Simpsons Cartoon Porn Deemed "Child Pornography"

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by XnavxeMiyyep, Dec 8, 2008.

  1. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #1
  2. themoonisdown09 macrumors 601

    themoonisdown09

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #2
    Although I've never been into cartoon porn, I could see why they would deem this as child pornography.
     
  3. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #3
    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.
     
  4. themoonisdown09 macrumors 601

    themoonisdown09

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #4
    Just because no real children were depicted in the pictures, doesn't mean it can't be child porn.
     
  5. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #5
    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.
     
  6. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #6
    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.

    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.
     
  7. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #7

    If I draw a picture of a dead child am I a child murderer?
     
  8. themoonisdown09 macrumors 601

    themoonisdown09

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #8
    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.

    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.
     
  9. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
  10. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #10
    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.
     
  11. themoonisdown09 macrumors 601

    themoonisdown09

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #11
    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.
     
  12. benthewraith macrumors 68040

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #12
    I'm kind of torn between this. I can understand both sides.
     
  13. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #13
    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.

    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.
     
  14. themoonisdown09 macrumors 601

    themoonisdown09

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #14
    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.

     
  15. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #15
    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 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.
     
  16. floyde macrumors 6502a

    floyde

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Monterrey, México
    #16
    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?
     
  17. themoonisdown09 macrumors 601

    themoonisdown09

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #17
    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.
     
  18. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #18
    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!
     
  19. themoonisdown09 macrumors 601

    themoonisdown09

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #19
    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.
     
  20. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #20
    There was actually a controversy about it, but luckily it was generally ignored, as this was clearly nonsexual nudity.
     
  21. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #21
    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.
     
  22. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #22
    Right, you might be tempted to go out and do the real thing. :rolleyes:

    Yep. Next step, eating dead, burnt bodies. :p
     
  23. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #23
    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.
     
  24. BoyBach macrumors 68040

    BoyBach

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #24

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

    It's an oldie but a goodie!
     
  25. floyde macrumors 6502a

    floyde

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Monterrey, México
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page