It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1/
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   

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


www.news.com.au

Alan John McEwan was appealing his February conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.

"The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons," the judge said.

The cartoons showed characters such as Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex.

McEwan was convicted and fined $3000 and placed on a good behaviour bond.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?


+20 more 
posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
What?

Firstly on this issue of The Simpsons and "The Simpsons Movie", not sure about other cuts of the movie but here in Australia we clearly were able to see Bart's genitalia, are you telling me that I have now partaken in viewing underage pornography and now am able to be prosecuted by the law? Plus the other MANY millions of people that viewed said film?

Anyway back on topic. How is this outcome remotely acceptable. Child protection laws are in place to protect a child, what child in this case was not being protected?

If i drew a popular person being murdered have i committed the murder? Better yet, does this drawing get care in a hospital? What does this case do for comic drawers etc. The outcome of this case has far worse consequences than i think this judge realised.

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:12 PM
link   
Isnt it about time for society to get over this need to see sexual explicit content be it cartoons or movies or pictures?

It is an example of how media has warpped the jelly minds of easily manipulated people.

Quite frankly, anyone who MUST see naked cartoon characters really needs some psycological help.

Something wrong up there in that brain bucket. (do I hear echo's?)



Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I starred your post because it perfectly sums up how I feel about this whole thing. I don't see why so many people like pornography. I think pornography is gross.


+23 more 
posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I starred your post because it perfectly sums up how I feel about this whole thing. I don't see why so many people like pornography. I think pornography is gross.


What about art?

All those paintings with Cherubs etc

Is that pornography?

By definition set by the judge, it is.

Quick Frankidealist35, cover your eyes!

baby jesus is naked in a painting!

That sick 16th Century artist Benvenuto Tisi was up to no good I tell ya!








[edit on 7-12-2008 by Chadwickus]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:22 PM
link   
This is quite ridiculous but I hope this will cause the cancellation of that show. Who the hell watches that crap anymore? It certainly overstayed its welcome.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
I’m disgusted by the type of explicit artwork mentioned, however I don’t feel this court decision was just. And I’m fearful that if you take away fake characters for predators to relieve “tension” with and obsess faintly over you are only encouraging them to look at the real thing. Why not if the only alternative is just as illegal? Do I think it is healthy or right for someone to view real or fake pictures that depict children in sexual acts? NO. However there is a difference between morality and legality. Is being in possession of real child porn a crime? Absolutely. But in this instance there were no children involved, just drawings. This might not be a popular opinion, but please refrain from flaming me if you disagree.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SilentShadow
 





modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons


Modelled on...means cartoon "spin off's" or knock offs. Kinda like the porn Dora the Explorer... ya know.

The issue isn't with the cartoons persay. It's with a known pedo getting his rocks off at the THOUGHT of or implication of or imagining of.. sex with minors.

Any media depicting sex with minors is wrong be it cartoon or real.

And as for classical art...good lord you guys are obviously too young to remember all the hub bub about the Michelangelo statues LMAO...they actually COVERED the privates back in the day so as not to offend the pious and pure.



+13 more 
posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   

with a known pedo getting his rocks off at the THOUGHT of or implication of or imagining of


So it is his thoughts while looking at fake children that upset you. Hm, since when did we start charging people for thought crimes?



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


I dont think that it matters that it was cartoon material vs photographs of real children. The message was the same.


Oh and as far as the art work of the naked Jesus baby up there, is that artwork sending the same message as the cartoon drawings in the Simpson stuff???

Dont think so, that is where the difference is.



Cheers!!!!!



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


*edited out comment so people dont freak out* Never mind.



So, I have the Simpson movie in my home....does that mean, I have child porn now???



Also, I have to say..........The Simpsons have been around sooo long now...aren't the kids realistically adults now?
They probably just have some diesese that prevents them from "growing"



[edit on 12/7/2008 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Hang on one cotton picking minute....

Bart Lisa and Maggie have been 10, 8 and 1 respectively for the best part of 20 years now!! (shows started around 1987) So Bart's 30, Lisa 28 and Maggie 21... Hey I'd like to see what Maggie looks like now



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
The Simpsons have been on the air for 18 years now. Doesn't that make them the legal age of consent?



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by greeneyedleo
 


I would say no since only about a fraction of the content in that movie shows any kind of child nudity in animation form, and even with that, the message was not outright animation of cartoon kids having sex.


There is a difference between that and what this sicko got busted for.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 



The message was the same.


But I don’t see any legality behind that. Child porn is punishable by law because it depicts actual children in sexually graphic pictures. The law does not police our thoughts, yet. Unless his fake porn somehow proved he had the intent to purchase or be in possession of real child porn this doesn’t seem legally sound.

Edit: Also the same could be said about fiction stories. Do you think stories with underage characters engaging in sexual acts should be illegal if the message conveyed is the one that worries you in this instance?

[edit on 7-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
The Simpsons have been on the air for 18 years now. Doesn't that make them the legal age of consent?



No because none of the characters seem to have aged. Would be different if they aged the characters appropriately thru the years!

I think thats what they sould have done...aged the characters as the series has progressed. By now there would be a ton of little Bart's running around and Homer and Marge would be sitting in their his-her chairs watching re-runs of All In The Family!



Cheers!!!!



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I swear I seen the exact simpsons things like many many years ago, in some chain letter perhaps 6-8 years ago. It was supposed to be funny I think, and it sounds like this guy simply saved them to show them to people or whatever. Was he sitting there pulling his pud to that, when theres much better material readily available at anytime on the internet, I highly doubt it.

This case is a product of an ignorant judge. The precedent he set here, will make outrageous cases such as this one, common place.



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Originally posted by Karlhungis
The Simpsons have been on the air for 18 years now. Doesn't that make them the legal age of consent?



No because none of the characters seem to have aged. Would be different if they aged the characters appropriately thru the years!

I think thats what they sould have done...aged the characters as the series has progressed. By now there would be a ton of little Bart's running around and Homer and Marge would be sitting in their his-her chairs watching re-runs of All In The Family!

Cheers!!!!




If that's the case, then the writer of twilight, which has just been released as a movie is in BIG trouble!

A thousand year old vampire who looks 17 falling in love with a 16 year old girl, the dirty old man!



posted on Dec, 7 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Well see thats the dilema isnt it. Was the intent to go byond a set of cartoon drawings? Was the intent to move into another, far worse act?

I agree with you about the notion of policing thoughts. However would it have been a good thing for the court to look the other way because they were just cartoon characters and take the chance that this person's intent was only going to be limited to what was on the PC, and not go any further?

Perhaps the judge was thinking about the community as a whole, and not just this one person's right to think nasty if he so desires. With the stats of abducted and sexually exploited children these days, I can see the position of the court on this matter.

What if this guy lived next door to you and you had kids? And then to hear about this fella's little dirty secret....would it have been better to throw out the case at that point and you still feel confident that one day this fella wouldnt look over the fence in the backyard and watch your kids playing and start talking to them holding up pictures of cartoons which would not have anything bad on them, but then at some point eventually show your kids some that did?


Lots to consider here than just the guy's personal rights. If there is a potential of him/her spreading their dirty deeds byond their mind and byond the confines of thier closed door, then it becomes a public matter, and again, with the statistics of abducted and sexually exploited children these days...the system made the right decision IMO.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join