Cartoon porn kids are people, judge says in Simpsons porn case, page 2

reply to post by RFBurns

---

So if a person is 18, but they still "look" young... then they still are considered a child? While I don't think that it is particularly healthy to look at pornographic images of the simpsons, I think that this is a ridiculous interpretation of the law.

reply to post by RFBurns

---

Was the intent to go byond a set of cartoon drawings? Was the intent to move into another, far worse act?

Unless there is evidence that this was the intent then this is also in no way a legally sound argument. You can only assume what you like, and people should not be charged with crimes based on other people’s assumptions.

If there is a potential of him/her spreading their dirty deeds byond their mind and byond the confines of thier closed door,

That is also not a legal issue. I can not have any faith in a justice system that charges people based on political correctness and other peoples’ morals. That frightens me just as much as having an individual like this living next to me does.


[edit on 8-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

An unbelievably stupid decision by an Australian court.

If this person had other material that was true child pornography, then so be it and send him to the gallows, but very well-known cartoon characters?

I think this is a dangerous precedent - the Australian government is already looking to bring in internet censorship, and I was recently listening to the BBC and how they thought it was somewhat odd for a western democratic country to be introducing those type of controls (and most likely reducing internet speeds at the same time).

Here's another example:

Man charged over viral baby-swinging video

www.smh.com.au...

The old guy re-uploaded a video of a baby being swung by its parent to Liveleak and has been charged for child abuse.. even though he didn't make the recording, and it's a well-known clip on the internet.

Colin Jacobs, vice-chairman of the online users' rights lobby group Electronic Frontiers Australia, said public anxiety around the depiction of children seemed to have spiked in recent times, fuelled by politicians and anti-child-abuse campaigners.

"It's now reached the point where any parent would have to think twice about posting a photo of their children to a photo-sharing website," he said.

"Cases like this seem to indicate that we've gone beyond the point of the sensible and entered into hysteria territory."

Just seems a bit Stasi-like

[edit on 8-12-2008 by mattguy404]

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by RFBurns

---

Was the intent to go byond a set of cartoon drawings? Was the intent to move into another, far worse act?

Unless there is evidence that this was the intent then this is also in no way a legally sound argument. You can only assume what you like, and people should not be charged with crimes based on other people’s assumptions.

If there is a potential of him/her spreading their dirty deeds byond their mind and byond the confines of thier closed door,

That is also not a legal issue. I can not have any faith in a justice system that charges people based on political correctness and other peoples’ morals. That frightens me just as much as having an individual like this living next to me does.


[edit on 8-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

It depends on the evidence found, plus the person's history, which no matter what liberals like to think, DOES have a role in what a person is and what they do in life. It is no different from a bank robber with a history of robbing banks, more than likey, until caught, that person will continue to rob banks.

Now if this fella has a history, then that has to be taken into account to make the decision to either just let it go, or to stop it.

Dont sit there and pretend that you wouldnt have any stake in the matter or consider the point has no legal footing if the guy lived next door to you and you had kids and he began to start talking to them overlooking the fence trying to lure them into a bad situation as you sit there in your room typing away on ATS, and come to you saying "momie, that man next door showed us a nasty picture and tried to get us to come over. Thats BS and you know it. You would be the first one on the phone to 911 and be outside watching as they haul the sicko away in cuffs.

The reason why you currently say you would feel comfy about him living next door to you and you had kids is becasue the fact is...he doesnt live next door to you right now, and if you got any kids, is no threat to your kids at this point in time.

Its quite funny how some people want it both ways. Protection from the boogie man, but also to give just enough rope so that the boogie man can find ways to get at you eventually. Only then to be the first to cry wolf that something should have been done to prevent it from happening.

This is not a case of policing a person's thoughts. It is a case of someone who had illegal content on their pc, and if those laws over there state its illegal for that kind of content, then its illegal. Im not the law system over there so dont bark up the wrong tree.

Unless any of you know this person, his history, the facts of the case, and the reasons why the judgement was made, I find it difficult for any of you to be supporting this freak just because it was only naked cartoon characters and that would define the person as not having any possibility of being a future risk.

Again, what was in those cartoon pictures other than simple simpson simplicity eh? Had to be some very serious nasty cartoons I would say for the judgement.

Eventually, your liberal point of view will come back and haunt you. I believe its called karma.

Might as well stand in front of a speeding train and expect the train to go around you.

reply to post by RFBurns

---

You sure do a lot of talking, without ever really having much to say. Why is it that I keep seeing you polluting up pretty much every thread on ATS? Are you an expert on everything?

These tacky, tasteless cartoons are the visual equivalent of The Aristocrats, meant to shock people into laughing. Calling someone who finds them funny a little lacking in taste, sure, but a freak? If this guy is a freak, then so are most people i know.

When I was really young, the big gag like this was a drawing of ET, with a toilet lid coming down on his privates, making his head shoot up, it read "How ET got his long neck", really stupid, tacky, tasteless. Not anymore criminal or freaky than these cartoons though; PC-ness to the point of absurdity and making people fear to be creative, unique, or outspoken has GOT TO STOP!

reply to post by RFBurns

---

It depends on the evidence found, plus the person's history, which no matter what liberals like to think, DOES have a role in what a person is and what they do in life.

So I'm a liberal for believing in a justice system that adheres to the law and not your opinion? Okay, I think I've had enough of this discussion. So far there seems to be no legal precedence for this judge’s actions, he over stepped his bounds. If any new evidence proves me wrong I'll be happy with these charges, so far this is a mockery of the justice system, and people like you who call those who even attempt to question it "liberal" are the reason the hysterics override common sense and respect for everyone's rights. Side with a judge who overlooks the rights of a "pervert" and next time that same judge might be doing the same to you.

This decision does not only affect this man’s life, it could wrongfully affect several others, dangerously blurring lines.

[edit on 8-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

reply to post by RFBurns

---

Dont sit there and pretend

Pretend what? Where did I say such a thing wouldn’t concern me? Both issues concern me a great deal, I don’t know if you ignored that or if it went over your head. Your tangents and babbling are straying from what I’ve stated, you’re projecting anger on to me that I have no knowledge of- but I know it is not mine. It couldn’t possibly belong to me just because I disagree with you on this one issue, please kindly stop projecting these feelings on to me.

Eventually, your liberal point of view will come back and haunt you. I believe its called karma.

Might as well stand in front of a speeding train and expect the train to go around you.

Wow, that’s sort of low. You can’t defend your argument with legality; you are only talking about guesses and broad assumptions that don’t relate to any of the current evidence. I’m trying to point out the legality in this instance, and you seem to think morality and your assumptions of a situation both of us only know so much about is far more important. Now for questioning you and having a different opinion karma is going to come and get me. Perhaps you and this man could both use some psychological assistance.

i've just skimmed through the posts on the first page but i have got to say that some people just don't get what child porn is. What i'm getting from their post is they think child porn is just pictures with kids performing sexual acts. I hate to tell you if thats what you think it is. IT'S NOT!!!!!

Child porn is any pic of an underage child with there clothes off. They could just be modeling, or performing a sexual act.

Heres the kicker. lets say little Johnny who is 15 is at his friend Billy's house with a camera And billy's sister who is 14 is in her room changing her clothes and Johnny runs in her room with a camera and takes here picture and she's topless. Under the Law That Picture is child porn!

NOw getting back to the OP:

I wonder what that Judges defination of a "person" is. Because as far as I know A cartoon character was something someone made up and was not an alive being!

Under this judges ruling then Yes all of us that own the Simpsons movie bought a form of Child porn just because it shows Barts genitals for a few seconds!

And some people in this thread are hipocrites since they feel its ok for a judge to legislate from the bench on certain issues but they disagree in this instance when a judge legislated from the bench and ruled a cartoon character was a real person.

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
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.

so let me get this straight you think porn is gross but yet you like to sometimes think art is ok to be used as porn.

Cartoon characters are another form of art! so why is it ok for one form of art to have nudity and to be used like porn and another art form which is meant to be used as porn is not ok.

Dude really get a clue!

Originally posted by maus80
reply to post by RFBurns

---

You sure do a lot of talking, without ever really having much to say. Why is it that I keep seeing you polluting up pretty much every thread on ATS? Are you an expert on everything?

Wow! So you've noticed this too! I thought I may have been the only one

maus80: 1
RFBurns: 0

IRM

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: