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

Does this mean you like midget porn?

Sorry, I had to do it...

pretty damn lame. i don't consume porn myself but i support the legality of it all the way. to say that cartoon characters is kiddie born....thats stretching it imo

This is the sickest thing I have ever heard of!

Showing a child molester a cartoon of children would be like showing a starving person a picture of food! It will only make them want it that much more!

Child molesters would use the cartoons to lure children into the situation they want to lead them too.

Is nothing sacred?

reply to post by RFBurns

---

Are you for real there isn't a single person alive who has not been negatively influenced by movies encouraging everything from promiscuious sex, to mass murder. Just because I like old charles bronson and clint eastwood movies does not make me a murderer. But if you think for a second that an inappropriate thought has not popped into my head in a moment of rage you have not had many life experiences. The point is I know right from wrong I chose the path of integrity. Regardless of the negativity which I have taken in through e-mail jokes or porn.

But the thing burns me the most about what you just said is "the rights of one guy" when this country had a constitution prior to the institution of the patriot act. it stated that all men were equal, that no man would be denied... It is the terrorizing government of the united states that has raped the rights of american citizens and this is a classic case of it.

The people behind the characters:

Bart- Nancy Cartwright Age 51

Lisa- Yeardley Smith Age 44

Maggie- Elizabeth Taylor Older than God.

This is nothing new, remember Fritz the Cat. That's from '72. People need to get a grip.

reply to post by futurepast

---

you must not have been around too much if this is the sickest thing you've heard of.

cartoons of the friggin simpsons and kiddie porn are miles apart.
people need to come off it already

Your argument is flawed. You are assuming that those who look at the pictures are child molesters. If the person has never molested the child, he or she cannot be labeled a child molester.

Why is this distinction important?

Well if you believe that those who view the pictures have committed a crime, without any evidence as such, you are throwing the legal system out the window.

I have a collection of guns, a copy of “Dog Day Afternoon”, and would like some more cash. This doesn’t provide any evidence that I have robbed a bank though.

This ruling just made a lot of 20 something hentai lovers very sad.
I guess the simpsons thing is a hentai knockoff, hentai being anime (japanese cartoons) characters made into porno movies.

And yes, i do watch Anime (Naruto) but I do NOT delve into the hentai fantasy world.

This is extremely unjust. Normally if people enjoy loli or shota cartoons, they are trying to find a somewhat better way of dealing with their desires. Loli and shota do not hurt any children, and they are more acceptable in my opinion than real CP.

Not every pedobear or shotacat wants to harm real children, you know.

tell that to the japanese.

If you think they are sexual child abuse pictures, you have a strange mind. I mean come on, Lisa Simpson? Yellow cartoon character with spiky hair? Four fingers? Get real for god sake. They are not *real persons*, they are *cartoons*.

They don't even look realistic!

Then you make a looong post about how these sickos are this and that, while missing the point that these pictures are for laughs.

Oh come on this is ridiculous! I guess Elfen Lied is porn because a young character is molested by her step father and later shown taking a bath with Nyu. I guess any one with a baby Jesus painting... Ok I'll give you the Catholic Church and the Vatican being Pedophile Central, but every one else with the same pictures, copies of, so forth, are they pedophiles?

The problem here isn't that anyone who looks at Animated pornography are sick in the head (Anyone who looks at pornography is really guilty of this as in the when you start getting bombarded with ads, some of them are bound to be animated). I mean I'll admit, being a young man and hopped up on testosterone, I'm going to look at pornography when I'm home alone and with a high-speed cable connection. Any guy that says "nope" is lying, all my guy friends do it.

But not a single one of us have ever justified that for actions of rape, abuse, and anything else depicted in the imagery that we have been exposed to.

We are not sick in the head. We understand the word "No" and we understand civil decorum and responsibility. It is ABSURD to me that so many people are disgusted as they are. To me I see this as them CHOOSING to be ignorant and not searching for the truth.

Look at any male between the ages of 18 and 45(for my example's purposes)... now imagine them looking at pornography because I can almost guarantee you most of them either have at some point or currently do and on a frequent basis.

Sorry girls, not every guy in the world has a girlfriend/wife/buddy with benefits so we kind of have to "release" at something or the THOUGHT of something.(Ok it's not a MUST, I don't want to make a sweeping generalization as so many have on this thread)

I think guys would be lost without the pornographic industry and god bless all of them, it is the guilty pleasures of life and I personally know a few girls who enjoy it too.

I think the case regarding this pedophile is about a man who truly is messed up in the head clinically and who does have a serious problem, they just needed the first thing to indict him with. Kinda like how they couldn't get O.J. Simpson for murder, so they nailed him for something else.

The man has a problem that can't necessarily be fixed so they locked him up. I believe that to be the issue here and not the distribution of cartoon pornography.

Shattered OUT...

It may have been said but what about receiving these images on a cell phone? I know of one of the images of Bart and Lisa, that made the rounds awhile ago. so now the phone company has evidence of millions of folks engaging in child related porn.

I guess the photos that i have, were i am naked has a baby , can be used against me has phedopilia in Australia if i lived there.

This is fricken retarded. The simpsons? I mean come the heck on dont we have better things to do with the court system then to prosecute someone watching cartoon porn? OMFG thats so retarded. My tax dollars are so well spent.

I don't have the data on me, but I believe Penn & Teller mentioned on their Showtime series that sex crime statistics plummeted after the widespread use of internet porn was established.

Should we be striking fear into those people who feel the need to view these materials in the privacy of their own home? Pretty soon, the law is going to make it easier to get away with actual crimes against children than it will be to get off to some cartoons.

Protect and serve.

There's something missing to this story.
Actually quite a bit missing.
WHO reported him as possessing porn in the first place?
WHY was his computer checked?
Did he show tendencies towards children that are not in the original charges for lack of evidence?
What if he intended to lure children with the prospect of watching a cartoon and then show them this?
The judges call, baffles me, and I'm trying to find reason here.
In my mind, an accusation of having cartoon porn on a computer wouldn't make it past the front desk of the police station, let alone an all out court case.
HOW did it progress to that?

I think you may be on to something there. It's not the priests' faults after all! It's the church that bombards them with 'kiddie porn' all day long! How dare they tempt such strong willed celibate men by waving baby Jesus' 'member' in their faces day in, and day out. What did they think viewing all of that 'kiddie porn' would lead to? [/sarcasm]