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

reply to post by AccessDenied

---

Actually, i believe that all it takes is an accusation but youre right in wondering who brought it up in the first place.
Someone had to have seen it on his pc and reported it, unless the sites that are hosting these cartoons have caught the attention of the FBI or, since this was in Australia, some other agency.

You make some good points access, there is a lot more to this case than whats written in the story.

Just spent 15mins looking for this. I am yet to find those details, however, i shall continue looking. I am going to see if i can find the original police reports from February.

For the moment i shall leave you all with a picture of Lisa Simpson performing fellatio on a headless man:



We are now all going to jail... LOL

[edit on 8/12/2008 by SilentShadow]

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.

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

reply to post by groingrinder

---

It is not a considered copyright infringement because it is used as a PARODY. In America this is freedom of speech. and we can thank the SC and Larry Flint for keeping parodies from being a criminal act. If this did not happen, then you could be arested just because someone did not like what you said about them in an exaggerated moment of laughter.

reply to post by mattifikation

---

I agree but this particular incident happened in Australia and thats a good thing for him too because had it happened in the US, he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
When someone searched online for sex offenders, his name would pop up, along with the crime, downloading and watching an animated movie of Lisa giving to Bart Simpson.

reply to post by SilentShadow

---

honestly now, u have to be an idiot to not see that as a joke!! Seriously now, im against the child porno non sense, sick minded individuals

the justice system is wacked out especially in america! just another stupid law enforcement whos making somebody else suffer so the government can rob them legally ...... i think people should make their own justice out here in this world, might as well, since other people are doing it anyway.......

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.

reply to post by Mercenary2007

---

If any image of a nude child is child porn, then how come there are so many legal films with full frontal child nudity available? How come there are so many legal 'art' books with photographs of naked children in? Why haven't almost every parent been arrested for taking photographs of their new babies in the bath or wherever? If you search on Youtube there are videos of children in the bath where you can see their private parts. Is that child porn too?
Edit to add: There are also a few music album cover images depicting full frontal nudity of babies (Nirvana for one). Are people owning them going to get arrested for having and viewing child porn now?

On the sexualisation aspect, then I agree that cartoons of children in sexual positions is wrong. And I'm sure that in the UK at least, in the child protection laws it states drawn images of children in sexual situations is an offence.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by doogle]

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.

reply to post by Dutty_Rag

---

Read the freaking article ffs, its in AUSTRALIA not the US. Its hilarious how you people just automatically assume this is in the US.
Isnt the Australian legal system modeled after the UK legal system?