now can anyone in here tell me where this makes any sense?
no matter what his thoughts are, no matter how perverted or insane they are, as long as they are only in his head and not the real world i don't have a problem with it, i might disrespect them but that is only to be expected.

I'm pretty sure I've seen the pictures in question. The intent behind them was to tell a joke, not depict actual children engaged in actual sex. In other words, it's SATIRE, not pornography.

It would be like if I wrote a joke about teenagers having sex, and some a-hole judge put me in jail for creating smut depicting minors in a sexual act.

That judge should be disbarred (and smacked,) and the cops who arrested the man should be held accountable for the damage they've done to his life. People are going to think he's some child pornographer or pedophile, when odds are he's just a guy like most of us who happens to appreciate satire.

Sadly, now that the judge has ruled that the Simpsons kids are people, I'm sure some idiot congressman will be along any day now to insist that taxpayer dollars should be set aside to protect fictional children from being victimized by sexual predators.

On another note, and what's probably the most important thing to consider: The Simpsons characters barely even look like people, for crying out loud! Anyone who can look at Simpsons drawings and go, "Oh, that's real porn!" let alone "Oh, that's real people!" needs to get a life. GET-A-LIFE. Frivolous court trials like this are what's destroying the American justice system.

The people supporting this ruling need to find something else to do, like go report your mothers for the naked baby pictures she took of you.

I have seen the same things done with the Flintstones. I sure hope the owners of the copyrights to these cartoons sues the pants off of people passing this sick crap around. It may not be child pornography, BUT IT SURE AS HECK IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Originally posted by groingrinder
I have seen the same things done with the Flintstones. I sure hope the owners of the copyrights to these cartoons sues the pants off of people passing this sick crap around. It may not be child pornography, BUT IT SURE AS HECK IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

No it isnt. under the fair use act one is allowed to make parodies and satires.

If this judge made it a law where cartoon children are considered real children too, would it uphold in court to claim cartoon characters you drew, as dependents, when filing your tax return?

I would love to try and cite this judge's decision as my defense in tax court.

I hear I'm related to all the disney characters ever made.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by DJMessiah]

That is unbelievable. A few years ago I saw such Simpson cartoon parodies everywhere. People sent them to me in emails. I saw them in office cubicles and the like. It is just not imaginable to have this viewed as child porn. Tasteless yes, porn no. There was even one with Pluto, Goofy, Mickey, Donald Duck all shagging Minney Mouse that was passed around. I never thought much of it.

My 10 year old son was excluded from school for drawing an image which appeared to be a large dog having intercourse with a young woman. He didn't see anything like this going on in the family home, I can only presume he saw it on TV/internet - but either way - exclusion for what amounts to a thought crime is pretty harsh. The school overreacted - the other kids just found it funny - they didn't understand what it was so how could it offend them.

This judge in the US has gone too far. Thank god in the UK we don't elect morons to be judges, we appoint those who are qualified through years of judicial service.