Australian man prosecuted for simpsons porn.

[Dr Mindbender]

I wasnt sure where to put this, but even thought its over a year old i thought this was an interesting extension to the paedophile debate. Should owning or creating cartoon child porn be a reprimandable offence?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/simpsons-cartoon-ripoff-is-child-porn-judge/2008/12/08/1228584795005.html



Simpsons cartoon rip-off is child porn: judge
Bellinda Kontominas
December 8, 2008



A Supreme Court judge has ruled that an internet cartoon, in which child characters resembling those from The Simpsons engage in sexual acts, is child pornography.
In a landmark finding, Justice Michael Adams today upheld a magistrate's decision convicting a man of possessing child pornography after the cartoons - depicting characters modelled on Bart, Lisa and Maggie engaging in sex acts - were found on his computer.
The main issue of the case was whether a fictional cartoon character could "depict" a "person" under law.
Alan John McEwan had been convicted in the Parramatta Local Court of possessing child pornography and of using a carriage service to access child pornography material, the latter of which has a maximum penalty of 10 years' jail.
The male figures in the cartoons had what appeared to be human genitalia, as did the mother and the girl depicted in the cartoons.
The magistrate said that, had the images involved real children, McEwan would have been jailed.
However, he was fined $3000 and required to enter into a two-year good behaviour bond in respect to each of the charges.
McEwan appealed against the decision, arguing that fictional cartoon characters could not be considered people as they "plainly and deliberately" departed from the human form.
"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."
But Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate. He found that, while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.
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".
He dismissed the appeal and ordered each party to pay its own costs as it was "the first case dealing with [this] difficult issue".

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

People, including judges, tend to be totally irrational when discussing child pornography. This is what I would say:

1. Does look at the porn encourage harm to children? I don't think it does, but I'd be open to scientific evidence suggesting the contrary. To me, it seems likely that pedophiles already seek out that type of pornography - not that pornography makes people pedophiles.

2. Is everyone who looks at this pornography a pedophile? How likely is it that they are? If 90% of people who look at child pornography are a threat to society, maybe you could arrest them at the expense of 10%. It's probably not an advisable precedent, though.

So unless someone gives me hard data, I have to defend cartoon pornography in all its forms.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

This man is a threat to spiky-haired bright yellow children everywhere! Seriously, although the liberties of Simpsons fetishists is hardly my #1 concern, I do think it's worrying to establish a legal precedent that thinking or imagining the wrong things should be a prosecutable offence even if no real people are actually harmed. The laws that are passed against paedos, Islamists and animal liberation activists today will be used against all of us tomorrow.

[The Red Next Door]

I really do not like loli and shota but it not like they are actually real children, they are wasting time on people who draw cartoon kiddy porn instead putting effort to stop the real thing that actually harm real children. I wouldn't waste my time fighting against a drawing while an actually human being is being harm.

[Dr Mindbender]

my call is that this is a victimless phenomenon so it shouldnt be punished. People who enjoy watching this material arent even 'potential paedophiles'.

Regardless of the laughability of the judges decision and the circumstances surrounding the case its a worrying indictment about the state of the relationship between the law and the freedom of expression of sexual preferences.

["Red Scum"]

my call is that this is a victimless phenomenon so it shouldnt be punished. People who enjoy watching this material arent even 'potential paedophiles'.


We are all potential paedophiles.

[Dr Mindbender]

We are all potential paedophiles.

some more than others perhaps.

[Sasha]

if anything i presume that legal advanced virtual sex with people/things that are impossible/unwanted IRL will put an significant stop to those things IRL.
so yeah, development of this features (albeit yuckie and gross) should not be illegalised but encouraged as it would do a fair bit to stop things like children and animal abuse, celeberty stalking etc etc.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

It is a difficult and sensitive issue, but the law in this case has been ridiculous. For a start, nobody was harmed - and that's the most important thing. Secondly, the guy who made it probably did so as a joke and the thought of it being child pornography didn't even cross his mind. I don't even think the Simpsons are meant to be human!

The judge spoke of it fuelling demand for material that involves the abuse of children, but I haven't seen any scientific evidence to support his claim that it has an adverse effect on people. I think the chances of someone watching it and then abusing children are very, very slim. Not only that, the demand is either there or it isn't - surely it can't be ''fuelled''?

[whore]

visit the following webpage:
encyclopediadramatica.com/Simpsons
all that did are now guilty of having child porn on your computer, due to the fact that your web browser caches images.

filthy peodophile.

in other words: this is bullshit. i thought it at the time, and i still do. if nothing else, all these characters are well over 21 now!

[Guerrilla22]

Someone was recently arrested in the US for possession of comics from Japan depicting children having sex. I don't know about the laws in Australia but here anythign depicting children in a sexual nature, including artwork is illegal.

[Dr Mindbender]

Someone was recently arrested in the US for possession of comics from Japan depicting children having sex. I don't know about the laws in Australia but here anythign depicting children in a sexual nature, including artwork is illegal.

From what i've seen on TV the authorities in Australia are as sickenly reactionary as the US, especially after that bastard Howard came to power so i'd like to say i'm surprised at this.

[jake williams]

if anything i presume that legal advanced virtual sex with people/things that are impossible/unwanted IRL will put an significant stop to those things IRL.
so yeah, development of this features (albeit yuckie and gross) should not be illegalised but encouraged as it would do a fair bit to stop things like children and animal abuse, celeberty stalking etc etc.
I'm not sure if I'd quite say that, but along the general principle - what we should be interested in, and what the moral panickers claim they are interested in, is preventing to the extent reasonably possible harm done to people, in this instance children.

And I think to do so we need to be able to talk really seriously about what the situation is and how it makes sense to do so. And the moral panic I think prevents that.

I don't think we know enough about pedophilia, including the relationship between a real and persistent sexual attraction to children and the actual practice of sexually abusing children, to make very firm claims about what we should do. I think at this point we really need an open discussion. I think the borderline criminalization of the thought is profoundly antithetical to such an inquiry, and thus opposed to preventing harm to children.

[Sasha]

like with homosexuality and prostitution prohibtion of other things sexual will never work. i think that virtual kiddieporn (and again i stress, although moraly very dodgy) is an huge improvent on real kiddieporn.

[Yazman]

From what i've seen on TV the authorities in Australia are as sickenly reactionary as the US, especially after that bastard Howard came to power so i'd like to say i'm surprised at this.

They are much more reactionary than the US when it comes to domestic policy. MUCH more reactionary. The US doesn't even come close.

[OCMO]

This situation regarding cartoonish child porn needs to be studied. I understand both point of view but i'm here just to say that The Simpsons are clearly meant to be humans. Just look at the guests stars, the places they refer, their behaviours, they live on Earth! If I draw an human, the head and arms are going to be erroneous, but the intention to be human is there. Using the argument that they're not humans because they are yellow is bs. I guess Van Gogh wasn't human either because the skin colors and texture of his self-portrait isn't human.:rolleyes:

[whore]

are child porn laws meant to protect children, or cartoon characters taht are over 20 years old?

or, are they meant ot be just a bunch of bullshit like a lot of the other laws on the books. used against people or types of people that just aren't 'approved of', even if they do ntohing actually wrong.

[Intelligitimate]

How did they 'catch' him? Seems like some sort of bogus charge because they couldn't make something else more serious stick.

[Chambered Word]

This situation regarding cartoonish child porn needs to be studied. I understand both point of view but i'm here just to say that The Simpsons are clearly meant to be humans. Just look at the guests stars, the places they refer, their behaviours, they live on Earth! If I draw an human, the head and arms are going to be erroneous, but the intention to be human is there. Using the argument that they're not humans because they are yellow is bs. I guess Van Gogh wasn't human either because the skin colors and texture of his self-portrait isn't human.:rolleyes:

Stupid analogy since Van Gogh was indeed a real person. The Simpsons are not. :rolleyes:

[Dr Mindbender]

This situation regarding cartoonish child porn needs to be studied. I understand both point of view but i'm here just to say that The Simpsons are clearly meant to be humans. Just look at the guests stars, the places they refer, their behaviours, they live on Earth! If I draw an human, the head and arms are going to be erroneous, but the intention to be human is there. Using the argument that they're not humans because they are yellow is bs. I guess Van Gogh wasn't human either because the skin colors and texture of his self-portrait isn't human.:rolleyes:
I fear any government that would lock people up for wanking over Lisa Simpson.

Today simpsons hentai, tomorrow forgetting to wash your hands after going to the toilet.

[OCMO]

Were did I said they should lock people up because of this?

Comrade Lewis-And how do you know Matt Groening didn't based the family on a real one?

[Chambered Word]

Today simpsons hentai, tomorrow forgetting to wash your hands after going to the toilet.

That shit's serious business, dude. You could give people germs.



Comrade Lewis-And how do you know Matt Groening didn't based the family on a real one?

It's generally assumed that he didn't. Even if they were somehow vaguely 'based' on a real family, they did not actually represent a family in real life. So your analogy is fallacious.

[Dr Mindbender]

Comrade Lewis-And how do you know Matt Groening didn't based the family on a real one?

I very much doubt that the fans of simpsons porn care if this is the inspiration for the original source material.

Getting sexual excitement from yellow shapes animated to resemble people is very different to getting sexual excitement from children.

*insert that famous Mrs Lovejoy quote*

[OCMO]

Comrade Lewis- You're right, it's not the same, a better example should be used in my inicial argumentation.

I don't know the specifications in this case, but if the guy possesed several pictures or movies of simpsons porn involving mostly simpsons minors, at least it should be done a psychological test to see if he could be a pedo.

I believe that a pedophile gets exciment from physical and psychological features of a children. Since children of the simpsons have human behaviour and are clearly smaller than the simpson adults, someone who is obssessed with simpsons child porn has a high chance to be a pedo, imo.

[HamishFTW]

someone who is obssessed with simpsons child porn has a high chance to be a pedo, imo.

They may just find it very, very funny

[Chambered Word]

Comrade Lewis- You're right, it's not the same, a better example should be used in my inicial argumentation.

I don't know the specifications in this case, but if the guy possesed several pictures or movies of simpsons porn involving mostly simpsons minors, at least it should be done a psychological test to see if he could be a pedo.

I believe that a pedophile gets exciment from physical and psychological features of a children. Since children of the simpsons have human behaviour and are clearly smaller than the simpson adults, someone who is obssessed with simpsons child porn has a high chance to be a pedo, imo.

Perhaps. My opinion is that it's a good alternative to abusing children and if he wants to have fun with his willy while looking at that, who am I to judge? :lol:

[Lodestar]

I really do not like loli and shota but it not like they are actually real children, they are wasting time on people who draw cartoon kiddy porn instead putting effort to stop the real thing that actually harm real children. I wouldn't waste my time fighting against a drawing while an actually human being is being harm.

The problem here is that the act it itself finds vindication and support by being depicted. Do the sexual acts depicted depict scenes of sexual exploitation, particularly of minors, and if so, does it depict them as the horrific acts of social and moral deviance that they are, or does it glorify them?

If it is glorified, this individual should have action taken against him, in the same way that I would hope action would be taken against a fascist who makes a fictional work describing how, ideally, he hopes all ethnically "undesirable" individuals are to be exterminated (a la William Pierce's Turner Diaries...). Granted, this is a depiction of cartoon characters engaging in various lewd acts, but the attitude and circumstance in which they are depicted is what is important. If an idea is communicated by this artwork that will encourage a positive perception of pedophilia, it should be censored.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem here is that the act it itself finds vindication and support by being depicted. Do the sexual acts depicted depict scenes of sexual exploitation, particularly of minors, and if so, does it depict them as the horrific acts of social and moral deviance that they are, or does it glorify them?

Why should it matter? As long as real human beings aren't being harmed, what exactly is the problem?


If it is glorified, this individual should have action taken against him, in the same way that I would hope action would be taken against a fascist who makes a fictional work describing how, ideally, he hopes all ethnically "undesirable" individuals are to be exterminated (a la William Pierce's Turner Diaries...).

You would want action taken against someone for writing something? Not for actually bringing mental and/or physical distress upon someone else, but for entertaining certain thoughts that were not to your liking and committing them to paper or some other medium?

What else do you think should be banned, oh Dear Leader? :rolleyes:


Granted, this is a depiction of cartoon characters engaging in various lewd acts, but the attitude and circumstance in which they are depicted is what is important. If an idea is communicated by this artwork that will encourage a positive perception of pedophilia, it should be censored.

Does the concept of "fiction" escape you?