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.
Ridiculous.
This is not what got him registered as a sex offender: he was already registered as a sex offender from a previous case, in which he had been found guilty of actually having child porn (with images of real children) on his computer. The prior conviction is reason for the severe response to the cartoon images. This being the case, his claim that he didn't get sexual titillation from these images rings rather false.
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.
I guess you didn't read the article, which is no big surprise.
It's his second offense. The first involved real children.
depicting sexual acts with people under the age of 18 years.
Technically, even Maggie is over 18 now.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
If you ask me, he should have the book thrown at him. Not for the animated stuff, but for having had -real- pictures. How the hell was he let off the hook the first time?
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
Interesting... a cartoon character rises to the level of person now. Whoever knew.. I suppose it is the next logical step.
How do you measure the 'age' of a cartoon character, I wonder.
Is it whatever age the author says it is.... or does the jury have to make some sort of subjective determination based on carefully examining the imagery to make a judgement on the appearance of the images filed as evidence?
With careful consideration as to not be prejudicial against midgets and people who appear much younger than their actual age.
Next step is to extend the law to include imagery depicting violence as well.
And then expand the age a little bit... age under 21 instead of 18.
And then extend the law to include images depicting not just porn and violent acts, but drug usage also
Then extend the age rule a little bit... persons under age 25 instead of 21.
Then expand the scope a little bit... images depicting any crimes or hostile activities at all against such persons.
Then extend the age rule a little bit... persons under 30 instead of age 25.
Then expand the scope a little bit... images depicting or showing anything the least bit offensive to community values to persons depicted.
Then remove the age limit entirely.
Then expand the scope a bit to include anything disruptive to the civil order, government business, or disparaging to authority.
Next make it retroactive, include text, writings, blog posts, opinion columns, as well as images. And anything offensive to even dead people or non-governmental highly-regarded entities. Increase the penalty for some years of confinement to permanent imprisonment, and eventual execution.
Wow, instant censorship (in 10 steps)
I thought the point of harsh laws against child pornography were meant to prevent the exploitation of children. Child cartoon characters are not actual people and thus were not actually exploited. Clearly he should have been arrested for copyright infringement instead.
Old News from 2008
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.
As an Australian working in Digital Forensics who works in the private sector but worked in the public sector, Law Enforcement Digital Forensics folks are woefully trained in my experience and under-resourced.
Maybe he plea bargained to the lesser offence of "possessing images of child exploitation".
This was his second offense but something doesn't really make sense with all of this. If these laws are put in place to protect then why is he not 'dangerous' enough to be taken off of the streets? This is starting to sound like parking or speeding tickets where they just do it to make a point but not really make a difference. It's not like I personally view 'cartoon porn' as something that serious although it is fucked up to get off of anything related to kids but obviously the courts see it the same way since their ruling was not much more than a slap on the wrist. So either the first conviction was too much or the system is all wrong becuase how can you say how much of a sex offender someone is? I would either think you are a threat to society or you are not how can you be kind of a sex offender?
A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
That was the original intent, yes. The original idea was that children are not fully developed individuals mentally as well as physically and thus need adults to protect them against various things. As such laws were created that say that children can't enter in to a contract on their own. Likewise, it was decided that children lack the understanding to consent to making porn. So it was outlawed to keep adults from exploiting them for that purpose.
However now it has become more or less a witch hunt tool. The laws exist only to further themselves and to punish indiscriminately. Best example is two teenagers who were convicted of sending naked photos to each other. They made no effort to distribute the photos to a wider audience and were both under 18. However, they were successfully tried and convicted on child porn charges and that conviction has since been upheld on appeal. After their prison stay, they'll both have to register as sex offenders.
Clearly such a situation is not designed to protect them from anything. While they may cause themselves harm by sharing nude photos, that harm has already been caused. The harm of going to prison and being labeled a sex offender is far, far worse. So they aren't being protected, they are being punished. There is no point, other than strict enforcement of the existing law.
There is very little sense to what goes on with regards to these laws at this point. It seems to bypass people's ability to think logically and start off a witch hunt mentality.
> What's wrong with sexual titillation from a drawn image of imaginary characters?
You're asking the wrong question, IMO. You should have asked:
"Why is it any worse than pure textual depictions of fictional children having sex?" (which AFAIK is not considered child pornography in most jurisdictions)
Would ASCII art depictions of child-like figures having sex, which are simultaneously textual erotic fiction about children having sex, be considered child pornography?
You could, of course, go in a different tangent and come up with the question:
"Why is a simulated depiction of the sexual abuse of children any worse than simulated depictions of other heinous crimes?" (AFAIK there are no other crimes for which possessing a depiction of them is also a crime. No, wait! Under the DMCA, a depiction of copyright protection circumvention which is sufficiently detailed to aid in circumvention itself could be criminal. Oops, no. Even there, mere possession is not criminal, distribution might be.)
This seems obvious to me, but I'm not hearing it from anyone else, so I'm just going to be the voice of reason here.
Guy downloads real child porn (I'm going to assume deliberately). Get's busted for it, because law makes the argument that he's contributing to actual child exploitation.
- I don't agree with this, but it could be argued
Guy downloads cartoon child porn. Get's busted for it, because law makes the argument that he's contributing to actual child exploitation?
- Hard to argue the benefit to society here.
Only possible explanation: It's been made into a thought crime. They just need proof someone has been thinking sexual thoughts about children. And apparently that's been made illegal.
If a guy tries to abide by a law he got busted for by looking at cartoon child porn instead of real child porn, my first reaction is to support him. Am I crazy?
This guy is obviously a pedophile, the article points out he has a prior conviction of posession of actual child pornography. His defense that the images were just funny is a total lie -- and other people have pointed this out.
The problem I have with this case is that the guy is disgusting, his motives were obvious and so it is very easy to support his conviction. But with Cartoons, it could be argued that there is _no victim_ at all. And as much as I hate pedophiles, and I do - I don't believe that the images, real or cartoon, actually encourage pedophile tendencies.
Images of children being exploited sexually have been banned all over the world because the children have to be protected from those images remaining in circulation for their entire lifetime; images of children being exploited sexually encourage other pedophiles to exploit more children on camera for the purpose of trading images, etc. BUT with the case of a cartoon -- none of these reasons hold true, and more importantly, at best - they encourage pedophiles to draw cartoons of children being sexually exploited which, as i said, doesn't create any victims. Distributing actual child porn may encourage the creation of child porn, but it doesn't turn otherwise normal hetereosexual people into pedophiles. You have to be a pedophile to begin with to even want it.
Now that this guy has been charged, and this is obviously a precedent setting case - it will be easier to charge and dole out harsh sentences for people found posessing cartoon porn even if it is their first offense and they really aren't pedophiles. I mean, cartoons are sometimes funny and in the case of Simpsons porn - I know I've seen a few cartoons featuring Bart and Lisa that were funny and.... at least to me, not sexually exciting at all. I mean christ, they're cartoons.
It seems to me that they've gone after an easy person to hate, with a history of child porn collecting - to blindside people to the over zealous and really very useless law they've just created.
Ace
I guess I need to draw some clothes on my stick figure man just to be safe from now on.
So ... if someone has 20-year-old pictures of a 10-year-old being raped, it's okay because now the child in question is 30?
While I don't see the harm in cartoon-sex, you can't really expect the "but technically $person is over 18 today " defence to work or even be acceptable.
If you can, what's wrong with killing people? Technically they're already dead by the time you get to court over it, and there's no point in crying over spilt milk.
Except Maggie, Bart, and Lisa are not real people. They do not have human rights. They are not children. They are cartoon characters.
Child Pornography is illegal because it violates the rights of the children contained therein -- the right to consent, amongst others. The Simpsons "kids" have no such rights because they don't exist.
Treating this material differently is merely a way to punish people modern society considers "creepy." That's all.
How the hell was he let off the hook the first time?
Maybe because it was a first offence?
And how serious was the nature of the "child exploitation material" the first time, given this is also classifed as such?
OTOH wanting to throw the book (or something even heavier) at him for looking like that I can understand!
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
So everyone who owns or has seen the Simpson's movie is liable for child porn? Is it me or didn't Bart go skateboarding naked in the movie, including showing his "talent". If I draw two stick figures in a suggestive manner, is that child porn? How old is a stick figure?
I'll wager that it's the under-resourced that was the limiting factor, since it doesn't sound like it took major effort. Given that California has something like a decade of unprocessed DNA rape kits due to lack of resources, it wouldn't be the least bit surprising if data forensics had a year long wait before they even got around to touching a new case.
It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn.
The whole idea of "partial nudity" is silly anyway. Anyone who isn't covered from head to toe is "partially nude".
Treating this material differently is merely a way to punish people modern society considers "creepy." That's all.
As we rightly should! If today we allow this, then tomorrow it might be acceptable for fat guys in beards to dress in sailor moon outfits. And when we start to allow that, then humanity's slide into depravity will be unstoppable.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
I don't get this obsession that people have about breasts.
Could it be you are not a heterosexual male?
But of course, having pictures of murdered children (cartoon or otherwise) is perfectly legal.
All hail the Pedo Finder General!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvsoVdvtZC4
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
I consider it way creepier that the legal system considers cartoons real enough to protect their "human" rights.
That's creepy!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
When I think about this issue, I come to the conclusion that the real reason for simulated depictions of sexual child abuse being criminal is something which no judge would ever admit to: society wants to criminalize people who are sexually attracted to children, even if they have never committed any such crime, and because of their psychological makeup are even unlikely to ever commit such a crime in the future, because society is afraid of such people.
All this "slippery slope" BS is just beating around the bush. My guess is that simulated child pornography will continue to be illegal even in the far future when it will be trivial to produce, so trivial that only the very, very stupid would consider producing it using real children (assuming, of course, that the only goal involved is the production of the pornography; I'm not talking about the case where a pedophile wants to film his illegal acts).
BTW, your argument that he's a horrible poster child seems weak. His first offense was for actual child pornography, rather than simulated child pornography. If anything, he seems to be slowly climbing up that slippery slope.
Maybe they only found the cartoons, but...
But what? But he may or may not still be thinking about that stuff? But he may be thinking about raping a kid? But he might go to a public school and rape a class room? Your assuming the worst about someone based on a single conviction. Maybe he is totally perverted or maybe he was just mildly curious and happened to get busted.
Basically I see this like a guy that was busted for smoking pot and now he is being arrested for smoking a cigarette because it's kind of similar.
It mentions that the first offense was of actual kids. That means it was real kiddie porn.
My parents have old pictures of me as a kid, taking a bath. Should they go to jail?
It's idiotic beyond belief to think that nude pictures are by default harmful or exploitative. It's like saying that, since guns are harmful, pictures of guns must also be harmful. If my government decided to make it a crime to own pictures of firearms, it wouldn't surprise me a bit - it would be perfectly in line with the policies they've been following.
Yes, child-porn can be harmful. But there is a world of difference between pictures which depict simple nudity, and ones which depict child abuse. Not only do many governments not distinguish between these, but they apparently don't distinguish between reality and fantasy, either. They seem to feel that it's ok to arrest people for drawing a cartoon. When the Chinese do that, we rightly criticize them for oppressing their citizens; when we do the same thing, well ... it's For The Children!
How can any thinking person defend these types of policies?
Small breasts beat big breasts any day.
Ignoring the fact that the drive could be backed up first via a duplicator, your argument is seriously that it took them one year to figure out the "No" button?
Yes but considering how truly insane the laws have gotten now I wouldn't trust TFA. Does it say what ages these kids were? I know here in the US they can be 17 years and 11 months and you would still get treated like they were 5, even if you had no way of knowing. And of course we have bullshit like this were we are talking about ink on paper, no actually kids involved.
To me this kind of horseshit just cheapens the charge against those actually involved with really kiddie porn crap, because we have all heard stories like this, of the law going totally apeshit, that you have no idea if the person was busted for something real or "save teh kidz!" horseshit. We here in the US need to throw out any politician who pulls this "save teh kidz!" bullshit and bring sanity back to our laws. Hell the way the laws have gotten so fucked up you could have nothing but over 18 porn and STILL go to to jail because some judge decides it "looks lolita" and gets you for simulated CP. This shit is gone past crazy three exits back folks.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Some people get into some pretty whacked out interests. No question about it. I once saw some show where a guy was a collector of vomit... but it had to come from women. There are all kinds of interests out there; some funny, some disgusting, some make you worry.
I think we have to draw a line between right and wrong when it comes to punishing people for their likes and dislikes alone. We don't throw people in jail for WANTING to rob a bank. We don't throw people in jail for being obsessed with TV shows about murder or rape or other crimes. Why do we throw people into jail for wanting be with children? It doesn't mean they did or ever will. It just means they "might." There are a lot of things that people might do... drinking and driving is something that people might do.
We seriously need to stop "protecting children" and start being civilized and rational about how we administer justice.
I'm not saying that being interested in children sexually isn't bad -- it is. I'm just saying it shouldn't be considered criminal until a criminal act is carried out. Until an actual person is harmed (even "harm" is often rather subjective) or at least involved, it should be treated as a mental illness at the very worst.
And let's be honest about what we find more disturbing. There are people out there who get off on sicker things than teenage girls. There are people who get their kicks from crime scene photos that include murder, suicide, mutilation and dismemberment. I find that to be EXTREMELY disturbing. Why, then, aren't these people being charged with some sort of crime and putting these freaks away? I find our justice systems are seriously inconsistent.
Good points, but you seem to be conflating the appreciation of "large and pronounced" breasts (which has changed over time and culture) with appreciation of breasts as part of the female form (which has NEVER been out of fashion).
I think you would be VERY hard pressed to find a heterosexual male who does not appreciate breasts in this more general sense.
Your right. Its far more serious. Its copyright infringement!
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
No.
Normal sized breasts beat abnormal sized breasts any day.
Actually.
Normal breasts beat abnormal breasts any day. Aside from something being seriously wrong, do not modify them.
Actually don't modify your body unless something is seriously wrong with it.
That's pattern is easy to explain...
They're hiding it, so we want to see it. So we convince them to show it and we're okay with it for a little while until they become grandmas themselves and in the interest of not singling out the elderly we convince them all to put it away. Which we are okay with for a little while, until they keep hiding it, so we want to see it... and around it goes.
And no, I didn't rtfa.
It's as simple as this: he pleaded guilty.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I just believe in doing what's right. Oppressive laws and tyrannical regimes only prosper when good people do nothing. Most of the people of Afghanistan didn't WANT their women to be chained up in a Burqa and kept locked up at home, but they kept silent because their society was ruled by a bunch of theistic maniacs who'd gladly put a bullet in your head for trying to defend your daughters right to lead a normal life.
That's what makes "free speech" such a sacred right, in my eyes; it allows us to freely discuss anything, including what kind of moral and legal standards we want our society to have. I'm truly sorry to hear that you are too afraid to openly take part in that process. While anonymity may be a godsend in that regard, it's unfortunate that people in free nations can still be cowed into not exercising their freedoms.
On the other hand, in this case you're overstating my supposed "bravery" since I am effectively anonymous on here anyway. Yes, some people could figure out my real identity from my slashdot username, but I'd be quite surprised if anyone bothered. While I have no problem taking part in these types of conversations in the offline world, I've got to admit that even the limited anonymity provided by a handle tends to make the process a lot easier. And while I'd be willing to stand behind my statements if someone confronted me offline, I'm in no hurry to identify myself.
So essentially, they wanted to throw the book at him and this was all they could find, and it happened to artificially fit the definition of a law that is really only randomly enforced. The guy may be a perv, but he did his time and this is no reason to put him away.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
I also don’t. Maybe because I god a extreme helicobacter infection from my mother’s milk back then, resulting in having horrible stomach pain and heartburn, whenever I sucked those breasts.
There are other things that I find far more sexy. A sexy hip or neck, a barefoot girl, a fitting perfume.
Oh, and that here in Germany, we can see tits every day, in advertisements, on TV, etc. We have no retarded “nipplegate”. Because it’s nothing special. So you focus less on them, and more on other things.
I wish you could come to a south European beach in the summer. You will be practically guaranteed to see some sexy bare tits. :)
On the first day you’ll get a boner. On the second you will say wow. On the third you will yawn.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
I don't understand the commentators that think there's nothing inherently wrong with the "Simpsons porn" but still think this charge is all okay because he's been convicted of having child porn before, as if that makes all the difference. If what he's doing isn't wrong, it shouldn't matter what he's done in the past. If what he's doing is wrong, it still shouldn't matter. I can't see any way to logically arrive at the conclusion that justice was served here solely on the basis that he had done wrong before. They say Justice is blind, etc etc. Look: he was probably ordered to stay away from schools, jobs involving children, etc. If he has violated that, he would be charged with breaking parole or something similar (whatever the antipodean analogue thereof is) and we would never hear about him. Instead, this is something it appears he was not told not to do, is not normally illegal, and wouldn't be considered wrong if someone else did it... but yet he's being charged with a crime ONLY because he had committed a previous crime. I can't see this as anything other than the Australian authorities on a witch hunt to target anyone classified as a "pedophile". I (admittedly) don't know much about Australian law and politics, but if this were the US, it would almost undoubtedly be some prosecuting attorney wanting to demonstrate that they are "tough on crime" to further their career. On the other hand, since I having a daughter a little over a year ago, part of me can completely understand the knee-jerk reaction against pedophiles (if anyone hurt my daughter, I can't say what I would do to them)... but I just can't see having that reaction against this guy. I don't think he hurt anyone here. He may have contributed to hurting minors in the past, but it appears he's served his time for that. The law says he's served his time and that's over with (if you want to argue that he should have been punished more, go ahead, but that's irrelevant to the case at hand). He apparently hasn't hurt anyone since. There's no reason this should be held against him. In short: I've seen a few Simpson's porn pics in my day. Most everyone who's been around on the internet this long has. I've seen most every cartoon, tv show, comic, book, etc Rule 34'ed. I laughed and continued my day. I don't think there was anything wrong with me doing that, and I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone else doing the same thing, even a convicted child porn trafficker. This is a misapplication of the law.
Marge clearly showed her tits, please move on to other types of porn.
As these were "child characters", I doubt he was interested in seeing breasts.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Maybe it's drawn too poorly, but this is an actual depiction of Bart and Lisa engaging in taboo acts of a sexual nature!
>+o
>+o
the sad part is that I am posting anonymously because.... what if?
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
and on the fourth day you'll see two fat grandmothers jogging.
Then you will be scarred for life.
You will not watch Baywatch.
ever again.
ever.
Under the equivalent UK law, if any aspect of the drawing looks under 18, it's illegal. So you can potentially be convicted of possessing child porn for (say) a drawing of a 23 year old with really tiny breasts.
"Attracted to" is not the same as "sexually aroused by" (although the two obviously overlap a bit). What I am attracted to, i.e. my taste, what makes one girl absolutely gorgeous to me but merely pretty/hot to my mates, I cannot define but it sure isn't the size of her breasts or some other specific, easily measurable property.
What I am sexually aroused by on the other hand, is fairly easy to specify. At least two handfuls of nicely shaped, rounded boob. Slim waste, wide hips and a round, firm behind. Muscular, shapely thighs and ass. Full lips, heavy'ish makeup, long hair, high heels and the skill to not look like a clown when wearing them.
there have been some cases of consensual murder. There was a famous case of one guy who wanted to be eaten by another guy
Only on slashdot can this be modded insightful.
People who have children are aiding and abetting child pornographers by producing potential child porn models. They indulge in home porn shows when they bathe their children and offer provoking glimpses of young flesh when they flaunt their kids at the seaside. Outrageous!
Well, I don't see it like that, but with the aid of a twisted mind, I can see how the folks who want to ban cartoons of children might be working towards that conclusion. The ban and control brigade are just as sick as the paedophiles they claim to abhor.
So why don't they make it illegal to possess a picturing of any crime being committed, even if the portrayal is completely fictional? Like, I dunno, people beating up, or killing other people. That should be completely eradicated from movies now, don't you think?
Sheesh...
Sig erased via substitution of an identical one.
Someone who --makes the concious choice to take a drug-- is also --making the concious choice to act under the drug's influence. Therefor, ANY crime they commit "while under the influence" is a concious, willing act.
This "aww poor them, they were ADDICTED, so they HAD to beat their grandma to death" is a load of crap.
Drugs should be entirely legal, with the simple premise that --if you CHOOSE to take them, your actions while 'under the influence' are also part of that CHOICE, and punishable as such.--
Sorry for the rant, but this is one of my biggest pet-peeves; people should damned well take responsability for what they do.
That requires other people or at least communication beyond the room.
Try again.
You can become a criminal without ever sending any of those sheets beyond that room.
Those type of images are kinda funny. I've seen them posted on message boards and various places dozens of times over the years. I don't think Simpson's porn is actually created to arouse anyone, it's just for jokes.
Not sure if you're trolling or not. But just to clear up a common misconception, the vast, vast, vast majority of manga is not pornographic at all.
Pornographic manga is definitely available in Japan, but not all of that depicts children. Pornographic manga is available in most book stores and as far as I can tell most of it depicts adults. There is definitely a sub-genre that depicts high-schoolers, but it is not the most numerous by any stretch of the imagination. As for manga depicting pre-pubescent children, I've never seen any in the shops. Probably you'd have to go to a specialty store of some kind. Where I live, I wouldn't have any idea where to start looking. Nor would anybody else I know around here.
Graphic novels are a ligitimate avenue of storytelling that is very popular in Japan. Equating them with child-porn is really way off the mark.
Having said that, my friend's niece is really into Inuyasha, so I mailed her the Japanese version of the first volume. I didn't realize at the time that there is a single topless picture of the main character (a 14 year old girl) in this volume. So it seems I am unwittingly guilty of distributing child porn into the US, to a child no less... :-P
In my country, drug usage was decriminalized (not legalized, but you won't face criminal charges), while drug selling is illegal. Oh, and there are public "retreats", where one can go to give up drugs by a recommendation of a doctor, but you have to follow strictly the rules or you get banned (for life, iirc).
Since it was implemented, drug usage has been going down.
Dilbert RSS feed
It's ok. They're actually 1000 year old zombies, so it's not CP at all.
Seriously. What the hell? The anti-pedophilia laws are there to protect children from harm, particularly from people in a position of trust or influence. That's eminently reasonable.
How does a cartoon - however tasteless - have anything to do with that?
Seriously man: you've just seen the result of this nonsense: some guy who has never harmed anyone is now classified as a "sex offender". And still you spread this piffle around?
No they don't. Sincerely, somebody with more experience in the field than merely looking at porn.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
I believe the term is 'hebephile'.
Would you like a slice of toast?
Depends on how you define "pedophile", I guess. Many people "like 'em young" without wanting to do children. Youth is simply attractive - I mean, just look at all the rich and/or famous old people who take on younger partners. The younger partners are attracted to fame or money and the older ones, well, to youth.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
It does not change the fact that you're a dereanged weirdo that is spanking off to kids.
Yes he is. Who is being harmed such that we need to punish the perpetrator?
Thought police in action. This is just a dry run.
Soon there is a device which will sense thought patterns and everyone with a wet dream will go to jail.
Since the prisons can't hold all the convicts private companies will pick up the slack and - $$$$$!
Uups! That was Australia - I thought about the US business model - my fault...
You could impale yourself on the pen. Attempted suicide is illegal in some places.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
You were lucky. My brother was shot in the leg by a burglar and when the police came in to look at the scene they found some pot. Big deal, except they also found plastic bags which to them clearly indicated that he must be a big-time dealer. (Yes, our village cops (without any drug crime experience!) explicitly told us that a few grams of pot and twenty 50 ml plastic bags must absolutely, positively mean he is at the center of a drug ring that supplies all of North Germany with hard drugs.)
So he ended up being under close investigation by the police while the gun-toting burglar, uh, somehow couldn't be found. Yeah. No clues at all, sorry; the witness reports were somehow inconclusive. Anyhow, they go and confiscate some things of his: His mobile (understandable). His computer (again understandable). His wallet (also okay). Some papers (okay...). A shrink-wrapped blank CD-R (wait, what?).
It took months of his lawyer writing them nastygrams before they gave back his wallet - sans an old telephone card, which they somehow determined they had to keep even though they admitted it wasn't evidence. The mobile came a bit later, the papers a bit earlier. The computer and the CD-R, however, were only returned after the lawyer started to threaten to sue them for drawing out the investigations. Of course they didn't find anything of interest but it was somehow important that they kept the computer for over a year even though they didn't do anything with it for most of the time and the forensic expert (probably just the local IT guy) had already looked at it long ago. On of the investigators admitted that it just sat in a corner of his office (and here I thought that they have special rooms for evidence...).
A speedy mirroring of the hard drive might happen if you are under investigation by CSI $BIG_CITY but if you're under investigation by the local village cops you can be lucky if they figure out how to open the case before the processor architecture has become obsolete.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Does this mean that everyone who purchased the Simpsons Movie (which contains a nude scene of Bart skateboarding)
is now a sex offender? Doesn't this mean the folks who produced the show should be prosecuted now too?
As repulsive as this guy looks (I damn sure wouldn't leave him around a child for 2 seconds - he definitely looks like the child-interested potential paedophile he is), and as much as he deserved his first conviction for possession of actual child pornography (I don't even download pornography for many reasons, of which this is one - I've actually had torrents that said "Goth Chick Likes Cock" or whatever turn out to be "Goth Chick "Of Very Questionable Appearance In Regards To Her Age" Sucks A Cock" and so I ran the "shred" utility about 5 billion times over that section of disk and pretended that I really didn't see that - I might or might not have downloaded something illegal, but I did not keep it in my possession once I realized what it was, not just because it was potentially illegal but because, of age or not, what it purports to depict is close enough to the real thing that it turns my stomach and makes me want to kill someone that is actually doing the illegal stuff, especially when I think about the number of children that just "disappear" every year in the oh-so-civilized U.S.A. and that it could happen to my friends' children, or my own child one day when I have children), which is almost as repulsive an act as distributing it, which in turn in almost as repulsive as producing it (which is a truly heinous act - the only thing worse than rape is the rape or exploitation of children, both of which I consider to be hanging offences).
But one the other side of this very slippery slope is the fact that despite the fact that this guy is undoubtedly one sick fuck, he hasn't molested any children that anyone knows of (I'd be the first to be baying for his blood if he did) and this is a fucking cartoon. Oh, I can guess very readily at his intent (and, unfortunately what his corpulent corpus was doing while watching it - there is such a thing as having too much imagination, folks...I've just discovered that and am looking around the house for sedatives as I write this) while possessing and viewing it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a cartoon, any more than the current drug laws allow people to be arrested for possession or distribution of drugs even if they sell someone a bag of oregano or flour knowing that it's oregano or flour - both types of laws are both silly and a distraction from the real problem (the finding and execution of paedophiles, or instituting a drug policy that works, like decriminalization or legalization and regulation). There are (as anyone who has browsed Internet porn or went to a "24-hour bookstore" can tell you) entire websites and sections of most adult bookstores that cater to selling video that depict young women as being much younger than they are. Turns my stomach, but it's legal (and the consequences of making it illegal are not going to change anything that really matters, like getting the people that are making or doing the real thing, not just some play-acting by some fat guy who should have been shot when he was found in possession of actual child pornography).
And if you go after people that aren't actually breaking any realistic laws (or teenagers that post pictures of themselves having sex on camera - something that I and millions of people my age or older did as a teenagers with age-appropriate partners and just didn't have an all-consuming, hungry Internet to post it on or else I probably would have as would have many of my friends, male and female alike - give a teenager a camera, some vaseline, and a hole drilled in a tree stump and there's going to be something sexual getting filmed, that's the nature of puberty) or are spending your time creating or upholding such silly laws, I have to ask : what are you doing about the actual, verifiable crimes that have been committed..what are you doing about those kids that used to be on the side of milk cartons until there were too many of them for any amount of milk cartons to cover? Why does the U.S. alone have something like almost 100K children a year disappear and n
PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
When people print money out illegally, it slightly decreases the value of all money by artificially introducing more money into the system without actually introducing more value.
If everyone was allowed to legally print out money, then money would become worthless, even before anyone did anything. This is because everyone would lose faith in the currency entirely.
There is a good reason everyone doesn't just use grass clippings as currency. Honestly your comprehension of economics reminds me a lot of myself... when I was in 6th grade.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
I've got the Britney Spears "Baby One More Time" video. Does that count?
Oh, and I believe that in the earliest Jenna Jamenson videos she was 17. It was on the VH-1 special about her. I don't know if anyone has any of those laying around.
> forcing people to clean up the mess Fine, they can charge the jumper with littering.
Dyolf Knip
Drawing pictures of dollar bills shouldn't be illegal. If I tried to SPEND my creations, THEN I should be locked up for fraud/counterfeiting, but not before. And whoever accepted my creations should have a mental exam or eyetest.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
It is perfectly legal for you to go buy a printing press, make up your own money, print off as much as you want, then try to convince people to use it. Hell, you can even skip the printing press step. What is illegal is duplicating somebody else's currency.
You do not know what a ponzi scheme is. You are just throwing that term out there because you heard on the news that it is some "big bad, fraudulant thing that rich people sometimes do that hurts poor people".
This has been done numerous times in history, and every time it is a clusterfuck. Nevertheless, there is nothing preventing this system from being implemented today, and to a limited extent, it already is. You want more competition in currency? Invest in foriegn currecies. Plenty of people do it.
Listen, if you fancy yourself an anarchist, or if you think we should go back to a bartering system, or if you think we should put money back on a gold standard, then just say so. Any of those opinions are far more rational and respectable then "it should be legal to counterfiet money". You are not doing yourself any favors with this schpiel.
That was the first time I said that, but if you want to hear it again, go find yourself an economist.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Obviously the Mod who nailed parent as Offtopic is an idiot.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I've always thought it would be interesting for a young person to produce pornography of themself, and then attempt to sell it when they are over the age of 18. As much as I'd love to see that one go to court, I'm sure we all know how it would end.
not much, just being forced to manually insert line breaks into my comment
I'm surprised that none of the comments that I've read so far point out the Australian age of Consent, which is 16, as it is in many other western nations.
I'll wait for you to think about this briefly. ...
Right, so it's ILLEGAL to photograph a 16 year old having sex, or DRAW a 16 year old having sex, but it's 100% legal to ACTUALLY HAVE SEX with a 16 year old.
They can consent to the ACT, but they can't consent to the DEPICTION OF THE ACT.
Even worse, with the recent ruling that photographing women with small breasts may ALSO be illegal, depending on how young they look, it means that it's possible that you'd be breaking the law taking a picture of a 25 year old woman with A-cup breasts, but it would be fine to have sex with her 16 year old sister.
(http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/)
How's THAT for internal consistency?
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.
Every character (well most) are at least 21 years (seasons) old. They must all have some disorder where they don't age.
First post! (just in case I am...)
While cartoon porn isn't really my thing, I hate to see the civil rights of a real person deprived to protect an imaginary person.