Okay, as...well, laughably strange as Simpsons porn must be, as as creepy as images of Bart and Lisa doing whatever must be, how can this possibly be "child pornography"?
There are no children. It's a two-dimensional image of fictional characaters, not remotely realistic or human looking.
Now, lets face it, we've all seen some strange Anime or fan art of superheroes (it's usually very poorly done), but will that too oneday be considered a crime?
quote:But in a landmark ruling he decided that the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people
Soon they'll have the right to contribute to political campaigns....
Your opinions on this?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"He ruled that the animated cartoon could 'fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children,' and therefore upheld the conviction for child pornography."
So, looking at pictures of naked cartoon children will make the guy want to look at pictures of real naked children, therefore the naked cartoons must be banned. By that logic, looking at pictures of clothed children will probably make the guy want to look at pictures of naked children, therefore all pictures of children should be banned.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
I can understand the judge's logic honestly. Pedobear pr0n, regardless of form, style or type (live action OR animated) is still Child Pr0n as far as Aussyland law is concerned. What worries me is possession. i clip art lots of stuff in my pics, for the love of art, and that includes pr0n. As a responsible adult, its up to me to decide what is proper and what ISN'T.
Does this law mean that folks with japanesse hentai, like from edited by me or even edited by me might fall to the overzealousness of religious fuck-jobs? OReily needs to worry about Christians, not just Muslims...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Oh yeah- all that anime stuff is now somwhow a crime..and anyone having any is too. Even if you drew the stuff yourself, you somehow be "guilty".
Thoughtcrime is right around the corner from this...I'd bet the same judge would determine that a book with a written depictioin of such things would need to be banned. Maybe burned. Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Probably would indeed, actually. A written depiction of children having sex with adults would actually be *more* logically considered 'child porn' than a drawing of a Simpsons character.
I'm ashamed to live in this century right now, honestly....turning morals into overzealousness and laws into chains...what's become of us :-/ (Not that I'm one of those "good-ole-days-of-nature-harmony" hippie types....)
Posted by Josh (Member # 1884) on :
The man has questionable morale values, but legislation in this case is rather absurd. Where would you even draw the line?
If you have one of those hokey images of naked child angels, does that make you a pedophile?
No.
Would picking up hookers in Grand Theft Auto make you someone who's likely to solicite prostitutes?
No.
Should officials maybe keep an eye on people who are into this sort of thing?
Maybe. That's a much more reasonable way to approach the situation than they've taken.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: Thoughtcrime is right around the corner from this
It's here, we call it "Hate Crimes."
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hating Hate Crime Leglislation is itself a Hate Crime: stay where you are- Law Enforcment Officers are en route to escort you to the nearest re-education center.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I'll go with the "it shouldn't be illegal, but I really wouldn't want to sit near the bloke at any point" argument.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
The needs of the Humans outweigh the needs of the Vulcans...or the Telerites.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
does that mean that pedovulcanism will be the rav for 'other' peps? o.O Really, WTF?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Creepy X 1000
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
seriously. could you make hentai, put long ears and a tint of green & that asshole in Aussyland could be free with his pedoshit 'cause it aint human pedoshit?'
or does even Japan's hypocritical sensors that fucked up? let alone, Our's in the states?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Pensive, I think that (in the U.S.) for animated stuff to qualify as child p0rn in the states, it must depict a real person.
Which I agree with generally- it's just moving art- no matter how gross, no real people are being harmed. That;s no different than the violene or sexual situation in comic books- not real and not depicting real people.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
RofL, that little black cat did get owned (Oh a play thing for me to attack? AK! NOES MORES BUTZ SEX!)
RoFL but cally thinks video games are peps. if thier law becomes cannon, does that mean some other fuck wad will put a prop to illegalize comic books? or webcomics? or lemons? Romance novels? thoughts?
[im actually worried about someone (dating type) so thats why im more emotional this morn o.O]
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
So much for freedom of speech. If you find something objectionable, don't pay any attention to it! Someone else may like it, and that someone else may find your favourite thing objectionable and bitch and moan to get it eliminated. Fuck, I hate people. Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
I agree. You can't start saying what's acceptable to say and what isn't, not from a group/social standpoint anyway. Where do you draw the line?
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
at children. It's stupid but defence starts with protecting your young (which the last time i checked with a friend was the parents/guardian's responsiblity)
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Then where do you draw the line at what's harmful to children? Drugs? Nudity? ..>Seeing gay people together? Hearing alternate opinions on the creation of Earth? I had an uncle by marriage who flew into a rage when he found out his son was reading science fiction, because he thought reading about things that weren't real would warp his mind.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
if he was my uncle 'id flip the bird and tell him to go fuck himself, sir'. as for where the line is? that should be determined by YOUR parents, not goverement, Dan... that was my point. when you fuck away rules that mom & dad set, you get grounded. when you fuck away a goverment rule, you get jailed(possibly)
you get exposed to comcepts & prejudgious at home first. So if mom & dad are flaming homophobes, your gonna have issues in high school & adulthood.
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
Yeah, that was my point too. My previous post (that you replied to with 'the line is protect the children') was that you shouldn't be able to legislate what people can say, because where do you draw the line? So...I think we agree but miscommunicated.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
God I'm glad I don't have kids and don't really need to deal with this crap.
Although I will say that it IS the parent/legal guardians responsibility to protect their children from exposure to harmful influences whether it's violent video games, movies, tv, pedos, drugs & alcohol and the like.
The problem is that most kids get exposed to that stuff before or regardless of parental intervention. You can't unexpose your children to these things, at the same time most children are maturing much younger than most parents realize, and unless they've been exposed to pedos and drugs they usually turn out pretty well adjusted.
Anyways as for the topic at hand, no I don't consider naked CARTOON characters to be child pornography in the sense that some kid somewhere is being abused. It doesn't float my boat, but I fail to see how a drawing, no matter how obscene, should be made illegal.
I saw a very well made nude drawing of Miley Cyrus once. Someone obviously put a lot of time into it because it did a good job of portraying the uglyness. Is that child pornography? I dunno... Was it really gross? Just a bit...
Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :
You could make the argument that using someone's image in any way without their permission has the potential to harm them (emotionally or possibly financially) and so infringes on their personality rights, but I don't think it should specifically be illegal if it's the image of a real child; it should be illegal if it's the image of anyone real at all (excepting artistic merit, and yeah, I know how difficult that is to adjudicate, but it's the only way fanboys/girls sketching their favorite character are gonna get away with it).
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I agree with the notion that real people should not be depicted that way (though often are via Photoshop fakery and the like), but this is a case of nothing remotely real being represented. At most, this should be a potential copyright infringment issue if Fox wanted to presue it...which I doubt, as it would only draw (no pun intended) further attention to the subject.
Huh...I wonder if Austrailla has Offender type laws like in the US- and if this places the convicted man in some category with real pedos...
Where's Andrew in all this? It's his crazy contry after all!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)