Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Man in Court Over Simpsons Porn

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday January 27, 2010 @06:15PM from the worst-porn-ever dept.

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.

27 of 673 comments (clear)

Insanity. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-27 18:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ridiculous.
1. Re:Insanity. by the3stars · 2010-01-27 22:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd rather have a percentage of the 'pedophilicly inclined' spending their time acquiring pictures of nude cartoon characters than pictures of children. Further, in relation to the article, the way to get rid of undesirable elements of our ever changing society is not to punish the 'customer' but the 'distributor'. File sharing makes the line between the two difficult to see, but rather than putting people behind bars for the crime of clicking, why not focus more on removing the source? Under the current laws in many western nations, glancing at a computer screen displaying questionable photos of children is dangerously close to breaking the law. But there is a mile wide gap between the person who clicks a link and the person who subjects their own child to such inhumane treatment. I would suspect that the average person in a western nation sees hundreds if not thousands of simulated murders on television and in the movies, and murder is arguably a more heinous crime than active sexual deviancy targeting children. Cartoons are just as unreal as movies.
2. Re:Insanity. by quenda · 2010-01-27 22:22 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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?
3. Re:Insanity. by HungryHobo · 2010-01-27 23:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Personally I don't like any law that creates a situation where you can become a criminal while in a locked room with nothing more than a pen and some blank sheets of paper.
  Want to draw up your plans for bringing down the government?
  no problem, it's not conspiracy until another person is involved.
  Want to write about raping and maiming everyone around you?
  Again, you don't break the law until other people are involved.
  But god help you if you draw 2 stick figures and put an arrow pointing to one with a little side note reading "Age 15"
  For that you are a criminal at least as bad as people who gang rape children.
4. Re:Insanity. by Zemran · 2010-01-28 00:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  How will you feel when you get arrested for possession of photos of your own children playing in the paddling pool without enough clothes on to cover the dignity that they do not yet have. The whole situation is stupid. My mother has photos of me when I was a child playing almost naked, aged 3. Will my mother get arrested?
  We have entered an age where we are too frightened to smile at a child in case someone thinks we are perverts. It is stupid and although I accept that we need to address the problems and protect the child, this current behaviour is harming the children as they cannot play like children and enjoy their childhood in the way they should.
  In Britain it is hard to get male teachers to work with young children because of the fear of being prosecuted for touching them when they climb all over you. The children need good male role models but any man that has worked with children knows that the stupidity has made this too dangerous.
  Many years ago I grabbed a female student (aged 14) who had climbed out onto an upstairs window ledge and dragged her back into the room. There were witnesses, so the end result was OK but there had to be an inquiry because I had touched her by grabbing her around the waist. If I had let her jump I would have probably got 6 months sick leave and counseling. I realised then that we are no longer protecting the children but we have entered the realm of witch hunt.
  This guy just got burnt as a witch.
  The real threat is that the real perverts will get lost amongst the stupid witch hunt.
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
5. Re:Insanity. by Blue+Stone · 2010-01-28 03:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "cartoon child exploitation"
  How exactly do you exploit a cartoon child?
  If I draw a cartoon child being shot, is this now 'cartoon child murder'?
  These lawmakers have allowed their pedo-hysteria to warp their sanity.
  
  --
  Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Bad write up. by Lemmy+Caution · 2010-01-27 18:22 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
1. Re:Bad write up. by pipedwho · 2010-01-27 18:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  WTF? Two things:
  1. The concept of making child pornography illegal has nothing to do with whether or not someone was 'sexually titillated'. It is ostensibly there to prevent exploitation of children, which happens during the creation of the child porn.
  2. The argument that his prior conviction is grounds for a 'severe response to cartoon images' is ridiculous. As the cartoon images never required an illegal act to create them in the first place, the only thing making them illegal is the ludicrous ruling by the supreme court judge that made 'cartoon child porn' the equivalent of real porn.
  It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn. But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.
2. Re:Bad write up. by DerekLyons · 2010-01-27 18:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The prior conviction is reason for the severe response to the cartoon images.
  In other words, he wasn't convicted of having pornographic images - he was convicted of being convicted and having pornographic images.
3. Re:Bad write up. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2010-01-27 20:13 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's bad enough that partial nudity is starting to be considered porn. But, the 'cartoon porn' court ruling should be thrown out, and the supreme court judge(s) should be removed from the bench.
  Or, replaced with cartoon judges.
  If cartoons of kiddie porn are the equivalent of actual kiddie porn, then cartoons of judges are surely the equivalent of actual judges.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
No wonder we're losing the battle on child porn... by tck44 · 2010-01-27 18:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
Re:Cartoon porn is still porn by abigor · 2010-01-27 18:23 · Score: 5, Informative

I guess you didn't read the article, which is no big surprise.
It's his second offense. The first involved real children.
Re:Cartoon porn is still porn by mysidia · 2010-01-27 18:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

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)
Re:No wonder we're losing the battle on child porn by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-27 18:49 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
Not any more by Sycraft-fu · 2010-01-27 18:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Wrong question by Mathinker · 2010-01-27 18:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

> 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.)
1. Re:Wrong question by laughingcoyote · 2010-01-27 22:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So the law stays, and we just hope everyone goes to jail before anyone gets hurt.
  Ah, there's the rub, to give us our bit of Shakespeare for the day. For the record, my kids aren't hypothetical. And while I absolutely hope they are never hurt by a pedophile, there are only certain lengths I'm willing to go to in order to reduce that risk, because to go to greater lengths means almost certain harm from greater risks.
  Consider the risk of them being injured in a car accident. I'll use carseats for the ones whose age necessitates it, I'll drive very carefully and defensively while they're in the car, and I wouldn't let them ride with anyone else I didn't know or trust to keep them similarly safe. Those are all reasonable measures. What I wouldn't do is forbid them to ever ride in a car and force them to walk everywhere. That's unreasonable and may in fact make them less safe, and regardless would be an extreme reaction to a risk which is already well mitigated by more reasonable measures. Not eliminated, mind you, and no risk is ever truly eliminated even by the most draconian measures.
  The same is true here. I'm far more afraid of my children growing up in a society where the attitude is "Throw the deviant in jail before someone gets hurt!" than I am actually afraid of said deviant. A free society means we must tolerate people who think and want some pretty disgusting things. We can certainly punish those who act on such urges, be they to murder people of a certain race or sexually abuse children. But we cross a line when we imprison someone simply for what they think, like, have urges to do, say, advocate, or anything of the sort. Freedom means tolerating things you find revolting, if no one is actually being injured.
  Why? Because someone else probably finds you or me revolting. Someone probably thinks it's unconscionable that I have children and yet don't support the "Lock 'em all up! Think of the CHILDREN!" mentality. Someone else may strongly disagree with other political beliefs I hold. Someone else yet may just not like the color of my shirt.
  Freedom of speech, and expression, and thought means that I may think, say, and express these things whether those people like it or not, and that, in turn, they may do the same. That's the only way that system works. Starting to say "Well...all speech is free speech except THAT!" is the true slippery slope. I'd much rather take my chances and let someone watch Simpsons porn, if they really feel the need.
  
  --
  To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
Uh oh, he's a fatty. We'd better put him away. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-27 18:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
never under estimate the stupidity of the law by cl191 · 2010-01-27 19:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

I guess I need to draw some clothes on my stick figure man just to be safe from now on.
Re:Cartoon porn is still porn by _KiTA_ · 2010-01-27 19:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Bart's Unit by flyboy974 · 2010-01-27 19:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
1. Re:Bart's Unit by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-27 19:34 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  If I draw a dead stick figure, will I be arrested for murder??
Beating around the bush by Mathinker · 2010-01-27 20:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:He didn't learn his lesson... by Xeno+man · 2010-01-27 20:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Cartoon porn is still porn by c6gunner · 2010-01-27 20:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

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?
Re:Cartoon porn is still porn by hairyfeet · 2010-01-27 20:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Re:Simpsons Already Did It! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-27 22:43 · Score: 5, Funny

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.