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.
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.
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
That the new London 2012 Olympic logo will be banned; it does like like Lisa Simpson doing something rather rude.
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.
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?
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.
Now they need to ban violent films to prevent the thoughts that lead to murder. Then ban mention of the banning of violent films to prevent the thoughts that lead to thoughts that lead to murder. Then create the system from Minority Report where they catch criminals before the crime is committed. Then borrow from 1984 and arrest based on thought crimes.
Oh, hang on, that last one is what they're already doing!
"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 -----------------------------------
"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
"...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
thoughtcrime.
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.
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
He could have been fined A$0.01 and it would still be a very bad thing.
It's the precedent in this case and not the punishment.
(And they say CHILDREN can't tell fantasy from reality. Apparently we now allow judges with a child-like intelligence.)
Is that guy serial? If that judge ever sees a program called Southpark, Trey and Matt are in trouble. I recon that Trey is too good looking to survive in prison. Matt seems more geeky and his sense of humour might save him.
Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
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.
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.
It's in the southern hemisphere - did you try right-clicking?
Dark Reflection
Well, dunno about Australia, but it _might_ be in the UK which beat them to the finishing line when it comes to criminalizing stuff that might look like the real thing. To be fair, though, they didn't stop at child porn. You can also go to jail for "extreme porn", if I understand that right.
Still, you bring exactly the kind of example that I had in mind. And it's not just a matter of portrayal, I guess.
I had a classmate through high school and college which looked a _lot_ younger than she was, and the diminutive size probably didn't help that distinction either. By the time she finished college and got married, she looked like she was just hitting puberty.
So, obviously she was old enough to marry and have sex (unless a big star appeared in the east when she got pregnant;) But I'm getting the idea that in a few places around the world her husband could probably get in trouble if he has a picture of her naked on his hard drive. And may the elder gods help him if he filmed himself having sex with her. Because she _looks_ like a child.
Where does one draw the line when it comes to what it _looks_ like, anyway?
Because it happens in the other direction too. Some girls look older than they are. E.g., Tracy Lords obviously didn't trip anyone's suspicions when she claimed to be 18 and starred in a porn movie... at the actual age of 15.
So let's say you have a picture of an 18 year old on your hard drive and fly to Melbourne or London. Well, it could also _look_ like a very precocious 15 year old. I mean, she could be 15 and just look like 18. Maybe you're pretending she's 15 in your head. (Well, _you_ probably aren't, but just making a point about such confused laws.) How do they know you aren't? If the purpose of the law is to prevent demand for underage porn, how do they know if after pretending some 18 year olds in pornos are 15 and precocious, you won't progress to actual pictures of 15 year olds? It's at least a theoretical possibility.
Criminalizing what something _looks_ like, seems to me like a really slippery slope, when there's so wide a range between what someone is and what they look like.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
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'
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.
Men find the unadulterated idea of women attractive since they can believe they are virgins(google "teen virgins" if you need proof). Another issue with censorship laws like this is that its impossible for a man to look at a picture of a woman and know with any certainty how old she is. You can dress up an 18 year old to realistically make her appear 12, and you could probably realistically dress up a 14 year old to look 18. Theres no way to know. To illustrate this conundrum, consider these scenarios:
A 15 year old girl poses nude but the photograph has a photoshopped head of of an 18 year old. Is it immoral to look?
A 18 year old girl poses nude but the photograph has a photoshopped head of a 15 year old. Is it immoral to look now?
What if all these numbers were reduced by 5? Immoral now? Quite obviously, but in the two scenarios above the answer isn't at all clear cut. In the second scenario, this must be illegal since there is copious amounts of this type of pornography scattered across the web. Simply google "Miley Cyrus nude" for proof.
Any argument that a cartoon which includes no photorealistic elements is child pornography is faulty. Since the laws were designed to protect children, and there was no children harmed, this merely exemplifies a flaw in the law.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
This is the problem/reason I quit my job at the gas station. The company I worked for would send their employees to do tobacco stings. The company policy was "ID everybody who looks under 30" but this is impractical for reasons anybody who has worked at a gas station would understand. Nonetheless, you only have to be 18 to buy cigarettes and NYS law is that you're supposed to ID anybody that "looks under 25."
Well, while I have no problem looking at a 19 year old and thinking "he's not over 25, I'll ask for ID." But once you set the threshold too high, everybody just blurs together. 28? 35? How am I supposed to tell the difference? Maybe Stewarts policy should just be to ID everybody, if they really care about not selling tobacco to minors. Or maybe they should just stop selling cigarettes because they're a filthy addiction anyway? Obviously their only real concern is losing their tobacco licence for selling to minors, but they are in no such danger of that if I fail to ID somebody over the age of 25. On a side note: when the state actually runs a sting, they send the youngest looking clean shaven just-turned-18 year olds possible. They don't really care if you fail to ID "some" people over 18, what they're really testing is if you'd sell to a minor, and the best way of testing that without actually getting a minor to buy cigarettes is to send the youngest looking person possible. Because if you don't ID a young looking 18 year old for cigarettes... you're not doing your job. If you don't ID an old looking 27 year old... who the hell cares?
The last straw was when they sent in somebody who I KNEW worked for the company and I KNEW was 27 years old. I didn't ID her because she was in our store buying stuff all the time and I knew how old she was. I wasn't fired, but I was suspended for a week and didn't go back to work afterwards.
Eventually you have to hit a limit. It gets hard bordering on possible to judge people because as they always say, "its not the age, its the miles" and heavy smokers tend to look way older than they actually are anyway. I realize this isn't related to child pornography, but the basic idea of "how do you prove how old somebody APPEARS to be" is something that has no real answer.
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!
First - I will *never* advocate hurting children. In fact, hurting adults is kinda messed up too unless they enjoy it.
Second - to take your point one step further. Maybe a 17 year old isn't harmed if photographed nude? How about 16? 15? 10? How about 2 years old? Plenty of parents have pictures of their children playin in the bath tub. Those children were certainly NOT hurt in any way by that even though a more twisted soul would consider those pictures erotic.
I understand wanting to protect children from predators, but (citation needed ofc) the vast majority of underage sex, pornography, and other "bad" or illegal behavior happens with other underage children. I'm going out on a limb to say more 15 year old girls have naked pictures taken by under-18 boyfriends (or self-shot!) than than ones who were made to do so by an adult. A lot more. Pretty sure the average age kids lose their virginity hovers UNDER the legal age to have sex. Our legal system is making the average child the victim of a sex crime ... and yet they try to tighten the laws even more to 'protect' them.
Gah....
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
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.