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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Insanity. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:17AM (#30930136)

    Ridiculous.

  • by wiredlogic (135348) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:26AM (#30930170)

    depicting sexual acts with people under the age of 18 years.

    Technically, even Maggie is over 18 now.

  • Re:Bad write up. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrMista_B (891430) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:35AM (#30930208)

    What's wrong with sexual titillation from a drawn image of imaginary characters?

  • by mysidia (191772) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:36AM (#30930210)

    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)

  • by lbigbadbob (1731592) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:37AM (#30930218)
    I thought the point of harsh laws against child pornography were meant to prevent the exploitation of children. Child cartoon characters are not actual people and thus were not actually exploited. Clearly he should have been arrested for copyright infringement instead.
  • Re:Bad write up. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pipedwho (1174327) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:40AM (#30930228)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:42AM (#30930238)

    It wasn't officers. It was forensic experts. And it took them a year to pull the data off? WTF, was the drive encrypted or something, or were they just that dumb?

    Any fool with a drive formatted in FAT32 or NTFS can recover data with Recuva.... fucking morons!

    Oh ya, linky to the utility in questions. http://www.piriform.com/recuva [piriform.com]

  • Re:Bad write up. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DerekLyons (302214) <`fairwater' `at' `gmail.com'> on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:43AM (#30930240) Homepage

    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.

  • by Nikker (749551) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:56AM (#30930310)
    From TFA

    The Leichhardt resident was convicted of possessing child exploitation material in 2003 after 59 sexual images of actual youngsters were found on his computer. He received two years probation with no conviction recorded.

    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?

  • Not any more (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:57AM (#30930316)

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mathinker (909784) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:57AM (#30930318) Journal

    > 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.)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:58AM (#30930332)

    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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:04AM (#30930356)

    Actually, every one of those steps is censorship.

    What's in place now is censorship, too. It's just milder - for now.

    Also, art censorship in Australia is nothing new. Internet censorship is coming in. The government has even enacted laws that allow them to censor political representatives' reports to their constituents.

  • by Ace905 (163071) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:06AM (#30930360) Homepage

    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.

  • by cl191 (831857) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:07AM (#30930366)
    I guess I need to draw some clothes on my stick figure man just to be safe from now on.
  • Re:Not any more (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:07AM (#30930368)

    fuck, if I had ever been convicted of something so stupid while under 18 I'd kill as many people involved in the prosecution as possible. not like you're gonna get anywhere in life labeled a sex offender anyway

  • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:10AM (#30930380) Homepage

    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.

  • by Capsaicin (412918) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:12AM (#30930394)

    How the hell was he let off the hook the first time?

    Maybe because it was a first offence?

    And how serious was the nature of the "child exploitation material" the first time, given this is also classifed as such?

    OTOH wanting to throw the book (or something even heavier) at him for looking like that I can understand!

  • Bart's Unit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flyboy974 (624054) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:17AM (#30930412)
    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?
  • Re:Wrong question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Lemmy Caution (8378) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:18AM (#30930418) Homepage

    This is the rationale of the Judge:

    However it was also to deter the production of other material, including cartoons, that could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children."

    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.

  • Re:Bad write up. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by lordholm (649770) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:20AM (#30930428) Homepage
    "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." The whole thing certainly makes no sense, but that is NOT HOW A CIVILISED STATE WORKS. What happens, if the supreme court is interpreting the laws in a certain way that is not really what was intended, but because the law was written in a certain way is that the legislative authorities MAKE AN AMENDMENT to the law, clarifying the situation, the previous convictions by the law still stands however. It is not the fault of the judge if the law is not clear on the topic. I am sure they did not really define child porn as being between two natural persons, just some other vague description that also included cartoons. This is the fault of the law, not the judge who interprets the law as it is written. This is called rule of law and is one of the most important foundations for a free society and civilisation.
  • Partial nudity (Score:4, Insightful)

    by loshwomp (468955) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:21AM (#30930440)

    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".

  • by Rennt (582550) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:33AM (#30930494)

    I don't get this obsession that people have about breasts.

    Could it be you are not a heterosexual male?

  • by LBt1st (709520) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:36AM (#30930514)

    But of course, having pictures of murdered children (cartoon or otherwise) is perfectly legal.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:46AM (#30930564)

    I consider it way creepier that the legal system considers cartoons real enough to protect their "human" rights.

    That's creepy!

  • by _KiTA_ (241027) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @03:55AM (#30930612) Homepage

    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.

  • by Mathinker (909784) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @04:02AM (#30930642) Journal

    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.

  • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @04:09AM (#30930690) Journal

    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. ;) But anyway, back to the point... if someone is attracted to pre-pubescent girls, I doubt access to cartoon pornography is going to make a whit of difference. There's something wrong there a priori. But what it might do is diminish the chance of that person actually going out and harming a child. To be brutally honest, a porn-induced wankathon makes most guys lazier about actually trying to get with a real girl. A number of my female friends have complained that men are getting less interested in sex, probably due to having streaming porn on tap. I'm not an expert on peadophiles, but I would imagine the release of cartoon pornography would affect them similarly.

    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?
  • by Xeno man (1614779) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @04:12AM (#30930702)

    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.

  • by c6gunner (950153) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @04:12AM (#30930704)

    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:Bad write up. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @04:13AM (#30930714)

    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.

  • by Grimbleton (1034446) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @04:18AM (#30930754)

    Small breasts beat big breasts any day.

  • Re:Partial nudity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @04:33AM (#30930804)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @04:37AM (#30930816)

    I thought it would be only a few states but it turns out EVERY single US state allows people under 18 to get married: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age [wikipedia.org]. In some extremes as low as 13 for females and 14 for males (there's another oddity, why are the ages different? especially younger for the female).

    So riddle me this, how can a sexual picture of a 17 year old be considered exploitative when they are allowed to get married (and consummate the marriage)? I'm seriously confused now.

    And just for interest:

    • New Hampshire: 18, 14 for males and 13 for females, in cases of "special cause" with parental consent and court permission.
    • Pennsylvania: 18, 16 with parental consent, 14 in case of pregnancy and with the approval of a Judge of the Orphans Court
  • by Wordplay (54438) <geo@snarksoft.com> on Thursday January 28, 2010 @04:42AM (#30930834)

    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?

  • by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968&gmail,com> on Thursday January 28, 2010 @04:54AM (#30930892) Journal

    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.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @04:59AM (#30930912) Homepage

    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.

  • by Rennt (582550) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @05:02AM (#30930926)

    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.

  • by EdgeCreeper (1618161) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @05:14AM (#30930972)

    No.

    Normal sized breasts beat abnormal sized breasts any day.

    Actually.

    Normal breasts beat abnormal breasts any day. Aside from something being seriously wrong, do not modify them.

    Actually don't modify your body unless something is seriously wrong with it.

  • by c6gunner (950153) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @05:20AM (#30931014)

    I just believe in doing what's right. Oppressive laws and tyrannical regimes only prosper when good people do nothing. Most of the people of Afghanistan didn't WANT their women to be chained up in a Burqa and kept locked up at home, but they kept silent because their society was ruled by a bunch of theistic maniacs who'd gladly put a bullet in your head for trying to defend your daughters right to lead a normal life.

    That's what makes "free speech" such a sacred right, in my eyes; it allows us to freely discuss anything, including what kind of moral and legal standards we want our society to have. I'm truly sorry to hear that you are too afraid to openly take part in that process. While anonymity may be a godsend in that regard, it's unfortunate that people in free nations can still be cowed into not exercising their freedoms.

    On the other hand, in this case you're overstating my supposed "bravery" since I am effectively anonymous on here anyway. Yes, some people could figure out my real identity from my slashdot username, but I'd be quite surprised if anyone bothered. While I have no problem taking part in these types of conversations in the offline world, I've got to admit that even the limited anonymity provided by a handle tends to make the process a lot easier. And while I'd be willing to stand behind my statements if someone confronted me offline, I'm in no hurry to identify myself.

  • perverted justice (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @05:28AM (#30931068)

    So this poor man got a _real_ penalty for an imaginary crime committed against non existing persons. This is nothing more than thought crime, and he is a thought criminal, happy new year 1984.

  • Re:Wrong question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aceticon (140883) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @05:32AM (#30931090)

    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.

  • by managementboy (223451) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @05:33AM (#30931104) Homepage

    Did I miss this? Aren't Mangas just another kiddy porn depiction? Are they now illegal in Australia? Are the authorities arresting every Japanese with Mangas in their suitcase as they try to enter the country?

  • by bytesex (112972) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @05:34AM (#30931112) Homepage

    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.

  • by Hurricane78 (562437) <(deleted) (at) (slashdot.org)> on Thursday January 28, 2010 @05:42AM (#30931152)

    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.

  • by nick.cash (749516) <nick.cash@gmail.com> on Thursday January 28, 2010 @05:48AM (#30931174) Homepage
    I don't understand the commentators that think there's nothing inherently wrong with the "Simpsons porn" but still think this charge is all okay because he's been convicted of having child porn before, as if that makes all the difference. If what he's doing isn't wrong, it shouldn't matter what he's done in the past. If what he's doing is wrong, it still shouldn't matter. I can't see any way to logically arrive at the conclusion that justice was served here solely on the basis that he had done wrong before. They say Justice is blind, etc etc. Look: he was probably ordered to stay away from schools, jobs involving children, etc. If he has violated that, he would be charged with breaking parole or something similar (whatever the antipodean analogue thereof is) and we would never hear about him. Instead, this is something it appears he was not told not to do, is not normally illegal, and wouldn't be considered wrong if someone else did it... but yet he's being charged with a crime ONLY because he had committed a previous crime. I can't see this as anything other than the Australian authorities on a witch hunt to target anyone classified as a "pedophile". I (admittedly) don't know much about Australian law and politics, but if this were the US, it would almost undoubtedly be some prosecuting attorney wanting to demonstrate that they are "tough on crime" to further their career. On the other hand, since I having a daughter a little over a year ago, part of me can completely understand the knee-jerk reaction against pedophiles (if anyone hurt my daughter, I can't say what I would do to them)... but I just can't see having that reaction against this guy. I don't think he hurt anyone here. He may have contributed to hurting minors in the past, but it appears he's served his time for that. The law says he's served his time and that's over with (if you want to argue that he should have been punished more, go ahead, but that's irrelevant to the case at hand). He apparently hasn't hurt anyone since. There's no reason this should be held against him. In short: I've seen a few Simpson's porn pics in my day. Most everyone who's been around on the internet this long has. I've seen most every cartoon, tv show, comic, book, etc Rule 34'ed. I laughed and continued my day. I don't think there was anything wrong with me doing that, and I don't think there's anything wrong with anyone else doing the same thing, even a convicted child porn trafficker. This is a misapplication of the law.
  • Re:Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by laughingcoyote (762272) <barghesthowl@NOSpAm.excite.com> on Thursday January 28, 2010 @06:02AM (#30931232) Journal

    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.

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

    by quenda (644621) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @06:15AM (#30931296)

    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, Insightful)

    by the3stars (1030420) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @06:19AM (#30931318)
    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.
  • ascii porn (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @06:35AM (#30931414)
    Maybe it's drawn too poorly, but this is an actual depiction of Bart and Lisa engaging in taboo acts of a sexual nature!

    >+o
    >+o

    the sad part is that I am posting anonymously because.... what if?
  • Re:Insanity. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by obarthelemy (160321) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @07:20AM (#30931608)

    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)

    by HungryHobo (1314109) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @07:25AM (#30931630)

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @07:56AM (#30931746)

    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.

  • by AttilaSz (707951) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @08:06AM (#30931778) Homepage Journal

    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...

  • by SilentSandman (1488023) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @08:07AM (#30931780)

    Someone who --makes the concious choice to take a drug-- is also --making the concious choice to act under the drug's influence. Therefor, ANY crime they commit "while under the influence" is a concious, willing act.

    This "aww poor them, they were ADDICTED, so they HAD to beat their grandma to death" is a load of crap.

    Drugs should be entirely legal, with the simple premise that --if you CHOOSE to take them, your actions while 'under the influence' are also part of that CHOICE, and punishable as such.--

    Sorry for the rant, but this is one of my biggest pet-peeves; people should damned well take responsability for what they do.

  • by HungryHobo (1314109) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @08:11AM (#30931798)

    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:Insanity. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @08:19AM (#30931820)

    Well, that's the real problem. Nudity without eroticisim should not be pornography (or shameful, but that's another rant). The problem should be someone photographing you or your child without consent. Of course, actual child molestation is seperate and should be punished severely.

    In this case there wasn't even a victim at all, except 20th Century Fox or whoever owns the Simpsons IP. The entire case is incredibly stupid, and probably would have been dismissed if it wasn't for his prior conviction.

  • by strangemachinex (1659711) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @08:22AM (#30931842)
    Those type of images are kinda funny. I've seen them posted on message boards and various places dozens of times over the years. I don't think Simpson's porn is actually created to arouse anyone, it's just for jokes.
  • by wrook (134116) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @08:27AM (#30931868) Homepage

    Not sure if you're trolling or not. But just to clear up a common misconception, the vast, vast, vast majority of manga is not pornographic at all.

    Pornographic manga is definitely available in Japan, but not all of that depicts children. Pornographic manga is available in most book stores and as far as I can tell most of it depicts adults. There is definitely a sub-genre that depicts high-schoolers, but it is not the most numerous by any stretch of the imagination. As for manga depicting pre-pubescent children, I've never seen any in the shops. Probably you'd have to go to a specialty store of some kind. Where I live, I wouldn't have any idea where to start looking. Nor would anybody else I know around here.

    Graphic novels are a ligitimate avenue of storytelling that is very popular in Japan. Equating them with child-porn is really way off the mark.

    Having said that, my friend's niece is really into Inuyasha, so I mailed her the Japanese version of the first volume. I didn't realize at the time that there is a single topless picture of the main character (a 14 year old girl) in this volume. So it seems I am unwittingly guilty of distributing child porn into the US, to a child no less... :-P

  • Zombies! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sobrique (543255) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @08:44AM (#30931952) Homepage
    It's ok. They're actually 1000 year old zombies, so it's not CP at all.
    Seriously. What the hell? The anti-pedophilia laws are there to protect children from harm, particularly from people in a position of trust or influence. That's eminently reasonable.
    How does a cartoon - however tasteless - have anything to do with that?
  • by Asic Eng (193332) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @08:50AM (#30931990)
    It's precisely this sort of woolly-headed thinking which creates laws which send innocent men to prison - for nothing more than looking at drawings.

    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:Insanity. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zemran (3101) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @08:56AM (#30932026) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Jesus_666 (702802) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @09:17AM (#30932200)
    Depends on how you define "pedophile", I guess. Many people "like 'em young" without wanting to do children. Youth is simply attractive - I mean, just look at all the rich and/or famous old people who take on younger partners. The younger partners are attracted to fame or money and the older ones, well, to youth.
  • by no-body (127863) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @09:19AM (#30932230)

    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:Insanity. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Sobrique (543255) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @09:42AM (#30932412) Homepage
    I'm sure my mum has baby photos of me. That's not porn, and the only 'harm' I've had was when they got shown to my girlfriend.
    So what if someone finds them erotic though? I mean, really? The crime is in harming a child that because of age is not able to meaningfully consent to sexual activity
    Underage sex doesn't necessarily cause harm - but we set an age threshold because the only person who is able to consent to sexual activity is the child themselves, and we acknowledge that not being an adult means we cannot be sure that they know and understand the implications of doing so - much like other areas in life, such as drinking or getting a drivers license, or smoking.
    When we do the 'lets think of the children' then ... great, but lets be sure that's actually who we're thinking of - no child was harmed in the making of this cartoon porn. That makes it a witch hunt, and one that diverts attention to the real problem.
  • Re:Wrong question (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheLink (130905) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @09:54AM (#30932548) Journal

    > 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:Insanity. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @10:01AM (#30932624)

    I agree completely. Asking a pedophile to avoid child porn is like asking a typical man to avoid adult porn: the sexual urges are no doubt similar. With cartoons and computer simulation, a pedophile could find relief without any children being harmed in the process (as long as the images remain discreet). I fear that this prohibition on simulated child pornography is only driving some pedophiles into desperation, where they might do something stupid.

    It does depend on one's theory of pornography and sex, however: does porn relieve sexual urges or heighten them? If the former, then simulated child porn is good; if the latter, it's dangerous. Unfortunately, it might be both, depending on the person: whether they have obsessive or addictive tendencies, for instance. It's a difficult issue, something that the various national governments do not seem to recognize. They have to start from the fact that pedophilia is inborn, just like all other sexual desires and fetishes (who chooses to be a pedophile, or to be sexually attracted to shoes?). While the act of exploiting or sexually abusing children is a vile one which needs to be punished, I suspect that for every pedophile who is caught doing something evil like this, there are many others who suffer in silence, and those people need our help and sympathy, not expressions of horror.

    (I've never posted AC before but it occurs to me that someone might read this and guess that I am a pedophile. I am not, but the label of pedophile is so toxic that I don't want it tarnishing my identity here. Ironic perhaps, sad and spineless, but there it is.)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @10:11AM (#30932720)

    it's not a crime if you succeed.

  • by ewenix (702589) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @10:12AM (#30932736) Journal
    Does this mean that everyone who purchased the Simpsons Movie (which contains a nude scene of Bart skateboarding)
    is now a sex offender? Doesn't this mean the folks who produced the show should be prosecuted now too?
  • by Sir_Lewk (967686) <sirlewk AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday January 28, 2010 @10:44AM (#30933054)

    When people print money out illegally, it slightly decreases the value of all money by artificially introducing more money into the system without actually introducing more value.

    If everyone was allowed to legally print out money, then money would become worthless, even before anyone did anything. This is because everyone would lose faith in the currency entirely.

    There is a good reason everyone doesn't just use grass clippings as currency. Honestly your comprehension of economics reminds me a lot of myself... when I was in 6th grade.

  • by 2obvious4u (871996) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @10:46AM (#30933074)
    I've got the Britney Spears "Baby One More Time" video. Does that count?


    Oh, and I believe that in the earliest Jenna Jamenson videos she was 17. It was on the VH-1 special about her. I don't know if anyone has any of those laying around.
  • Re:Insanity. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dstech (807139) <darksidex3@gmail.com> on Thursday January 28, 2010 @10:49AM (#30933116)

    "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.

  • Re:Bad write up. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ElectricTurtle (1171201) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @10:55AM (#30933200)
    When 'erring on the side of caution' means thought crimes, that's too far. You say that pedophiles should expect supervision and scrutiny... for what happens in their heads? Molesters deserve supervision and scrutiny (after prison, just like any other dangerous criminal), but people who are just aroused by kids and take no action deserve no more special treatment than somebody turned on by violence who is nonetheless never physically violent.

    Abstract concerns like normalizing a market for harmful criminal activity through (what should be, ethically) non-harmful, non-criminal cannot be allowed to set precedents. It's like a person said in a comment in another thread, it is completely messed up that a person can technically become a criminal in Australia with a piece of paper and a pencil in a locked room. Trying to protect real people by protecting imaginary ones is as psychologically dysfunctional as pedophilia itself (not to mention wholly detrimental to whole genres of art, not just simulated CP).
  • by Cro Magnon (467622) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @10:57AM (#30933236) Homepage Journal

    Drawing pictures of dollar bills shouldn't be illegal. If I tried to SPEND my creations, THEN I should be locked up for fraud/counterfeiting, but not before. And whoever accepted my creations should have a mental exam or eyetest.

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

    by Blue Stone (582566) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @11:58AM (#30934252) Homepage Journal

    "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:First Pr0n (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dishevel (1105119) * on Thursday January 28, 2010 @12:10PM (#30934502)
    Obviously the Mod who nailed parent as Offtopic is an idiot.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 28, 2010 @12:29PM (#30934894)

    Pictures like the ones that sent this guy to jail are available right on Google image search.

    One search with the wrong keywords will put these in your browser cache, and send YOU straight to jail, too.

  • by Dixie_Flatline (5077) <vincent,jan,goh&gmail,com> on Thursday January 28, 2010 @01:13PM (#30935936) Homepage

    I'm surprised that none of the comments that I've read so far point out the Australian age of Consent, which is 16, as it is in many other western nations.

    I'll wait for you to think about this briefly. ...

    Right, so it's ILLEGAL to photograph a 16 year old having sex, or DRAW a 16 year old having sex, but it's 100% legal to ACTUALLY HAVE SEX with a 16 year old.

    They can consent to the ACT, but they can't consent to the DEPICTION OF THE ACT.

    Even worse, with the recent ruling that photographing women with small breasts may ALSO be illegal, depending on how young they look, it means that it's possible that you'd be breaking the law taking a picture of a 25 year old woman with A-cup breasts, but it would be fine to have sex with her 16 year old sister.
    (http://www.somebodythinkofthechildren.com/australia-bans-small-breasts/)

    How's THAT for internal consistency?

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

    by plague3106 (71849) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @01:49PM (#30936652)

    The problem should be someone photographing you or your child without consent.

    Consent is not needed if the pictures aren't used commercially and you or your child are out in public. My problem is that apparently some people think its ok to let their kids run around naked in public to begin with.

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

    by 5pp000 (873881) * on Thursday January 28, 2010 @02:16PM (#30937264)

    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.

    Very very very well said. We are perilously close to decreeing a thoughtcrime.

  • by Supergibbs (786716) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @05:56PM (#30942072) Homepage
    Every character (well most) are at least 21 years (seasons) old. They must all have some disorder where they don't age.
  • by mykos (1627575) on Thursday January 28, 2010 @08:34PM (#30944068)

    While cartoon porn isn't really my thing, I hate to see the civil rights of a real person deprived to protect an imaginary person.

Reference the NULL within NULL, it is the gateway to all wizardry.

Working...