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.
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.
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!!
Congratulations, you've discovered Freudian reaction formation.
"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)
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.