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!!
"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)