Man in Court Over Simpsons Porn 673
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.
Insanity. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ridiculous.
Re:Insanity. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Insanity. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Insanity. (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.
Re:Insanity. (Score:4, Insightful)
Very very very well said. We are perilously close to decreeing a thoughtcrime.
Re:So counterfeiting is not a crime? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:So counterfeiting is not a crime? (Score:5, Funny)
You could impale yourself on the pen. Attempted suicide is illegal in some places.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Insanity. (Score:4, Funny)
That's for sure. Who wants to see cartoon characters having sex, anyway?
Now excuse me, I've got to go back to playing Dragon Age:Origins. I think Morrigan is almost ready to give it up.
Re:Insanity. (Score:5, Interesting)
"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:5, Insightful)
Ridiculous.
Thought crime -- pure and simple.
You could say the same about any pornography, unless they paid for it, or otherwise encouraged its production.
Do you legalise the possession of all child, violent and bestiality porn? Denmark did that for some years.
It's a tough question as to where to draw the line.
A guy has just gone to court in Australia, after being caught with lots of photos of naked boy toddlers in his camera, taken discreetly (he thought) in parks or beaches or some such.
His excuse is that he was obsessed with circumcision and wanted to show his wife that most boys were uncircumcised.
Good luck with that one in court!
Now if I caught that guy photographing my kid, I'd be pretty freaked out and maybe even do something that would land me in court.
But really, he's probably just a sad git, and low on the list of people we should really worry about. (drunk drivers, thieves...)
Its going to cost a pile of our taxes to prosecute and possibly punish this guy for his [alleged] crimes. I'm not sure what will be achieved.
Re:Insanity. (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?
Re:Insanity. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
The fool ! He should have known that cartoon characters don't recycle ! You have to use *the Dip* !
Re:Insanity. (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.
Re:Insanity. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Insanity. (Score:5, Funny)
Bada-BOOM!
Re:Insanity. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, someone collecting pictures of my child while he happens to be naked is sick. no harm done top the child though.
Nowhere near as someone who unclothes my child. Or worse.
Take away the age factor. Not all watchers of fringe porn (whatever your definition of fringe is: gang bang, rape...) actually want to act the films out. Same as not all watchers of car chases want to launch into a car chase, etc, etc ....
I understand criminalizing the possession of child porn to kill the market for it, thus the demand for "actors".
I don't understand censoring virtual stuff. Or, someone needs to explain to me why murder, torture, American Idol are OK on TV any pretty much any hour, but not sex.
Re:Insanity. (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.
Re:Insanity. (Score:4, Informative)
Even passengers who have been pre-allocated a seat on an airplane are asked to move when they find themselves sitting next to a strangers child.
Businessman sues BA 'for treating men like perverts' [dailymail.co.uk]
If it such a big issue with the airline, they should update their booking system to make sure children are sitting next to a guardian or parent and not a stranger.
Re:Insanity. (Score:5, Funny)
Well, she will now, big mouth.
Re:Insanity. (Score:4, Interesting)
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:5, Funny)
You wrote "naked boy toddlers", please report yourself to the nearest police station.
Thanks.
Re:Insanity. (Score:4, Insightful)
"3. Look at the fucking guy, Jesus Christ.
Sure, any one of those things, no problem, but his previous conviction combined with 1, 2, and 3 are enough that without some fairly strong exonerating evidence I'd vote to convict if I were on the jury."
This is why trials by a "jury of one's peers" is so utterly flawed. Anyone who would use "Just look at him!" as a factor in deciding a conviction should not be serving on a jury.
Bad write up. (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's wrong with sexual titillation from a drawn image of imaginary characters?
Wrong question (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.)
Re:Wrong question (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the rationale of the Judge:
It's not clear whether this is a "gateway drug" argument or something somewhat different.
Personally, I would not advocate criminalizing these images, but this guy makes a horrible test-case. It could be argued that it makes sense to register him as a sex offender for his previous case, that this situation revokes the basis for earlier leniency, but then to let it go at that. But this guy makes a horrible poster child for arguing for the right to produce and distribute these kinds of images: he practical makes the case for the "slippery slope" argument.
Beating around the bush (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:Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wrong question (Score:4, Insightful)
> Ah, there's the rub, to give us our bit of Shakespeare for the day.
Shakespeare? Wasn't he that pervert who wrote Romeo and Juliet?
Juliet's age to quote him:
But saying o'er what I have said before, My child is yet a stranger in the world. She hath not seen the change of fourteen years. Let two more summers wither in their pride, 'ere we may think her ripe to be a bride.
http://www.twelfth-night.info/clicknotes/romeo/T12.html [twelfth-night.info]
She was younger than fourteen.
Re:Wrong question (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Wrong question (Score:4, Insightful)
More essentially:
- Why are victimless "crimes" crimes at all?
If it doesn't harm anybody and has no negative side effects for others than the perpetrator then there's no reason for it to be a crime. Ramblings about an activity "showing pre-disposition to"/"inducing the person to"/"making possible that a person does" commit a "real" crime are just that: ramblings - until the actual "real" crime is commited, there is no crime.
This applies just as much to erotic images/texts/words about children (no actual children involved in making them = no "real" crime) as it does to taking drugs (which really only harm the one that takes them).
A society that imprisions people for doing things that harm nobody or worse, for doing things in which they only harm themselfs is a society where the barbarians are winning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Bad write up. (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.
Partial nudity (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It only is different because our decency laws make it so. Talk with someone from 500 years ago and ask him whether asking a woman to show her ankles is considered sexual harrassment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Bad write up. (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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mod parent up.
The real story here is NOT that the judge erred in his ruling. A judge can only work with the law as written, and as interpreted in the light of normal statutory interpretation rules and past judgements (precedent/stare decisis).
The story here is that the Australian definition of child porn was apparently written in such a way as to (unintentionally) include drawn/cartoon images. And yes, it should probably be amended (I'll leave that argument alone for now though). The point is though that th
Re:Bad write up. (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, he wasn't convicted of having pornographic images - he was convicted of being convicted and having pornographic images.
Re:He didn't learn his lesson... (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:Bad write up. (Score:4, Funny)
Australia is putting people in jail? This seems oddly redundant.
No wonder we're losing the battle on child porn... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:No wonder we're losing the battle on child porn (Score:4, Interesting)
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:No wonder we're losing the battle on child porn (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:No wonder we're losing the battle on child porn (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Aren't child pornography for protecting children? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not any more (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.
Old News (Score:3, Informative)
Uh oh, he's a fatty. We'd better put him away. (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?
A fine line has been drawn (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
never under estimate the stupidity of the law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Good idea, somebody better go tell Randall [xkcd.com]
Bart's Unit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bart's Unit (Score:5, Funny)
If I draw a dead stick figure, will I be arrested for murder??
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And no, I didn't rtfa.
It's as simple as this: he pleaded guilty.
All hail (Score:5, Funny)
All hail the Pedo Finder General!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvsoVdvtZC4 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Happens from time to time. It was part of a cartoon sketch show which was intended to drum up publicity.
Another one (though I doubt you'd find it on Youtube) which definitely did cause hysterics was the Brass Eye paedophile special:
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/brass-eye/4od#2929844 [channel4.com]
Criminalizing "preferences" (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Stay classy, Australia. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
ascii porn (Score:3, Insightful)
>+o
>+o
the sad part is that I am posting anonymously because.... what if?
Comic book guy (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Your children are porn stars now! (Score:3, 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.
Prohibit pictures of people killing (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Zombies! (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Ah - all just about making more money! (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:Cartoon porn is still porn (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cartoon porn is still porn (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 di
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cartoon porn is still porn (Score:4, Insightful)
depicting sexual acts with people under the age of 18 years.
Technically, even Maggie is over 18 now.
Re:Cartoon porn is still porn (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Cartoon porn is still porn (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.
Re:Cartoon porn is still porn (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I consider it way creepier that the legal system considers cartoons real enough to protect their "human" rights.
That's creepy!
A truly sick society that's lost it's way (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:A truly sick society that's lost it's way (Score:5, Insightful)
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 don't think there's ever been a study done proving such a link.
It would be an interesting study, no doubt, but it sounds like there's a chance that it would go against "accepted wisdom," which means said study would never be done, or would simply be ignored.
Re:A truly sick society that's lost it's way (Score:5, Insightful)
Distribution of (real) child pornography is still a very bad thing. Aside from the trauma to the child (which is big thing in and of itself), you can make a supportable argument that distribution encourages production.
Now as to artificial work, there are a number of problems. For one, no child has been harmed by it. For two, it can be very subjective what is porn and what is not. Just because someone gets turned on by a picture, it doesn't mean it is offensive or pornography. Unfortunately, this latter seems to be the way UK law now handles something. A film like Let the Right One In from Sweden shows a girl of around 13(?) naked from the waist down at one point. It's in no way porn - it's scary. But someone might like that and then it becomes pornography? Terrible principle for determining things. Or look at the kerfuffle about the cover to the Scorpions' Virgin Killer we had a year ago in the UK. Determining whether an artificial work is porn or not is of itself a very difficult thing. 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.
But the final question about artificial child pornography is whether it increases the likelihood of real offenses against children. I think if someone is attracted to pre-pubescent girls (and that's another thing - a girl of seventeen is "child pornography". Are they serious? It might be best not to allow pornographic images / films of her all over the place because she probably is too young to make informed decisions about these things, but to imply that it's wrong to find her physically attractive? At that age, a girl is biologically screaming sexual attractiveness! You might not find her attractive after half an hour of seventeen year old conversation mind you, but that's a different matter.
What will get really creepy is when technology progresses further and the artificial porn gets much more realistic. But the principle will remain the same. I imagine it will ignite just as much bad legislation though, because I agree with one of the GPs that the motivation is probably less about actual harm (with the cartoons), than it is with social ostracism. Anyway, what about the UK 2012 Olympics logo? It clearly resembles Lisa Simpson giving a blow-job. Why hasn't this sick filthy been banned?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But of course, having pictures of murdered children (cartoon or otherwise) is perfectly legal.
Re:Cartoon porn is still porn (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Cartoon porn is still porn (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Simpsons Already Did It! (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't get this obsession that people have about breasts.
Could it be you are not a heterosexual male?
Re:Simpsons Already Did It! (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No they don't. Sincerely, somebody with more experience in the field than merely looking at porn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Simpsons Already Did It! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Simpsons Already Did It! (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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"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. Muscu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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