited, law enforcement should concentrate on the instances of actual exploitation, not the possession of images. This is simply idle prurience reinforced by idle law enforcement.

[Phil A.]

What on earth is wrong with depicting something for the sole purpose of sexual arousal? And how on earth can you tell the artist's intentions?
The whole idea of locking people up for possessing images of any kind is wrong, just as attacks on the freedom of speech are wrong. If children are being exploited, law enforcement should concentrate on the instances of actual exploitation, not the possession of images. This is simply idle prurience reinforced by idle law enforcement.

Back up the bus, Phil.

So you are in effect saying that their intent is to legislate sexual arousal??

Good grief!!


I think you've both completely missed the point I was trying to make, which is pornography has a legal definition and that is material whose sole intention is to cause sexual arousal. I didn't say there was anything wrong with Pornography or sexual arousal or that anyone was trying to legislate sexual arousal.
What I was trying to say is that I doubt very much if the cartoon in question even fulfilled the legal definition of pornography.

[themoonisdown09]

I think you've both completely missed the point I was trying to make, which is pornography has a legal definition and that is material whose sole intention is to cause sexual arousal. I didn't say there was anything wrong with Pornography or sexual arousal or that anyone was trying to legislate sexual arousal.
What I was trying to say is that I doubt very much if the cartoon in question even fulfilled the legal definition of pornography.

I've heard that there are lots of people who get aroused by anime porn (I don't remember what it's really called). Even though it's just a cartoon, it's still called porn.

Who's to say that this guy wasn't getting aroused by the pictures?

[NT1440]

even if thats how he gets his kicks, why is it a crime when its a damn cartoon???

[floyde]

I've heard that there are lots of people who get aroused by anime porn (I don't remember what it's really called). Even though it's just a cartoon, it's still called porn.

Who's to say that this guy wasn't getting aroused by the pictures?

Who's to say that it's anybody's business? I don't think that anyone can choose what arouses him/her. I suppose that like most men you can't help being aroused by large breasts (for example), and have no way of avoiding that. No matter how gross it seems to you, we have no right to punish him for that unless he harms someone with what he does. Just like we don't have a right to punish someone for being aroused by breasts unless he goes and squeezes a pair without asking.

[NT1440]

Who's to say that it's anybody's business? I don't think that anyone can choose what arouses him/her. I suppose that like most men you can't help being aroused by large breasts (for example), and have no way of avoiding that. No matter how gross it seems to you, we have no right to punish him for that unless he harms someone with what he does. Just like we don't have a right to punish someone for being aroused by breasts unless he goes and squeezes a pair without asking.
But does he have to ask himself as well?

[floyde]

But does he have to ask himself as well?

What do you mean?

[themoonisdown09]

But does he have to ask himself as well?

What do you mean?

I'm not sure either. Does he have to ask himself to squeeze breasts?

[NT1440]

failed fat joke attempt :(

[skunk]

failed fat joke attempt :(I'm in the moob for you.

[NT1440]

I'm in the moob for you.

lulz:)

[themoonisdown09]

This is an Australian news article. Did this take place in Australia or what? If so, is the government more strict over there than in the US or UK?

[Compile 'em all]

I've heard that there are lots of people who get aroused by anime porn (I don't remember what it's really called).

It is called Hentai.

[themoonisdown09]

It is called Hentai.

That's it! That's the one.

[skunk]

This is an Australian news article. Did this take place in Australia or what? If so, is the government more strict over there than in the US or UK?Yes, it was Australia, but I don't know if it was a federal or state thing. I seem to recall a few somewhat perverse rulings in various Australian courts, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if the attitude was more local than national.

[themoonisdown09]

Yes, it was Australia, but I don't know if it was a federal or state thing. I seem to recall a few somewhat perverse rulings in various Australian courts, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if the attitude was more local than national.

This is what I was thinking. I've never heard of anything like this come up in the US courts, at least not on the news, that I know of.

[.Andy]

This is what I was thinking. I've never heard of anything like this come up in the US courts, at least not on the news, that I know of.
The US has the protect PROTECT Act of 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

Prohibits computer-generated child pornography when "(B) such visual depiction is a computer image or computer-generated image that is, or appears virtually indistinguishable from that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (as amended by 1466A for Section 2256(8)(B) of title 18, United States Code).
Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition. The law does not state that images of fictional beings who appear to be under 18 engaged in sexual acts that are not deemed to be obscene are rendered illegal in and of their own condition (illustration of sex of fictional minors).
Maximum sentence of 5 years for possession, 10 years for distribution.

[skunk]

Which is a perfect illustration of the law making an utter ass of itself.
The personal ethical standards of those who would finesse definitions of obscenity and pornography are deeply suspect.

[.Andy]

Which is a perfect illustration of the law making an utter ass of itself.
It's similar to the mandatory, australia-wide internet filtering our govt is investigating presently. It's a political free kick because the any opposition is immediately painted as supporting child pornography. No one has the political principles to defend it but we'll all suffer it's effects.

At least there's been a good deal of vocal feedback in our major papers;

Oh my God! You laughed when they killed Kenny?
I am astounded that our legal system can convict someone of child pornography when the "people" involved are cartoon characters ("Internet parody of Simpsons is child porn: judge", December 9). If the point of these laws is to protect children from exploitation and abuse, how is that served by this ruling?

The judge said that, "had the images involved real children, McEwan would have been jailed". Certainly, but surely the point is they were not real children. Will we, the audience, now be prosecuted for watching child abuse when Homer grabs Bart by the neck?

This ruling in effect says people can be liable for crimes against imaginary victims. It would be laughable were the implications not so sinister.

Victor Peroni Bondi

Justice Adams's decision shows more of the attitudes that halt progress in this area by labelling everything child porn, instead of looking at the defendant's intent. Does he get off on child porn? Or is he just another bored kid on the internet looking for some shock humour?

It's time we stopped giving in to mass hysteria over child porn and looked at the issue with logic and common sense.

Kieran Adair St Ives

Lawyers and journalists will be celebrating Justice Adams's decision to grant personhood to fictional and imaginary characters. Will the courts now deal with cases of fictional and imaginary theft and violence? Will South Park's Kenny seek justice in NSW? What a farce.

Eighty years ago Bertrand Russell said "in the practice of the courts" obscenity means "anything that shocks the magistrate". Justice Adams must be very easily shocked.

Patrick Spedding East Bentleigh (Vic)

Justice Adams's judgment has criminalised tens of thousands of Australians, many of them children, and many of them my friends. Who would have thought every one of them was a child pornographer?

Matthew Bennett Queanbeyan

It seems we no longer need to fear reds under the bed. It's the peds under the bed that are coming to

get our children, judging by three news stories.

The first told of a man being charged with publishing child-abuse material in Queensland, due to him republishing a video of a man swinging a baby ("Charge for sharing shaken baby video", December 9); the second of the Simpsons characters depicted in sexual acts being ruled as child pornography; and the third of Wikipedia being blacklisted by a British online child pornography watchdog because of an article that featured a 1976 album cover of a young girl with her genitalia obscured by a teardrop ("Wikipedia added to child pornography blacklist", smh.com.au, December 8).

I'd better find my copy of Nirvana's Nevermind, which features the famous photo of the naked baby in the swimming pool (no obscuring going on here), and burn it before the police come and arrest me, too.

Richard Bolt North Balgowlah

Perhaps Queensland police should consider charging Australia's Funniest Home Videos with child abuse violations. Not only does this show depict images of children slamming into brick walls and being bashed about the head by playground equipment, but it does so under the banner of comedy.

How far has our society sunk that we find children in pain a source of amusement?

Rebecca Cusack Woonona

[mactastic]

I guess this is the way I see it.

Violence:


If you watch movies that contain lots of violence with real people, NOT ILLEGAL.
If you watch cartoons that contain lots of violence, NOT ILLEGAL.


Porn:


If you watch child pornography with real children, IS ILLEGAL.
If you watch cartoon pornography that depicts a child in a sexual act, ILLEGAL/NOT ILLEGAL?


I guess this is just a gray area. I'm not 100% set on either side.
Granted there are differences for *viewers* of said material. I was focusing more on the act of *producing* the material.

Real violence on innocent people would be illegal, just as real pedophelia would be illegal.

Cartoon violence upon people that look real is not illegal -- nor should it be.

[Sun Baked]

Guess he needs to switch from Simpsons porn to some Julia Child porn, those pics of her stuffing a chicken likely would have them go nuts.

[Don't panic]

does this mean that the London 2012 logo is now illegal?

http://www.itemsofpotentialinterest.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/london2012-lisa1.jpg

[XnavxeMiyyep]

does this mean that the London 2012 logo is now illegal?

http://www.itemsofpotentialinterest.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/london2012-lisa1.jpg

Ahaha wow. Lisa is obviously on the right; who's on the left?

[Motley]

Ahaha wow. Lisa is obviously on the right; who's on the left?

Homer, obviously. And that's just sick

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Homer, obviously. And that's just sick

D'oh! How'd I miss that?