Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship Idle

Man in Court Over Simpsons Porn 673

Posted by samzenpus
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.

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Man in Court Over Simpsons Porn

Comments Filter:
  • by tck44 (1399467) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:22AM (#30930150)
    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.
  • by Kell Bengal (711123) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:28AM (#30930186)
    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?
  •     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.

  • Re:Bad write up. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:46AM (#30930254)

    Australia is putting people in jail for thought-crimes now?

  • by dgatwood (11270) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:48AM (#30930266) Journal

    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....

  • Re:Bad write up. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by pengin9 (1595865) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:32AM (#30930492)
    Coppertone [wikipedia.org] is in for a world of hurt.
  • by syousef (465911) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:48AM (#30930570) Journal

    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.

  • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:49AM (#30930574) Journal

    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. :)
  • Re:Partial nudity (Score:3, Interesting)

    by c6gunner (950153) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @04:41AM (#30930830)

    Are you really trying to make that your case? We wouldn't tell women "show me your genitals" if it wasn't quite obviously different from looking at wrists or necks.

    The main reason it's different is that we make such a big deal out of it. If you lived in a society where women were covered from head to toe, the sight of a female ankle would arouse similar feelings. Conversely, if you lived in a society where everyone walked around nude all the time, you would find it perfectly normal to be surrounded by breasts and genitals on a constant basis.

    The variability of sexual interest can also be demonstrated by the existence of fetishists. For instance, podophiles find the sight of feet just as (if not more) arousing than the site of genitals. The levels of homosexuality in ancient Greece show a similar phenomenon - large numbers of men being strongly attracted to other men, rather than to female genitals. We know that sexual attraction/preference is transferable and trainable, to some extent. While society in and of itself may not define what you are attracted to, it certainly plays a major role.

  • Re:Insanity. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by quenda (644621) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @06:22AM (#30931332)

    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?

  • by CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @06:24AM (#30931342)

    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.

  • Comic book guy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ThaReetLad (538112) <sneaky@blueRABBI ... minus herbivore> on Thursday January 28, 2010 @06:40AM (#30931452) Journal

    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?

  • by makomk (752139) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @06:44AM (#30931468) Journal

    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.

  • Re:Insanity. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Architect_sasyr (938685) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @06:46AM (#30931472)
    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.
  • by VJ42 (860241) * on Thursday January 28, 2010 @06:55AM (#30931512)

    A recent UK law however, was explicitly stated during its implementation process as 'allowing the police to lock up people they wanted to lock up if they couldn't find a way to prove something'. I kid you not - the comment was made in the House of Lords as one of the purposes of the law.

    This sounds more like something the bills opponents would say, not it's supporters (yes even here in the UK); a link to the appropriate Hansard page would be nice.

  • by icebraining (1313345) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @08:33AM (#30931898) Homepage

    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.

  • by 91degrees (207121) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @09:18AM (#30932220) Journal
    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?
  • by joebagodonuts (561066) <cmkrnl AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday January 28, 2010 @09:22AM (#30932252) Homepage Journal
    The real fear is that society IS "such people".

    We are. We just don't want to admit it.

    So we find the deviants, (homos, left-handed, pedophiles,...) and take out our fearful frustrations on them. On this specific matter, I think real children will always be used, because there is always going to be a desire for people to control others. A simulation (porn) doesn't address the real issue.

    The fantasy isn't "I like 13 yr olds" (or whatever), that's a justification. Or perhaps symptom is a better word. The REAL fantasy is "I like complete domination of another. I can do whatever I want. I'm a God" The fantasy of control for people who are overwhelmed by being powerless.

    Not just about the physical, there is a psychological component that is in play, too. Seems to me all of the attention on the sex act, the titillation, ignores a more fundamental drive. And, stops the issue from being dealt with intelligently. God forbid we address the fundamental issue(s) with offenders, finding a way to help them overcome the obsessions. Nope, it's easier to label them pariah and to punish them forever.
  • Re:Wrong question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jesus_666 (702802) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @09:32AM (#30932332)

    Of course, an angry person can calm down and get counseling.

    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.

  • Re:Bad write up. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @09:36AM (#30932350)

    yeah this is no more child porn than a 25 year old dressing up in a schoolgirl outfit.
    Not that it wasn't reasonable to account for historical activity but is it legal to judge a case based on previous convictions?

  • Re:Insanity. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Yvanhoe (564877) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @09:39AM (#30932372) Journal
    Want more insanity ? This just in : Australia bans small boobs in porn [somebodyth...ildren.com] because they make actress look like minors.

    "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.

  • Re:Insanity. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @09:43AM (#30932422)

    I just wanted to add that I somehow developed many of those hangups years ago. Many of them as I got older impaired my career choices as well as possibly successful business opportunities because I thought whether or not it was illegal at that point it could put me at unnecessary civil or criminal risk in the future. The irony of all that? Yes it could have, and yes I watched it happen to others as the years have gone by, but ironically enough, the largest and most successful businesses to come out of the last 15 years have done so at least in part by flaunting those legal threats, some like Napster got taken down and proven illegal, others like google and facebook and myspace, despite collating, retaining, and in some cases selling personal info managed to make it into multi-million or multi-billion dollar industries and then sell themselves out to the people most likely to abuse them.

    Moral of the story? It's only illegal or immoral if you get caught, don't have the leverage to get a pass, or are freakish enough that mainstream society will side against you.

    I used to believe the propoganda that this all wasn't true and we are a progressive and advancing society, but the more time that passes the more it seems like the opposite is true. I'm wondering if the current level of freedom we have is actually evolutionary or if it's a sort of transition period between the disparate classes that were around before the rise of mass media, and the same class system controlled through overwhelmingly advanced technology and a nanny state mentality.

    People always talk about saving the kids, or helping other people, but they only seem to work in a reactive manner, going after people for having objectionable content. Where is work to dispel the negative view of mental health issues? Where is the easy to access mental health services for people who need it? Where is the rehabilitation to try and head off such activities before the damage is already done? It's unnecessary when the goal has nothing to do with 'saving the children' or 'taking a horrible predator' off the street. Just like trying children as adults for taking lewd pictures of themselves to send to their boyfriend or girlfriend. Or making graduates into sex offenders for streaking at their high school or college graduations (even though that has been a tradition, however frowned upon since time immemorial... How many movies did many of us watch as kids with some crazy character running through the halls of their school either in their underwear or with a big black censor mark covering out their unmentionables?)

    The parent's comment about context is really true. While the law needs to be applied fairly to all regardless of socioeconomic status, status in the community, etc, it also needs to take into consideration the context in which the actions were taken. Was this a one time event? A stupid prank? Was the motivation intended to provide harm to others?

    It seems like in a lot of ways the criminals are still able to get out of enough of their messes to keep doing bad things, but the good people oftentimes get made the example of on their first offense. What has justice done for YOU lately?

  • by Jesus_666 (702802) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @10:03AM (#30932644)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @10:12AM (#30932734)

    1. In Canada, at least, the crime of counterfeiting requires 2 acts. The first is creating the fake, and the second is passing the fake off as the real thing. You can legally draw up a $1000 bill, or even photocopy it, so long as you don't attempt to spend it. The first part wouldn't get you into trouble. Passing the bill off as real would, but it requires a second person (the guy you're scamming).

    2. As for suicide by pen, the crown needs to to prove intent to prosecute a suicide charge. Accidentally falling onto a sharp object is perfectly legal.

  • Wow...Just Wow... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by painehope (580569) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @10:28AM (#30932876)

    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

  • Re:Insanity. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Domini (103836) <lailoken@gmail.com> on Thursday January 28, 2010 @11:26AM (#30933588) Journal

    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.

  • Re:Insanity. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Krahar (1655029) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @11:47AM (#30934014)

    The real threat is that the real perverts will get lost amongst the stupid witch hunt.

    That is absolutely not the real threat, and if you really mean that you are one of those people causing the real problem! People are born with their sexual orientation, and that can include being attracted to very young children. These people may be perverts, sure, but there is nothing morally dubious about them as long as they do not act on their urges. Which is actually tremendously sad for them, if you think about it - they cannot have a fulfilling sexual life. The situation we have now is morally equivalent to the imprisonment of gays in times past, except I do have the impression that the public outrage today is much worse for people who did not engage in any actual sexual activity with another person. The real threat is that the real child molesters will get lost amongst the cruel witch hunt of perverts and even non-perverts. Now if that's what you meant with what you wrote, then fine.

  • by precariousgray (1663153) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @12:13PM (#30934574)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @01:20PM (#30936076)

    Here's an interesting question: What happens if someone breaks into your house, steals all of your counterfeit bills, and tried to spend them?

    He was operating in good faith that they were real. You were operating in good faith that they would not be distributed. And yet, through all that, they were made and distributed.

    Does the counterfeiter go to jail as well as the theif?

  • by ebuck (585470) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @01:25PM (#30936174)

    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.

Byte your tongue.

Working...