Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Australian Judge Rules Simpsons Cartoon Rip-off Is Child Porn

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the now-we-can-all-rest..-hey-wait dept.

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.

9 of 612 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Character ages? by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Informative

    By a suitably vague piece of terminology "a depiction of a person who is or appears to be under 18".

    Based on a "reasonable man" test. So even if you have a pornographic image of an 18 year old who simply looks a little younger than she is, and she's in court to testify as to her age, and the fact that it was consensual, you could still be convicted because she still appears to be under 18.

    And with a strict enough interpretation of the law, she too could be convicted.

  2. Re:Simpsons Movie by El+Lobo · · Score: 5, Informative
    Unfortunately, today, year 2008, this is not unusual. The FBI is opening a case of child porn against a 32-year old album of Scorpions (Virgin Killers). Just because of its cover:

    http://www.exclaim.ca/articles/generalarticlesynopsfullart.aspx?csid1=121&csid2=844&fid1=31286

    --
    It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
  3. Real movies... by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Informative
    So, I'm guessing that movies like Fast Times at Ridgemont High are now illegal to watch in AU? I mean, this has pictures of REAL people having sex and portrayed as under age.

    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.........
    1. Re:Real movies... by mjwx · · Score: 4, Informative

      And there is the fallacy of all child pornography laws. Women hit sexual maturity around 13-15 and according to the law hit mental capacity to give consent at 18. There is an entire genre of porn where women of legal age who look much younger than they are pose nude for men.

      Wrong

      In Australia, women can legally give consent for sex at the age of 16. Laws on weather they can pose for nude photo's and video's (commercial) vary from state to state but the general rule is 18. Women can have a Homosexual relationship at the age of 21. Please stop giving uninformed opinions about Australian laws based on a sound bite you heard on CNN/Fox news.

      Men find the unadulterated idea of women attractive since they can believe they are virgins

      Once again you are generalising. Not all men, in fact I'd wager not the majority of men. I myself prefer Asian women, and sometimes find 18/20 yr old girls look too young for me. Google will come up with a fair few results for any type of pornography you care to look for so this does not support you theory (Try "Asian H cup", many people would be disturbed by that, but then again some wont).

      Also try to remember that laws like Age of Consent and production of pornography are not uniform around the entire world. For example the Age of Consent in Japan is younger than the western world but all their porn must be censored.

      Since the laws were designed to protect children, and there was no children harmed, this merely exemplifies a flaw in the law.

      Prohibition laws designed solely to "protect the children" in this fashion are wrong because they are prohibition laws and all prohibition laws serve to do is drive the real criminals into deeper hiding places and make a lucrative market for the prohibited device. Point in short, we already have a law against children in pornography, this needs to be enforced properly (with due process and thorough investigation) rather than having additional restrictive laws making it easier to get a conviction on circumstantial evidence.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  4. Video Games Next by kenp2002 · · Score: 3, Informative

    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? ]=-
  5. Re:Are people who see child porn in everything... by ductonius · · Score: 4, Informative

    Congratulations, you've discovered Freudian reaction formation.

  6. Re:Simpsons Movie by MikeBabcock · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Children" for the sake of child pornography does not necessarily (depending on your jurisdiction) only apply to pre-pubescent children but includes minors who are very pubescent and sexually available (to their peers).

    Some hot sixteen year old cheerleader takes her clothes off for her sixteen year old boyfriend and nothing illegal has happened. However, if she takes pictures of herself for her boyfriend he may be guilty of possessing child pornography (and her of creating it).

    When you hear cases on the news, remember that we're not always talking about "children" as you may think of them, but rather not of adult age according to the law.

    --
    - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  7. Re:Simpsons Movie by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Informative

    If it is the case I think you are referring to, she was not charged with possession of child porn for having nude pictures of herself. She and her boyfriend took pictures of themselves and sent them to each other. Both were charged with possession of child porn for having pictures of the other and both were charged with transmitting child porn for send the images to each other.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  8. Related news item by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!