Slashdot Mirror
Man in Court Over Simpsons Porn
Ever get the urge to look at pornographic drawings of famous cartoon children? Neither do I, but 28-year-old Kurt James Milner did, and that's what got him registered as a sex offender. Police received a tip about the pornographic material and eventually found images featuring child characters from The Simpsons and The Powerpuff Girls on Milner's computer. Back in 2008, a Supreme Court judge in Australia ruled that cartoons in which child characters engage in sexual acts is child pornography. Milner said he downloaded the images to show them to his friend 'because he believed they were funny.' Guess it's not so funny now.
The best part of this story... "Officers discovered the computer would no longer turn on but a year later police forensic experts recovered 64 images of cartoon child exploitation material in the machine’s recycle bin." So, it took officers a year to mount the hard drive in another system, and take a look in the recycle bin.
That's really sad. They sat on the evidence for a year before processing it.
I guess what would be worse would be if they confiscated someone's equipment, sat on it for a year, and found nothing. I'd be a bit pissed if my computers were taken for a year before they found that I had nothing illegal.
My mother-in-law's computer was taken as evidence in a case where a roommate may have used her computer in relation to child porn. They imaged the drive and gave it back the next day. I assume a block by block copy of the drive, so they could try to recover any deleted information. Needless to say, he was quickly invited to not be a roommate any more. This may have been because she wasn't a suspect, but they needed her assistance to look for further information.
Her case turned out out to be nothing except a lapse in judgement that didn't quite cross any legal boundaries (but came very close), and he did nothing on her computer. From what I knew of the case from the investigator and my mother-in-law, the police were perfectly justified in their pursuit of evidence. I had worked on her computer between the time he used it, and the time they collected it to process, so I gave a detailed report of what I had done. Unfortunately, that had been clearing the browser cache and history, scanned for viruses, did some housekeeping, updated a few things, and defragged the drive. They may have been able to recover some things, but it was less likely after my cleanup. I wish they had called a few days earlier, and they may have found something more.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
It's not a 20-year-old picture. It's a new picture of a character that has existed for 23 years. If a new picture of a person who has been alive for 23 years is legal, so should a new picture of a character that has existed for 23 years. The logic is actually fairly sound; if a cartoon character is going to be treated as a person, it must be fully treated as a person, and therefore if the character has existed for more than 65 years, it should also qualify for social security.... Anything less is just absurd. Anything more is also absurd. Indeed, the entire nature of the question is absurd....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Child Pornography is illegal because it violates the rights of the children contained therein -- the right to consent, amongst others
That's a strong argument against creation, but a weaker one against distribution. (You could still argue that distribution does further damage by embarassing the child, so it's still a valid argument - just not as strong)
Treating this material differently is merely a way to punish people modern society considers "creepy." That's all.
I think you'd find the powers that be phrase it differently. For instance argue that gratification from cartoons leads to or encourages real world abuse.
I'm in 2 minds about this, but I do think we should save harsh punishment for harsh crimes, and destroying someone's life and imprisoning them definitely qualifies as a harsh punishment where as having a giggle at immature cartoon porn that may involve depiction of child characters I find difficult to classify as a harsh crime. People and the laws they make have no sense of proportionality as soon as the word sex is mentioned. The dichotomy of laws like this with prolific sexual material and the legal sexualisation of children through idiotic kiddie pagents and the like is disturbing. It's a sign of a truly sick society that's lost it's way.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Tastes and preferences vary from culture to culture and era to era. Go back even a century and whilst breasts were considered erotic then, they were much less eroticised and size less emphasized. Go back a couple of centuries more and they were hardly eroticised at all (in a general sense). A couple of centuries before that, and breasts were eroticised again. We can roughly infer these sorts of things from changes in costume style, art from the period, etc. At other points in time, shoulders and necks have been eroticised, legs and, rather a lot, bottoms.
Anyway, you can be straight, male and attracted to girls primarily by things other than breasts. And if you are, the media fixation on them may well seem a little perverse. There are loads of girls you find attractive all the time who don't particularly have large or pronounced breasts. They're just, you know, pretty.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Oh , and I must point out how brilliant the Queensland police are:
but a year later police forensic experts recovered 64 images of cartoon child exploitation material in the machine’s recycle bin.
12 months of crypto analysis before somebody looked in the recycle bin?
Is it just me, or does that guy bear more than a passing resemblance to Comic Book Guy?
Also, talking about Simpsons porn, will Australia make the London 2012 Olympic logo illegal?
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
I'm not about to even TRY to defend that circumcision bloke. That prick deserves whatever he gets.
Now I want you all to think about dwarf-ish people. The 40 something year old people who look like kids. Got that image in your head? Right, now pretend you're in front of a court facing child porn charges, and have a moment to think about how old Bart Simpson "actually" is (hint, the show has been running for over 20 years). The powerpuff girls are a bit younger than that, but if you combine their actual age with the postulated age on the show... so is sleeping with someone who just happens to look *that young* now a crime?
And now I can't believe I just actually wrote that.
Me failed English...
FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
And a pedophile can't? Counseling and self-help groups help alcoholics stay dry. Why can't they help pedophiles? Is pedophilia really stronger than alcohol addiction? Yes, it's a sexual urge but there are ways of handling urges. In fact, we could even issue child porn (drawn/rendered and produced by tightly controlled studios to ensure no actual children are harmed) to help them let off some steam. Have them police each other - they're likely very motivated to help each other stay clean.
The reason that nobody does anything to help pedophiles is that nobody wants to help them. They don't want to (attempt to) solve the problem, they just want the problem to go away if they close their eyes to it. That clearly doesn't work but still people think that somehow outlawing pedophilia will magically make it disappear.
I just hope that society gets its act together before someone discovers a gene that might create a predisposition to pedophilia and the scaremongers start demanding a mandatory eugenics program to be instated.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
"Shall we put such hysteria aside and look at what this ruling is saying to Australian women? Basically, it's classing a certain normal female body type as obscene. It's declaring all flat chests to be automatically juvenile, something that should not be viewed by anyone because of a fear that it will stir up "base instincts" in certain people."
"Can the Classification Board be any more insulting or sexist?"
I suggest that from now :
- Flat chested women stop having sex, this is obscene, they are like, you know, children, that's unhealthy
- People having sex with flat women should be charged as pedophiles.
- Pubic shaving should be forbidden. It makes the body look juvenile.
- Men should have mandatory beard, otherwise they look too similar to children
- Men without beard should be barred from doing porn.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm flabbergasted by people in the US's views one subjects like sex and alcohol.
Hence all the teen drinking movies... just weird.
So they didn't find anything, and based on their findings:
1. You effectively punished your room mate (forced relocation) on the grounds of an assumed conviction.
2. You feel guilt that you aided and abetted your room mate because you assume your room mate was going to be convicted.
Why do you feel that someone asking if a crime had been committed means the crime was committed?
It may feel uncomfortable to interact with someone who's been accused of something, but accusations and trial by public humiliation come pretty cheap these days. Accusations don't require verification that any act actually happened, but if you make them loudly enough, you'll scare enough people into providing the punishment without any sort of due process. Your former room mate may be found guilty in the course of time; but, if said room mate is exonerated you are guilty of punishing unjustly. Since your punishment came before it was possible to know that it was appropriate, you are definitely guilty of using your brain as a fear stimulus response machine instead of an instrument of reasoning.