Slashdot Mirror
Australian Judge Rules Simpsons Cartoon Rip-off Is Child Porn
An anonymous reader was one of several to note a bizarre story in which an Australian judge ruled that drawings can be child porn. In this case, it was knock off drawings of the Simpsons doing naughty things. Good thing they're going to be censoring the Down Undernet soon. Who knows what damage this could cause.
During The Simpson's movie, it showed Bart's junk while he was skateboarding. Does this mean the movie depicts Child Porn?
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
That's why we can't have nice things!!!
I guess under this precedent they'll have to indict and convict Groenig himself and everyone who worked on the recent "The Simpsons" movie for his depiction of Bart skateboarding naked through town?
This sure sounds like one really steep and slippery slope.
This is totally insane. There is a thread over at Whirlpool about this: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1101155 A child has not been abused. The rational behind the child porno laws is to prevent children from being abused... Or so I thought.
This just isn't fair. Lisa never ages...after 20 seasons at 8 years old she has to be fair game by now...who hasn't fantasized about Maggie flying in through your bedroom window naked?
Technically, all the characters are over 18 by now, whether or not they're drawn that way.
rah rah freaking rah...
I really feel that 'if a child wasn't involved' then it is not child porn/something that needs to be stopped.
I further think-- anyone with a contrasting viewpoint leads necassarily to admitting all those against vanilla porn as 'demeaning to women' etc are right.
Now- for those 100% against both types of porn, I'm willing to conceed the possibility-- but I don't think one is permissible (vanilla) where the other is not (cartoonish children) and I also think CGI feature films should be legal as well---
if Playboy and Hustler & Manga & everything else in the XXX world that is legal does not impose on the freedom & impact of others
then owning a depiction of the purple twins blowing bart (I've see this very file briefly from usenet) is not something that endangers children.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
So what is the status of such cartoons in the USA? I've seen plenty of cartoon knock-offs just browsing dirty sites, does that make me a pedophile?
You're nothing; like me.
Without certified birth certificates, I wonder how they determine the legal ages of the "children" in those images?
If "She looked old enough." isn't a valid defense, then "They don't look old enough." cannot be a legally valid position either.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Pokemon? (or whatever the new craze is at the moment)
That the new London 2012 Olympic logo will be banned; it does like like Lisa Simpson doing something rather rude.
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".
This is the same question you can find in discussion about violence in games: will it fuel a natural tendency or will it serve as an escape valve?
Is it time for Australia to just fall off this planet entirely? You can say that it's just the government and the judges, but who elected that government who put in those judges in the first place?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
When a goverment makes laws that can not be enforced, people lose respect for not only the law, but the goverment itself.
This means that any figure, that some judge deems is drawn to represent a person under the age of 21, must be considered juvinile. Therefore, if this drawing is doing something that may be construed as 'adult' in nature, the drawing is now up to the judge's intrepretation as to the age and content of the drawing.
And people are supposed to sagely nod their heads and say "ye wise man, thou knowest my inner-most thoughts and thy punishment is just".
As a note to myself, henceforth all my stick figures will sport mustaches (yes, both male and female stick figures). The beard on the females will indicate that they are post-menopause - just to be safe.
Oh, you innocent!
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
So how long before Anime is child porn down there? Oversexed adolescents are the typical fare so it probably is fodder for these guys. It really sounds similar to the case involving the suicide we had recently, the law just HAD to do something because it was "OBVIOUSLY" wrong to begin with. In other words, law based on the whim of a government employee.
It is a cartoon, no one real was harmed, so now inanimate objects have rights or is that entirely dependent on what they represent? I mean, can you get busted for making a parody where the statue shits on the bird? After all its "naughty bits" might be showing.
Who would have thought the real prudes wouldn't be over zealous religious players and instead dowdy old government goons
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
So, first the UK's ISPs censor the wiki's artwork (and accompanying text!) of that album by Scorpion. Then this? Next thing you know, people wearing t-shirts of Nirvana's Nevermind will be arrested.
Free country my knee!
Res publica non dominetur
Bart: Hey guys, just so you don't hear any wild rumors, an Australian judge has ruled that some drawings of us are considered to be child porn.
Homer: Pfff. That's no reason to block the TV.
THE HONOUR OF THE KNIGHTS - CC Licensed Sci-Fi Novel
if australia can make the internet work without rule 34, then we may all be spared the horror of having to see two at-at's making sweet sweet love. also free speech and where the line is and what resides on which side of said line.
lose != loose
I'm sure that the children who are actually being abused around the world are enormously happy that at least their favourite cartoon characters are safe.
I'm sorry if that's a little too cynical, but don't these people have important things to do?
as if millions of hentai viewers suddenly cried out in terror
It's only a matter of time before this judge goes after Groenig for the murder of Itchy and Scratchy.
... possibly paedophiles themselves but don't want to admit it and so make a big deal out of everything that could possibly turn them on? I'm not trying to be frivolous , but it days past (and probably still) you'd often get violently anti gay men who in the end turned out to be gay themselves but couldn't accept it - that anger was actually self hate. I do wonder these days with a lot of people seeing child porn everywhere whether these people themselves are paedos and are getting turned on by pictures of peoples kids on the beach or whatever and so to try to prove to themselves that they're not perverts they do a 180 and try to ban everything.
Between this and the recent internet filtering trainwreck, not to mention a bunch of other insane government measures that stifle civil rights and censor media, Australia is starting to out-pace the US with government funded oppression of various sorts. At least that is something I can say for the US, we at least still somewhat have a free media, if only just(though that is quickly changing). I really hope you Aussies get those morons out of office before it's too late.
Bart is not depicted in a sexual manner and therefore is not child pornography.
The time, effort and money spent prosecuting someone for what, to any sane person is clearly not a crime would be better spent doing stuff like, you know, protecting actual children from being, you know, actually abused?
As it is, all this does is insult those who've suffered abuse. It makes what has happend to them seem like a joke.
Bloody kangaroo court in a country full of crims.
...I wonder what they'll have to say about Lolicon.
So, now that cartoon people are real (in Australia), where does this end? Can artists be arrested for pictures of toture? How about movies? If an actor kills someone in a film, can they be arrested for murder?
"the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people", said Justice Michael Adams.
The jury of peers, consisting of Popeye, TinTin, Andy Pandy, Bob the Builder, Elmer Fudd and Captain Caveman all agreed. Popeye was heard to say, "I yam what I yam, and if I yain't a person then what yam I? Just a cartoon figure? I thinks not yukyukyukyukyuk".
So, how bad does a drawing have to be before Adams considers that it is not a person? And isn't there something just a little worrying about the sanity of a Justice who believes that a drawing has the same rights as a person?
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
That's why sites like this one should be illegal, because when people see it they begin to imagine it and they want to commit theft. Also, sites like this one give away information that may be used by criminals, so they should be illegal too.
"Justice Adams said the purpose of the legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images are depicted of "real" children.
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"."
Firstly, child pornography is generally produced by people who wish to profit from such material or trade it with others. The belief that non-commercial demand encourages production is based on the assumption that child pornographers produce such images to distribute freely, which clearly contradicts claims that child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry.
The idea that viewing child sex cartoons encourages child pornographers to abuse actual children takes this argument to an even more ridiculous level. If someone can download child sex cartoons in order to get their fix, they are less likely to download real pictures of children. If commercial child pornographers make an increasing amount of money from child sex cartoons, they're more likely to draw cartoons than use real children. If there is an increasing demand for cartoons amongst people who trade child pornography, those who produce images for trading will be more likely to draw cartoons than use real children
There is no mechanism by which viewing child sex cartoons can lead to real children being used for child pornography; this is yet another example of blind moralism being placed above the welfare of children.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
In Latvia, where I live, you can get 3 years in jail for creating, sharing or downloading such thing. Creating includes writing too.
"...the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people."
Those cardboard cutouts of Homer & Marge in the passenger seats? Restricted commuter lanes, here I come.
Oh and the cardboard cutouts of Bart, Lisa and Maggie? Dependents when I file taxes.
The tape that holds them together? That's a medical expense.
I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
...so the Supreme Court can get around to declaring 18 USC 2252A's ban on "virtual" child porn unconstitutional, like they did for the "simulated child porn" provision of the CPPA.
.
Their reasoning in striking down the CPPA from Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (here)is clearly applicable; the policy rationales (there was no harm to an actual minor, no crime that took place in the creation, etc...) almost entirely support striking down a ban on virtual child porn.
The new hero of ToonTown!
He stands for the rights of toons everywhere!
"These Toons are just as human as you and me", he decried, before dropping a 1 tonne anvil on his own head.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
""If the persons were real, such depictions could never be permitted,"Justice Adams said in his judgement."
"the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people."
In other news, the director of 300 has been found guilty of mass murder, and sentenced to execution. ...and the world's gone mad.
thoughtcrime.
Sure, being sexually attracted to children isn't normal, the thoughts themselves are not a crime. While it certainly isn't the most appealing thing to talk about, a way they can get a release is from drawings of pedophilia. Actual child pornography is wrong because children are harmed in the making of it, but with a drawing, nobody is harmed.
Do we really want the possibility of MORE sexually frustrated pedophiles?
If only..
So, what about vampires? Let's say the Simpsons were all bit, and they are ageless blood-suckers?
That means they are timeless, eternal.
Does that mean they are still children? Vampires can be centuries old!
So that 11 year old may look 11, but could be 311, 411, or older!
Looks can be deceiving. Vampires are in our midst! :p
Porch Pals
The first "kinder, gentler" Itchy and Scratchy production.
Forced By Marge's Anti Violence Campaign.
They love! They share!
They share and love and share!
Love, love, love!
Share, share, share!
The Itchy and Scratchy Show!
Itchy and Scratchy are sitting in rocking chairs on a porch with a
table holding a pitcher of lemonade between them. The dialogue is as
follows :
Itchy: Lemonade?
[3-second pause]
Scratchy: Please.
Itchy: I made it just for you.
Scratchy: You are my best friend.
Itchy: Mm, this really hits the spot.
Scratchy: Doesn't it, though.
Itchy: You make really good lemonade, Scratchy.
Scratchy: [embarrassed] Oh, thank you, Itchy.
[superimpose a heart with `The End' on it]
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
You know, the way things are going, he probably would have gotten a bigger fine if they'd just gone after him for trademark violation of cartoon minors.
I doubt that the series of Peanuts-character bondage paintings will be put on show in Oz any time soon.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Indeed! this is certainly a convoluted hyperreality on par with South Park's Imaginationland.
Cheers, Mike
What is the argument against drawings of child porn? That showing the act is as much criminal as the act itself?
Then why are action movies legal that show killing people? Is it less criminal to show how to kill someone than it is how to rape someone? Is it me or is this logic a wee bit flawed? It's legal to show how a person is getting disembowled, with blood and guts flying while a chainsaw rips through their body (yeah, of course special effects, but hell, that's REAL people acting, I'm not even talking some splatter anime/manga here!), but it is illegal to draw something?
Could anyone explain to me the logic behind that? I'm sorry, I don't get it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He was only fined A$3000 and required to behave himself, and no costs were awarded. So there isn't really a heavy hand here.
However, I do think the resources could be far better spent.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Corporations have been granted the rights of living people for ages.
The lolicon page on wikipedia is a good read on this issue. In the US at least, the final word (at the moment) would appear to be US vs Williams. Current status appear to be that it's protected by the first amendment and therefore legal in the US.
When I jerk off with my prosthetic that was added to my body only 3 years ago, am I having sex with a 3 year old?
I don't even have any words to express how insane this is, I'm ashamed to be living in this country.
Nay, I'm ashamed to be living on this planet.
"we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
There have been two big news items about child porn regulations 'gone wild' recently - this, and that business in the UK about images on Wikipedia. It was hard to trump the UK's absurd regulation, but Australia did it!
I'm absolutely against "child pornography" for reasons that I think I share with many others. However, that term is clearly very broadly interpreted.
The reasoning for child porn regulations is pretty reasonable:
Since most people agree with 1., we should prosecute those who produce and sell overtly sexual images of real children. If we just consider 1., I think it's fairly straightforward to delineate between acceptable and unacceptable images; pictures of children taking a bath or running around naked (which children do, and which parents find charming for some reason) were clearly not taken in circumstances where children were exploited.
Point 2 is where the more broad regulations come from. Perhaps there are people who would be sexually aroused at seeing an image of a child bathing, even if the picture has the most innocent of connotations. I would argue that we need to deal with the disturbed individuals in this case, not parents recording their childrens' lives.
With point 2 in hand, regulators can really go nuts - who's to say what will sexually excite an individual? Pictures of fully-clothed children playing, pictures of aspiring dancers in tutus, pictures of children's shoes, where is the line? Is there some critical number of people who have to be sexually excited to make the image illegal? Even if that is solid reasoning (and I don't think it is), how do you measure that?
I think the important thing to keep in mind is point 1 - we know that the creation sexual photographs of (real) children exploits children, so we must prevent it. Point 2 must be treated with care; we shouldn't abridge our liberties to create content just because there are mentally ill people who would use said material as a call to action. We should be devoting our resources to helping such people.
Another example of lazy, ineffectual government.
njord
Clearly they are trying to control people thoughts, not prevent harm to children.
Seriously, net filtering, stupid child porn charges, taking away aboriginal rights, rampant racism, driving around in utes (think El Camino). The nation is pretty stupid.
OK, just the people in power, those who elected them, and those who didn't vote against them.
Obviously this judge has never watched the simpsons or he would understand the fundamental laws of supply and demand.
Lisa: Dad, I don't want to go with this guy, I think he is a child pornographer... his hat has child porn on it, his boots have child porn on them, and I'm pretty sure that check has child porn on it.
Homer: Honey, some one whose child pornography supply is high is less likely to subject you to child pornagraphy than someone whose child pornography supply is low.
from TFA "...the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people"
... Nuremberg trials for Blizzard for the World of Holocaust ...
This judge should be put out of office immediately. And all of the magistrate members as well. You have to be fucking shitting me. 2D drawings of fictional characters are considered "people"? When does the trial against Magneto start? When is Supermans income tax due? That makes no sense whatsoever and there are way too many "woulds" "coulds" and "weres" in the explanation anyhow. So, imaginary things become real if someone "might" think of them as semi-realistic depictions of human beings?
Holy crap
Is it just me or has the entire world gone bonkers lately? I keep reading about these outrageously ridiculous law struggles, governments aren't worth a fuck and nobody seems to care. What is this? I literally don't get it.
Technically since the Simpsons is in its 20th season Bart is about 30, Lisa about 28 and Maggie is about 20. What you really have here is midget porn.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
I guess this dvd is now banned there? Hell, they way things are in the US, I'm surprised they haven't banned it here.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Does that mean xkcd is now considered child pr0n in Australia? Those characters sure look under 18 to me!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
So I give this less then a year before something from a video game is now implicated.
Violence towards children too right? How many RPGs have plucky minors doing battle against the forces of evil? Oh sorry that robot hit the protagonist of the game. Child abuse.
Lets not forget that Frank Herberts DUNE, Little House on the Praire, are both considered in several school as examples of C.P.
Paul was roughly 15 in the story and Laura Ingles Wilder was married as a "minor" by today's standards.
The rise of the "Thought Police" right before our eyes. It's good to see the Pre-Crime units taking care of obviously crime-inducing material before it results in a crime...
Lets not forget that last I heard 50% of possession charges in the US still stem from Traci Lords.
Great...
Now animated content eh? Little Mermaid? Too revealing? Will all animated characters have to have disclaimer signs?
And technically Bart isn't a child. Hell he's at least 20 years old now. But if it is the appearance of youth that makes that determination I have a feeling the whole wife\girlfriend\mistress dressing up as a cheerleader is right out now...
The world is going crazy and I blame too many electronic gadgets. Liek geese getting confused when migrating we're going collectively nuts as a results of too much man-made 'noise'in the world....
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Print image
Mail to judge
Phone media
Phone police
Enjoy
During The Simpson's movie, it showed Bart's junk while he was skateboarding. Does this mean the movie depicts Child Porn?
. . . well, it probably meant that poor Bart got spammed half to death by the Penis Enlargement Brigade.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Lagrangian Interpolation?!
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
So it is OK to advertise child-porn web sites using cartoon figures in the US now. Great, I am sure lots of people will pay for child porn web sites and now we have the ideal advertising vehicle that is perfectly legal.
Right?
Or do you think this might be what they had in mind all along?
I blame England for concentrating their undesirables. They sent the religious nuts to America, the nice guys who were a little weird to Canada, and the criminals and perverts to Australia.
If cartoons can be considered people, and the laws apply to all people, can cartoon makers be charged with murder for killing off a character? Can Warner Bros. be charged with assault and battery? What about Bugs Bunny or Wile E. Coyote? If one produces a cartoon depicting a rape, can one be charged with facilitation?
This is an incredibly stupid ruling.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
So how many bootings will this guy get?
The difference between art and porn is interesting. The True Teen case out of Utah illustrated it clearly. (I'm at work, so I can't Google for links and details. Feel free to fill in, folks.) In that case, the defendant, a photographer with a web site selling sexy but clothed pics of girls, won in a slam-dunk after the evidence showed that he did not produce the material for his own sexual gratification, an essential element of the crime under the law in that state at that time. IOW, he won because he was able to prove his state of mind to the court. (The details are probably unique...Wish I had links.)
Later, on his web site, the photographer published an essay in which he opined that he could take far more revealing photos and sell them for far more money IF he were to sell in book form, rather than online. His point was that online sales of the material at a reasonable price to the masses meant that the knee-jerk reaction of LEA was that it couldn't be art. Art is expensive; his stuff wasn't. Art is a tangible thing that you hang on the wall or put on a bookshelf; his product didn't fit the profile. Art is printed on paper or something flat and doesn't require electricity; his was just light emitting from a monitor.
He is of the opinion that he could put *anything* (almost) in an expensive, coffee-table-style "art" book and sell it without harrassment. However, he feels that even the most innocent content, if sold online, was a risky business.
I agree with him. I have a copy of Larry Clark's beautiful book "Teenage Lust" in which he reproduces several photo and text essays on growing up, running with the gang, getting in trouble, and getting laid. (I hope I've got that title right; it's been years sinice I looked at the book.) If the thing were a web site, Clark would be in jail for life. But I paid ridiculous money to get it at an internationally-famous art exhibition and it's a BOOK instead of just a computer file. No way anyone is going to get prosecuted over that; the few times that bluenoses have famously tried, they've failed. Sally Mann, David Hamilton and others have been harrassed and have re-located or changed their art, but none of the high-profile investigations of serious artists over the last 30 years (that I'm aware of; please tell me if I'm wrong) have actually resulted in anyone being convicted of this crime.
The lesson for pervs? Just brazenly publish your work in high-quality books with high prices. That should be enough to shield you from any charges.
The lesson for the rest of us? The laws in this area have hinged on thoughtcrime for far longer than most people realize. All pictures of kids are illegal if the prosecutor can convince a jury you got some sick jollies from them.
I have no idea how to protect against that. Burn your family albums, I suppose.
Firstly, child pornography is generally produced by people who wish to profit from such material or trade it with others.
You forgot:
While some of #1 could loosely be called "trade" and some of #3 might be prostitution-related, much of these is non-profit and for strictly private viewing. That doesn't make it right and it certainly doesn't make it legal but it does change the dymanics of the "should it always be legal" argument.
Teenagers unintentionally ruining their lives because they take a picture of themselves masturbating then send it to their girlfriends or boyfriends is getting to be a real problem, a problem that can be solved by making these crimes non-sex-crimes and non-felonies, or perhaps even reducing them to a "traffic ticket" offense and seizing the photos as contraband. Believe me, most kids would stopped by the threat of a $100 fine, losing their cell phone, having to do community service, or having their parents find out. Those that wouldn't probably aren't deterred by the threat of a felony conviction and a place on the sex-offender registry.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Suppose my wife and I agree to act out a fantasy that we've just met in school, and she and I are both dressed as if we're 15 or 16, would that constitute child Porn? The argument that we're not really kids won't hold any more, nor will the argument that we're not showing it to anyone else since the court has now decided that even drawings in the privacy of our homes are illegal. This si quite the thin end of the wedge.
At the risk of sounding as if I support this idiotic verdict, I want to take issue with something you said:
That first statement there is a good hypothesis, partly because it is testable and falsifiable. Because, alternatively, it's quite within the realm of imagination that cartoons could be "gateway porn" to harder stuff: there's a sizable number of psychologists who believe in the phenomenon of "sexual addiction," which like other addictions requires increasing stimulus over time to achieve a fix. So (hypothetically) cartoons might at first deliver a fix but then prove inadequate, leading to a demand for actual exploitative images. Consequently there is conceivably a mechanism by which cartoons might lead to exploitation of real children.
This is all hypothesis. I have no idea whether the above scenario is true or not. It would have to be studied---ethically, I hope---to be sure. This is an area where EMPIRICAL SCIENCE can help us.
Last word: This was a bad verdict, regardless. I think freedom of speech is too important to be curtailed even if it does aggravate the problems of (we all agree) a tiny segment of the population.
$META_SIG_JOKE
...only if the "thoughtcrime" marker is in the middle of the scale.
THEN this would be one step from thoughtcrime.
One step BEYOND to be precise.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Oh for the love of... Why don't they just take the extra step and outlaw thinking about child porn. Wohoo, thought police!
Error: No error occurred
So, let's say that Bart was 10 and Lisa was 8 when the Simpsons debuted on the Tracy Ullman show back in 1987 or 88.
Now, if we are going to consider these entities to be equivalent to real people, we must also account for aging. Although the years have treated them well, and they don't look a day older, the fact is that at this point, Bart is 30 and Lisa is 28, minimum. They haven't been minors for a decade or so. Even Maggie, at this point, would be at least 20.
Unless they prosecutors can prove this material was produced while said characters were still underage, then there's no case. /Swiftian Hyperbole
I guess then that several jurisdictions might have a problem with something like this.
Hey, none of the simpsons are minors. They've been around since 1987. That makes them each at least 21 years old.
So, they aren't children, they simply have one of many diseases which causes growth problems.
Does this mean that real adults with such diseases are not permitted to engage in the porn industry? Isn't that discrimination against the sick? Since when is there a height-requirement for adulthood?
"Its still looked at as prevention, but instead of preventing the actual abuse, they want to prevent the thoughts that may lead to the abuse."
A study recently published by the British Psychological Society (Sheldon & Howitt, 2008) found that:
If these researchers are correct, limiting a paedophilic fantasy is more dangerous than attempting to prevent it. In reality, paedophiles will always fantasise about children, even if a TV show featuring children is the only stimuli available.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
Heading down under to file for life insurance on a certain "person"!
The ruling had nothing to do with the facts of the case, the arguments of the lawyers, or the implications of the outcome.
The judge ruled against the defendant so next time he runs for office, his ads can say that he has a proven record of being tough on pedophiles.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
I think there's already a precedent for the age at the time a picture is taken or a person is depicted.
For example, distributing a naked picture taken today of a girl that's 20: not legal
Distributing a naked picture (or portrait depiction, unless it's "art") of the same girl, but taken/drawn when she was 13: not legal, even if she's over 18 now...
why stop here. I've got book after book on my shelf where fictional characters are killed!
More to the point if you really want to draw attention to the 'wtf' currently underway, possibly we should direct our law enforcement officers to your national art gallery. Undoubtedly plenty of naked underage flesh on display there (in fact just has to appear underaged, so not even that much of a stretch) - hey, who's to say you're not aroused by cherubs anyway?
O
|=
|~O--
|_,|`"`|_
Do hope none of you think my stick-people look a bit on the young side - hate to have my front door kicked down and be put on 'a list'
bart get out im piss
exploited by an eager beaver prosecutor.
That's kind of what got them in trouble in the first place, don't you think?
(Though I'm old enough to remember it, I haven't heard that term in a couple of decades...the fact that it came up when discussing nudity made me chuckle)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I challenge anyone to browse for porn for 15 minutes and not run into real, honest-to-goodness child porn on "normal" porn sites. It's extremely common.
But no, these drawings are the real problem.
that a teenager wanking (jerking off) is guilty of child abuse?
If a cartoon character can be considered a 'person' whay can't a fetus.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The answer of course is that medieval Celtic monks were paid by the letter when illuminating manuscripts, so "bhfaighfear" was worth a lot more to them that simply writing "weehur" :P
As a one time student of Scots Gaelic I have always been stunned at just how confusing the orthography for both Gaelic and Irish is. The above word is an excellent example. Both languages have undergone massive changes in pronunciation over time and the results are the incredibly odd spellings.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Doesn't anybody think of the children? On second thought, better not. Although that judge did. Ouch, now my brain hurts...
As dumb as this might seem, the bright side is that hopefully they now start treating Anime as they would Max Hardcore...almost all Anime tentacle death rape sickness includes underage individuals
Since we are dealing with cartoons here this is already a ridiculous issue for the courts to deal with, but for the sake of argument lets look at this from the perspective of the Simpsons being real people.
These people were all technically born on April 19, 1987, on the Tracey Ullman Show, with the debut of their first sketch.
Since the age of real humans are figured from the date of their birth that would put even the youngest character at a minimum age of 21 years old. Well past the age of consent.
This alone should be grounds for appeal I would think. IANAL however, and the basis for this whole case seems a bit out there, so I have no idea what kind of legal position this gentleman is in at this point.
What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
I remember a few years ago (10?) there was an animated cartoon movie scheduled to show at the Toronto International Film Festival. It involved depictions of space aliens having sex. Because the censorship board thought these aliens looked to young to be having sex they banned it. As far as I know, I think they still pixelate animal sex scenes on the Discovery Channel as well (where I live).
History never really seems to change.
I am considering going to live and work in Australia next year. Seems really a very cool place. But recent news about internet censorship and now this today are not very encouraging. Can someone tell me if these are just weird cases or is there a trend here?
Sigh... and to think everyone down here looks at me funny when i bring up the topic of human culling.
It's surely the fault of those monks. I'm convinced that the way they determined how to transliterate using Latin characters was to get piss-drunk and throw darts at a board.
"Who knows what damage this could cause."
Indeed; the mind reels to contemplate what the world would be without pornographic derivatives of post-modern pop animation.
What is this world coming to, and who will think about the little children (you know, the children on Slashdot, who by all accounts are getting pretty desparate for *anything* to wank to)?
Related UnNews item: Wikipedia now hosting child pornography NSFW!!!!
What's funny is there is a picture of what looks to be a nude (except for nylons) prepubescent girl in a provocative position (with the genitals covered by a price tag), and as UnNews and teh Uncyclopedia are actually hosted by Wikipedia, it's true.
In a manner of speaking...
Free Martian Whores!
Huh? This rulling doesn't make any sense.
Maggies and lisa's birth certificate both say they are 19+ now.
This reminds me of the Mike Diana trial, first artist to be charged with obscenity. The whole story makes my blood boil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_diana
Arguably the most natural act of humans. Not only Australians are prude. Quite the tragic story: http://cfcamerica.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=358:woman-charged-with-possession-of-child-pornography-for-taking-photos-of-herself-breastfeeding
I guess Gumby has a serious problem now:
1: He was a kid,
2: He wore no clothes,
3: He has a *very* close relationship with his pet horse, which he named "Pokey".
Next thing you know, some asshat "judge" will be outlawing Gumby stuff, telling us that Gumby memorabilia supported child porn because his enemies, the "Blockheads" were really trying to kidnap him so they could ship him to a child porn studio in Malaysia.....
Ironically, the most "child-porn safe" cartoon character has to be South Park's Kenny, since he is so bundled up in snow gear, all you can see are his eyes.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
I wonder how they would think of the movies
* Pretty Baby
* Not all oranges are the only fruit
Those sho a bit of young girls in questionable scenes, yet they are rather artistic and make the story line artistic.
* Lolita?
No nudity, but quite suggestive. Again, the story lines are not meant to around but can be found arousing by some.
Why aren't they banning Amazon or Netflix from selling/renting those movies?
With cartoons, no actual child was involved and no child harmed.
What is with governments these days trying to protect us from ourselves and every conceivable possible evil when humanity has done just fine for thousands of years?
Granted, exploitation should be punishable. But not every act of child nudity is an exploitation. Just visit a naturalist beach. I don't see the government shutting them down just because children might be nude there? Family nudity? While I don't practice it I have many (foreign non-American) friends that do and I've been at their house many times.
While I have at times found their frank openness about nudity and even young kids so willingly fondling themselves to be a bit discomforting at first, for someone who was raised that you don't mention, think, or show your pee-pee/toodles ever because it is a sin, sex is a sin, touching your self is a sin, porn is a sin, flirting is a sin, crap, I later then found it refreshing that someone doesn't fee artificial inhibitions and openly expresses or allows it, without flaunting it or being perverted.
Here in America, we are still very much tied to our puritan heritage and I think we should just get over it. Sex happens. Nudity is natural (we're born that way), so why be so shameful about it?
Thanks,
Leabre
Since taking photos of naked children is apparently not a criminal act in Australia as long as its "art": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Henson#Images_seized ...its hard to imagine drawing non-real children being a criminal act. Perhaps the "perpetrators" forgot to use the sneaky "art" defense.
Amazingly enough, the Simpsons was first aired on April 19, 1987. That makes all of major characters over the age of 21.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Haha, those crazy Australians, what will they do next! Thank God nothing like that would ever happen in the good old U.S. of A.!
Brought to you by AC with a dick so small you need a microscope to see it.
You realize how pathetic your racist crap is right?
...but I hope this gets seen.
:)
This is what happens when you let the inmates of a penal colony start their own country.
I haven't looked at this case in detail, but most judges are very strict about interpreting the law as accurately as possible, keeping in mind precedents that have been set in the past with a goal to stay as consistent as possible. That's their job, after all.
It's possible that the judge is at some kind of fault here, but I'd be tempted to look at what the law actually says about how to define pictures of children, and what other judges have said in the past, before assuming this.
... that if I was to make even the crudest of pencil drawings of "two kids having sex" (e.g. Mangu's brilliant post above), that I would be guilty of producing and possessing child pornography? Oh and if I dropped said drawing on the street, I guess you could add "distribution" to that list?
I have no such inclinations, but if I did, wouldn't it be an artistic expression?? I'm still in disbelief at the ruling, and it's getting a bit crazy down here, so I'm posting AC for that reason.
I fear the people who proposed, and those who support this law... more than I fear child predators. I fear they will harm more children (who will doubtless be tortured with prosecution for natural* acts) than child predators. I feel this; it's not academic. Does that make me illegal?
I'm starting to wonder if I'm allowed to think for myself anymore. :(
Scary times.
* scientific definition, not legal definition.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
I'm 30 and I swear I saw those cartoons drawn nearly 10 years ago, seriously! and I'm in Australia to boot.
They were like one of the first images you see on the internet back in the day, it's like in the 'internet starter pack' includes goatse, simpsons porn, AYB and a black cat pouncing on a baby from behind a tree.
The pictures are so old the statute of limitation (is that the term?) should be over.
I am becoming more and more ashamed to be an Australian lately - fuck these idiot laws and stupid 'FOR THE CHILDREN' actions.
better ban "Miss teacher bangs a boy" episode of Southpark from free to air SBS reruns too! (an excellent one at that)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_teacher_bangs_a_boy
Someone help me out.... I got this on my computer. I don't know if I should delete it, i figure they are legal but just maybe....
Closest I've seen to actual child porn is stuff like the the Virgin Killer cover and that's not child porn.
Though I must admit that I've probably seen things that are technically 'child porn' i.e. sexualised amateur (usually self-taken) pictures of teenage girls. While they look young they do not look like children. Certainly they do not look prepubescent which would qualify as actual child porn.
Oh, that they are, but I think that:
1. Bad and vague laws are just that: bad laws. If something's vague enough to cover a distorted cartoon, what else does it (perhaps unintentionally) cover? Bart is clearly depicted as a kid, but what about some hentai drawings? Do they _look_ definitely over 18 or could it look to a judge like one of them could be 15?
In fact, most cartoons as a whole have the proportions of children. Adults have a torso of about 3x the head size, kids have a larger head than that in proportion to their body. Almost any cartoon has a head 1/2 the size of the torso or more, to make room for facial features. So if you have any cartoon, animation film, or game where a character is shown undressed or in lingerie or a few other situations, you could be a paedophile because they have the proportions of a child.
What about the gnomes in WoW, which have the proportions of 2 year olds? If someone has a bank character running around in their underwear (it's not like they actually need more), is it paedophilia? Well, that character certainly looks like a 2 year old in a binkini. Seems suspicious to me.
2. The increasingly used excuse that they'll surely know when and against whom to apply it, and surely will refrain from prosecuting those who just saw a naked gnome, worries me even more.
That's not how the rule of the law was supposed to work. The rule of the law, ideally, means that you can know exactly what you're allowed to do and exactly what not, and that justice is applied the same to everyone. We already had thousands of years where the king applied arbitrary justice, and laws applied to some people but not to others. It wasn't that great. People died (literally) to get the ruling classes to accept the rule of the law.
Laws which are vague enough to apply to half the population, but probably they'll be wise enough to see that they don't apply to _you_, that's a return to the bad old days of arbitrary justice. You have a law which they can use against anyone they don't like.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If we are to consider fictional children as real because of they might induce thoughts of child porn then we must all gather up our torches, march on the local library and burn all the copies of Romeo and Juliet which clearly has underage teenagers engaging in sexual acts and murder!
When is gh ever pronounced F at the beginning of a word?
Here's a brief excerpt from The Economist magazine, 14 August 2008 (online at http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11920829 but may require login).
You write potato, I write ghoughpteighbteau
...
The rules need updating, not scrapping
GHOTI and tchoghs may not immediately strike readers as staples of the British diet; and even those most enamoured of written English's idiosyncrasies may wince at this tendentious rendering of "fish and chips". Yet the spelling, easily derived from other words*, highlights the shortcomings of English orthography.
*Fish: gh as in tough, o as in women, ti as in nation (courtesy of GB Shaw). Chips: tch as in match, o as in women, gh as in hiccough.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
For some reason I'm turned on by naked forty to fifty year old women wearing pigtails and hot red lipstick, sucking on lollipops. I like em to wear cheerleader skirts with no undies and crawl on all fours while they are at it...
HA! HA!
maybe when they get sent to jail for their crimes they will learn all about sexual deviancy and it's impact on youth as they get butt raped day after day. way to go justice system. punish them by getting them jail raped!
I believe the reasoning behind this law is that if someone makes real child porn and then digitally alters it to look cartoony (a la A Scanner Darkly) it can be very difficiult to tell if it involves children.
However, this case does not, so I fail to see what the crime was.