An appeal judge in Australia has ruled that an animation depicting well-known cartoon characters engaging in sexual acts is child pornography.
The internet cartoon featured characters from the Simpsons TV series. The central issue in the case was whether a cartoon character could depict a real person.
Judge Michael Adams decided that it could, and found a man from Sydney guilty of possessing child pornography on his computer…
Justice Michael Adams said the purpose of anti-child pornography legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of “real” children were depicted…
He ruled that the animated cartoon could “fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children,” and therefore upheld the conviction for child pornography.
Absurd.
That truly is absurd.
You’d think the investigation would have noted the directory in which that file was probably placed. I’m going to guess it wasn’t as much about the content of the drawing, but that the drawing was not authentic – more of a copyright case, which could almost be seen as logical.
I just can’t believe how stupid the courts have been in dealing with new media cases. (are pictures even considered new media?)
Sounds like the beginning of thought crimes to me.
And don’t the right wing nuts hold up Australia as some example of all that is good?
The good Judge is just plain wrong. Although, there is that small possibility he got an erection looking at the cartoon.
How can characters that have been on TV for 20 years conceivably be children at this point? I know they’re still in school, but that just makes them slow and short…
This guy is a judge? Is he mentally competent to be one? Eat my shorts, judge.
#5
He’s as competent as those who hang carved pieces of the ten commandments in his office despite a ban on religious ornaments in government buildings.
It’s a difficult concept to understand and accept, but photographs of children engaging in sex are not real children either.
RBG
What’s unfortunate is that almost every time I’m on a porn site I see banner ads for Family and The Simpsons porn. Meg/Peter, Bart/Lisa, Lisa/Homer etc.
Does that make me a criminal?
Australia has some pretty screwy laws. For example there is not equivalent of an R-rating for videogames. If a game would get an M rating here in the USA it might get banned in Australia because the government doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge the fact that adults play games and some games are meant for adults to play and not for children to play.
#9 – jccalhoun
>>adults play games and some games are meant for
>>adults to play and not for children to play.
I’m always amazed at the number of purported “grown-ups” who spend a seemingly inordinate amount of time playing games that were intended for juveniles. Even if you put tits, ass, and profanity into a video game, it’s still a kiddy pastime. Kind of like tiddlywinks, but with x-rated pictures on the winks.
[And pictures of James Hill on the tiddlies. – ed.]
Donald Duck’s nephews without pants…
The next thing to ban?
friggen planet is way too sexually repressed
as it is.. calling porn cartoons child-porn is just more “redefining” of words to suite the agenda
of the day.
-s
Where is the link to the source?
“pron”???
#11 – AW
>>but an adult who plays World of Warcraft once in a
>>while must just be interested because they want to
>>hot chat with kids.
Once in a while is OK. I played Halo 2, once. But with some people it becomes an obsession.
As to the “hot chat”, I never really though about that. Although I guess those online games that you wear headphones for would be fertile hunting grounds for pervs; in addition to the 23098435098345098272 underage kids who play that stuff, there are bound to be some salivating adults.
Where’s this Simpson’s pron?
Simpsons? What about that Scooby-Doo? He does the whole cast and has Daphne screaming for more tongue! Then there’s Fred Flintstone but wait Barney’s the one that’s hung like a dinosaur. But you ain’t seen nothing till you seen Dagwood, Blondie has the best body, no wonder he has wood.
# 17 Jack Sofolot
“Where’s this Simpson’s pron?”
I have no idea, but in the mean time here’s something from the Looney Tunes (So not safe for work you’ll get fired.)
http://tinyurl.com/6nxtz3
Sounds reasonable, given the court cases that said growing food on your own land can be regulated as interstate commerce.
I am undecided wether to agree with the judge or not. Child porn is viewed in the UK as porn with a person who looks to be under 18 years old, regardless of the actual age of the person. This has been tried in court.
A case was upheld of a man who had a picture of a young boy in swimming trunks being classed as pornographic because the man admitted getting sexual gratification from it.
There was also a case upheld regarding child hentai (explicit animated pictures / film of children) where the defendant was found guilty.
These have all happened in the UK already.
Why does everything think this absurd?
It is very easy to understand, and IMO very easy to support. The judge is interpreting the law (as judges are required to do) to mean that paedophilia is illegal.
Most commenters here seem to be interpreting the law as meaning abusing children is illegal, and that is a fine interpretation. This judge is going a little further to say that the crime is not abusing children, but facilitating or encouraging the desire to abuse children.
Who here is going to argue that the desire to abuse children is something that should be facilitated or encouraged? Anyone? Will anyone argue that supporting or encouraging paedophilia is a good thing?
… I’m going to assume there are very few takers for that one, and on that assumption I ask: If you agree that supporting or encouraging paedophilia is a bad thing for our society, then why do you complain when a judge punishes someone for doing exactly that?
#23, bobu,
The judge is interpreting the law (as judges are required to do) to mean that paedophilia is illegal.
Nope. That was already established and nothing to do with the case. The case concers the fact of whether the material possessed is pornographic.
This judge is going a little further to say that the crime is not abusing children, but facilitating or encouraging the desire to abuse children.
Nope. The Judge is ruling on a point of fact, whether or not a cartoon is pornographic.
Who here is going to argue that the desire to abuse children is something that should be facilitated or encouraged?
Good question. Abuse of any kind is wrong. So wrong in fact that we call it abuse. It happens to people of all ages and for all reasons. If you need more comment then be prepared to define “abuse children”.
Will anyone argue that supporting or encouraging paedophilia is a good thing?
Again, you will need a better definition. What is child rape in one location is marrying material somewhere else. Here in the US, an 18 yr old can be labeled as a pedophile for consensual sex with a 17 yr old.
If you agree that supporting or encouraging paedophilia is a bad thing for our society, then why do you complain when a judge punishes someone for doing exactly that?
Wrong tact there buddy. You made an assumption that was incorrect and ran with it. The charge was possession of pornographic material. That material being cartoon characters on his computer. According to the brief report, the Judge said the material could
“fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children,” .
Unfortunately, it isn’t reported as how he came to that conclusion or upon what he based his decision on. But …
Justice Michael Adams concluding a fictional cartoon character is a “person” within the meaning of Commonwealth and NSW laws.
speaks a lot about either Australian law or the Judges interpretation of those laws.
I find that the MOSt dirty minds I notice, are on those that THINK they are the MOST PURE..
sooooooooo if we superinpose the judge into this image, that would make him a particpant in child porn… hhhmmmm
…when the real issue was inappropriate copyright infringement of Groening’s characters…
These are the same laws reported in this blog that get grandma’s arrested for birthday pics of kiddies being given a bath in the kitchen sink.
And if you think those pictures are cute and legal then is there any reason at all why those pictures should be traded among perverts on the internet.
The connection here is that such internet trading will encourage more grandmothers to take kiddie pictures.
Up skirt photo’s from 300 feet away? Kiddie in sink photo’s? Barts weiner is a french fry?===I can argue the porno and abuse line, I can’t in reality hook it to actual abuse of kiddies. Not that I care one way or the other.
#24 Mr. Fusion
First, I am not bobu. Please read more carefully.
Second, I think your argument about ‘what is child rape in one location is marrying material in another’ is straw man, irrelevant to the argument at hand. This is not about 17-year-old people, but about an image representing an undisputed child in a sexual manner.
The argument about images of one’s grandchildren undressed is also a straw man (or should be). The judge has discretion to decide what is pornographic, and that decision has to take into account the context. A picture on a grandmother’s mantle is in a very different contect to the same picture beside many others on the hard disk of a man with no relation to the child. The same picture can be pron in one context and entirely innocent in the other.
Basically, we are looking at two different questions here. I’m looking at a very broad question of what society considers good for itself, while you are looking at a very narrow question of the words in this judgement.
I don’t think you are wrong to do that, but I think I’m right to say ‘good job’ to the judge. In his judgement the defendant was a paedophile (or supporting paedophilia) and this is not something that we want to allow, therefore he is punished.
This is probably more of a case of bootleg vs. legit product. Even if it weren’t of a recognizable cartoon character, it would probably be declared illegal, for not being a copyrighted product of some major studio or publisher. If Playboy or Penthouse were behind it, it would probably be treated different. But because some Joe average cranked it out, there’s no army of corporate lawyers to defend it.
Though I’ve never seen any actual animated porn myself, it wouldn’t surprise me that it exists. I’ve accidentally come across enough still frame depictions of Disney, Hanna Barbara, and FOX cartoon characters, doing whatever turned their artists on. I’m not a fan of them, but I recognize the freedom of expression, in the context of adult sites content. It’s not like it’s going out over Youtube, in a non-adult classified way. And if it’s not being charged for, it’s not violating FOX’s copyright on its characters. But of course the governments have been tainted by so much corporate power, that they now see any form of copyrighted material as a violation. And yet, realizing it’s not too likely to be won in court, they chose to relabel it a child pornography case. Because they know it’s a better hot button topic with the public, than a copyright dispute. You can bet FOX Tv was behind this case.
A fantasy is a fantasy, reality is reality even children understand the difference. As people understand this difference it’s obvious to most that exploring a dark fantasy is not the same as exploring a dark reality. One is motivated by curiosity the other is violence. Violent people always find justifications to their crimes, but the key issue is they’re violent, cartoons are not the cause, genetics is.
Erotic / perverted cartoons are nothing new. Japan has a whole industry mounted on what they call Ecchi or Hentai. In these cartoons they explore anything and everything – rape, bestiality, incest, monsters, paedophilia, bondage, SM, etc etc
What’s with the link??
Not Found
The requested URL /blog/Australia, cartoon, child porn, Simpsons, Sydney was not found on this server.
Apache/2.2.10 (Fedora) Server at http://www.dvorak.org Port 80