Cartoon porn kids are people, judge says in Simpsons porn case, page 1/

Cartoon porn kids are people, judge says in Simpsons porn case

www.news.com.au

Alan John McEwan was appealing his February conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.

"The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons," the judge said.

The cartoons showed characters such as Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex.

McEwan was convicted and fined $3000 and placed on a good behaviour bond.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

What?

Firstly on this issue of The Simpsons and "The Simpsons Movie", not sure about other cuts of the movie but here in Australia we clearly were able to see Bart's genitalia, are you telling me that I have now partaken in viewing underage pornography and now am able to be prosecuted by the law? Plus the other MANY millions of people that viewed said film?

Anyway back on topic. How is this outcome remotely acceptable. Child protection laws are in place to protect a child, what child in this case was not being protected?

If i drew a popular person being murdered have i committed the murder? Better yet, does this drawing get care in a hospital? What does this case do for comic drawers etc. The outcome of this case has far worse consequences than i think this judge realised.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by RFBurns

---

I starred your post because it perfectly sums up how I feel about this whole thing. I don't see why so many people like pornography. I think pornography is gross.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by RFBurns

---

I starred your post because it perfectly sums up how I feel about this whole thing. I don't see why so many people like pornography. I think pornography is gross.

What about art?

All those paintings with Cherubs etc

Is that pornography?

By definition set by the judge, it is.

Quick Frankidealist35, cover your eyes!

baby jesus is naked in a painting!

That sick 16th Century artist Benvenuto Tisi was up to no good I tell ya!








[edit on 7-12-2008 by Chadwickus]

reply to post by SilentShadow

---

modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons

Modelled on...means cartoon "spin off's" or knock offs. Kinda like the porn Dora the Explorer... ya know.

The issue isn't with the cartoons persay. It's with a known pedo getting his rocks off at the THOUGHT of or implication of or imagining of.. sex with minors.

Any media depicting sex with minors is wrong be it cartoon or real.

And as for classical art...good lord you guys are obviously too young to remember all the hub bub about the Michelangelo statues LMAO...they actually COVERED the privates back in the day so as not to offend the pious and pure.

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

---

I dont think that it matters that it was cartoon material vs photographs of real children. The message was the same.


Oh and as far as the art work of the naked Jesus baby up there, is that artwork sending the same message as the cartoon drawings in the Simpson stuff???

Dont think so, that is where the difference is.



Cheers!!!!!

reply to post by Chadwickus

---

*edited out comment so people dont freak out* Never mind.


So, I have the Simpson movie in my home....does that mean, I have child porn now???


Also, I have to say..........The Simpsons have been around sooo long now...aren't the kids realistically adults now? They probably just have some diesese that prevents them from "growing"


[edit on 12/7/2008 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by Chadwickus

---

Art is gross too, but, I would allow it because it has educational qualities. I sometimes like to think that art is sometimes used so people can dwell in their fantasies of naked people.

reply to post by greeneyedleo

---

I would say no since only about a fraction of the content in that movie shows any kind of child nudity in animation form, and even with that, the message was not outright animation of cartoon kids having sex.


There is a difference between that and what this sicko got busted for.




Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns

---

The message was the same.

But I don’t see any legality behind that. Child porn is punishable by law because it depicts actual children in sexually graphic pictures. The law does not police our thoughts, yet. Unless his fake porn somehow proved he had the intent to purchase or be in possession of real child porn this doesn’t seem legally sound.

Edit: Also the same could be said about fiction stories. Do you think stories with underage characters engaging in sexual acts should be illegal if the message conveyed is the one that worries you in this instance?

[edit on 7-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

---

Well see thats the dilema isnt it. Was the intent to go byond a set of cartoon drawings? Was the intent to move into another, far worse act?

I agree with you about the notion of policing thoughts. However would it have been a good thing for the court to look the other way because they were just cartoon characters and take the chance that this person's intent was only going to be limited to what was on the PC, and not go any further?

Perhaps the judge was thinking about the community as a whole, and not just this one person's right to think nasty if he so desires. With the stats of abducted and sexually exploited children these days, I can see the position of the court on this matter.

What if this guy lived next door to you and you had kids? And then to hear about this fella's little dirty secret....would it have been better to throw out the case at that point and you still feel confident that one day this fella wouldnt look over the fence in the backyard and watch your kids playing and start talking to them holding up pictures of cartoons which would not have anything bad on them, but then at some point eventually show your kids some that did?


Lots to consider here than just the guy's personal rights. If there is a potential of him/her spreading their dirty deeds byond their mind and byond the confines of thier closed door, then it becomes a public matter, and again, with the statistics of abducted and sexually exploited children these days...the system made the right decision IMO.

Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 5 days ago with 83 member flags

Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can\'t opt out
  Posted 18 days ago with 78 member flags

BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran\'s nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
  Posted 3 days ago with 73 member flags

Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags

Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 18 days ago with 67 member flags

FDA\'s New Claim: "Your Body Is a Drug—and We Have the Authority to Regulate It"
  Posted 10 days ago with 53 member flags

Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags

Bill Gates Backs Climate Scientists Lobbying For Large-Scale Geoengineering
  Posted 5 days ago with 41 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: