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

reply to post by DJMessiah

---

I'll never have to work again! I'll draw thousands of animated children then file for welfare! I get 100 dollars per kid, times a few thousand... I'll be making millions a year! Also, as asked, if an animated character is human then all those people killed in Ghost In The Shell... is that actual murder?

Putting aside that this wasn't the USA you should be aware that the UK is going to implement a law making any animated images of child abuse illegal. Furthermore the law recently bought in makes simulated violent sexual images illegal.

Our system is no better.

I take back my comments they were rash.

But indeed this is a huge issue. I am of the opinion that someone shouldn't even be charged for having REAL child porn images on their computer.

MAKING THEM - yes, distributing them - yes, but simply looking at something can not be illegal - it's a thought crime.

If someone abuses a child - I agree they need to be prosecuted or whatever society deems fit. Like most people I find the whole thing abhorrent, but as I have argued many times with people, simply looking at images, no matter how disgusting you might find it, is a right.

Intent has to be taken into account of course - but technically, the law effectively criminalises people looking at such images.

What about the grey areas - journalists, lawyers looking at such images for research purposes. They guy who just happens to like girls who look 18, 19 (you can find 1000000 websites advertising such stuff) who happens to stumble upon a rouge image of a girl who's 16 - and never even realises.

The argument that 'demand' means people go out and abuse children to make the images is moot. Most peado's trade images, they don't buy them on some kind of market place - there is no significant market for child pornography. The people making it are clearly pedophiles, not businessmen who would make the pornography anyway.

I acknowledge that many people who look at these sick images go on to become abusers - but some inevitably don't and perhaps are just satisfying some kind of curiosity. Let's start prosecuting people who commit actual abuse crimes. Not people who like looking at pictures.

I totally agree that extending this law to cover images that aren't even human is almost comical. There will no doubt be a number of test cases once someone is prosecuted for something on the borderline - 'a daddy robot buggering a child robot' - or what about 'an adult banobo (chimp like creature) having sex with an infant - absolutely common in nature. If you draw this, or worse, photograph it - where do you stand.

I go further and say that the guy who sets out to draw a pedophiliac image of a human raping a young child - should be able to do so. It's a drawing - and almost better someone does that than actually - having been criminalised - going out and actually committing the act. I'd argue that criminalising this stuff actually encourages people who were perhaps existing within the law, on the margins, and quite happy to do this, to think 'what the hell - I've been looking at anime for years - I'm already a criminal, I won't get punished anymore if I start looking at video's of daddy fingering little sally'.

Also, these are the kind of laws that we need to be very wary of. Where did this come from? When have law makers demonstrated a need for such a law? What is public opinion?

Stealth laws brought into oppress for no apparent reason. I'm not suggesting conspiracy, but I am suggesting a loss of control of the general population over how they choose to live. Being content to allow a small, not very in touch minority to make laws like this that very well can result in innocently minded people being arrested because their innocent actions that affect no third parties are suddenly deemed as criminal .

If nothing else this is moving the goal posts.

If the government suddenly decides to ban R-rated movies due to the violent content, how many of you would find it difficult never to watch one of the existing R-rated movies in your collection? Would doing this really mean you were a criminal intent on violence? Would watching them anyway mean you were supporting and encouraging the commission of violent acts? Are you creating a market for products resulting from violence even though the movie you are watching contains no footage of anyone actually being 'really' harmed - hell, the R rated film may even be an animation!

reply to post by GamerGal

---

No because the people from GITS are only androids

You raise a good point though. Where do we draw the line?

Now I know for a fact when technology has advanced enough for humanity to have androids that mimic humans in looks, emotion, and thought, they will make it a crime to have sexual intercourse with the machine.

I'm sure a judge somewhere will rule children androids can be considered real children too. These people will be known as machinaphiles

This is sad!
This is one of those more frequent cases where we manufacture a victim and to prosecute someone! Can't believe this is a serious case...

brilliantly stated.

so are we to assume that brilliant works of "art" like the story of Lolita, any truth related to ancient Greek/Roman times, half the images in The Louvre, etc are to be considered lewd?

On here? Most definitely. The "art is gross" comment on page 1 has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a really long time. I wonder if that head in his avatar is a self portrait?

My "foes" and "ignore" buttons are getting a workout though.

I didn't read the entire thread, but I must say this whole court case is just ridiculous.

I'm not going to get into an argument of morality with anyone's ideals because it's a futile exercise.

As for the pictures mentioned in the court case - I've probably seen a couple of those myself. E-mails circulate like wildfire on the internet. I used to get a lot of junk forwarded e-mail from friends, who got them from a forwarded e-mail. I'm pretty sure in one of them it showed family members from the Simpson's preforming some sort of sexual act. These e-mails may still be sitting in my old mail files in my Yahoo or G-mail account. Am I a sex offender for having opened, read the jokes and saw the pictures and laughed at them? Also, does that make Yahoo or G-mail complicit in my offense? I almost think I ENJOYED the e-mail - even without touching myself or having any sort of sexual arousal. Does that make me a bad or immoral person?

Having said that of junk forwarded e-mails - let me say one more thing. I receive just as many Christian-based, heart-felt, thinking-of-you, pray-for-someone, Jesus-died-for-you, support-our-troops, vote-for-my-candidate, save-our-planet junk forwarded e-mails sent to me. It's my conclusion that I am more often offended by these e-mails (though I may not disagree with their message) than I am by the rude & crude, semi-offensive e-mails I sometimes receive. This is because e-mails such as these are aimed at affecting my emotions to induce a response. Most frequently a response that would change my ideals or thoughts toward a certain subject. At least the crude e-mails are sent for simple entertainment purposes and not as a propaganda tool for another person's or group's cause..

[edit on 9-12-2008 by tyranny22]

So, I take it the Simpson's will no longer be shown in the UK?

What's "child abuse"?

In the Simpson's Homer often grabs Bart with both hands and proceeds to choke him when Bart sometimes says or does something to anger Homer.

Here in the United States child abuse includes harmful physical acts toward a child. This would include hitting, kicking or choking.

Will each scene have a special UK edit to delete these images from running in your country?

This is precisely why this entire court case/argument is utterly ridiculous.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by tyranny22]

Actually it's not a thought crime. If someone else films a snuff film, and you buy it.. then you are an accomplice.

I agree that cartoons are cartoons regardless... and this should never have come to court. But given the fact that it is SOOO HARD to find, investigate and prosecute child porn makers, the legal system has a better chance at lowering the risk to children by going after the child porn market. Although, I believe the did themselves and children a disservice by going after cartoon porn.

If it were cartoons.. then yes, it is a thought crime. But actual images mean that there was an actual crime, and if you have a bunch of actual images which you have actually purchased, well then you are an accomplice to the actual crime.

And this is why the cartoon thing blows my mind. Because there was no actual crime comitted. And in no way can prosecution of having cartoons have any effect on reducing the amount of children abused in this world.

You can't prosecute someone for being a pedophile, you can only prosecute someone for committing the act of pedophilia or contributing to the act, which actual child porn images would have been indicative of.

it's sad that we even have to debate this

Wow some of yall are really up tight. So what if a guy likes cartoon pornography? You really think he should go to jail for that. I don't condone CP but common people, you really want your government to censor everything??

I don't, and I hope you don't win.

Another really good point. Lolita is a favorite of mine, and many others who are not perverts and don't "get off" on sexualizing children. But the book thoroughly discusses sexual relationships with minors. Should all of us Lolita owning perverts be locked away? If a drawing can be considered a real child by any stretch of the imagination then certainly children written out and described on paper can be as well. This is why you shouldn't support twisted charges that blur the lines, they end up affecting all of us, and enforcing censorship because of moral belief systems and political correctness, and they make innocent people into the "bad guys". Complete witch hunt mentality.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

---

That’s not a thought crime because snuff films are illegal because they have real people in them who are tortured and killed. Snuff films have victims, these drawings do not. There is a huge difference.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Personally I wanted to see Jeramy Irons do the kid.. The actress was about 25 anyway.

That aside, I still think real images or not - it shouldn't be a crime. Images of children arn't indicative of someone being involved in peadophilia.

I don't like it, or do it, but if a guy wants to jack off over images of kids - animated or otherwise in the privacy of his own trailer I say let him.

As I said, I don't think this is making someone else more likely to make porn by increasing demand AND also, to those who say, if this guy is looking at kids online it makes him more likely to commit an act of child abuse, shouldn't we be helping the guy, curing him rather than arresting him and making him feel even more marginalised and likely to abuse/kill ?

ALSO.. I think the same for snuff films to be honest - the crime is the killing - not looking at images of it.

How many people downloaded the killing video of Nick Berg in Iraq - and not all for pleasure. I watched that as I wanted to know the facts with all of the controversy around it. It was placed in the public domain (rightly or wrongly) and it was talked about by almost every news-reader in the world.

Some people watched it for pleasure. Some people no doubt watched it for non pleasure related videos but actually enjoyed it in some way - laughed when their buddy made a sick joke. Are they accomplices? Does there watching of the video make the committal of this murder less likely (impossible since it is after the fact) -

reply to post by Dutty_Rag

---

People are punished for viewing and possessing snuff films because an ACTAUAL PERSON is being brutally murdered in them. Completely the opposite of fantasizing with drawings. Point blank: laws against snuff films exist to tear down a sick, underground industry that makes money off victimizing real people.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

Yep.. that was the point I was making.

The guy i was replying to attempted to make the case that simply having images of real child porn was somehow not a real crime, and i was attempting to illustrate that indeed it was a real crime.

Cartoons on the other hand... well there is no crime in that.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

---

Sorry, I think I was paying more attention to the original post than your own. Good post.

Please don't make sweeping statements

"possessing child porn is a real crime"

in the sense that it is against the law yes - but in terms of how this contributes to the abuse of children - please clarify with statistics.

It's wrong and unsavoury and I'd rather people don't look at these images - I'd rather they didn't exist. ]

But I also don't want 'authorities' telling me what I can and can't look at. Same goes for snuff films.

And what evidence of a sick underground industry do you have?

The most prevalent source of snuff films right now is iraq/afghanistan - it isn't an industry. If someone has a snuff film made to order - then that guy who had it made is guilty of a murder for hire and conspiracy charge. The guy who did the murder is guilty of murder 1 (i believe) .. the guy who watches it.. SHOULD not be guilty of anything more than being a sick young man.

In fact, it might be argued that the fact that such sick material is on offer is actually the CAUSE of someone wanting to look at it - ever heard of morbid fascination? In which case the person would be a victim too.

I honestly think this IS a thought crime the way things stand.

You are not guilty of anything for looking at something - perhaps if your intention is to encourage the crime - but then you are in the territory of an absolute thoughcrime - saying 'its ok to watch it as long as you dont think about it in a certain way' which is exactly what they DO say - i.e. law enforcement watch it, a jury would watch it... the only difference is how they are thinking about it.

reply to post by Dutty_Rag

---

It is illegal, that statement is 100% correct, and you may disagree with the legality, that doesn’t affect the actual legality though.


Allowing people to view child porn legally fuels the industry. Honestly don’t know how it statistically plays into children being harmed, but from a production stand point making it legal for people to view these illegal acts contradicts with the laws against the actions and gives access to and reasons for the production, and encourages the illegal production.

en.wikipedia.org...


So you want it to be legal to watch, just not to make? You support the non-legality of something that fuels industries that exist solely by selling material that depicts the deaths or victimizing of others. Buying and viewing such garbage only fuels the industry, that’s why it is thankfully illegal. That’s the reason why no one can legally view it, and it’s a sufficient reason at that. Your logic is completely contradictory, it’s like saying “rape should be illegal, but viewing rape is okay”.

The simple point is that a product needs a market or it will not be made and sold. Making it illegal to view child porn helps to damper thedistribution of the illegal product.




EDIT: Just want to point out that snuff films are actually not common at all, and many that are claimed to be real are complete fakes, but there are completely logical reasons for why viewing one would be illegal.



[edit on 9-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]