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: 3
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Well, if cartoons are to be considered people, then we had better crack down on the animators... they're restricting their right to, well, just about everything.

Darn animators, locking those poor cartoons up in their desks and tying them up on their drawing boards... shoving them through scanners. Darn fascist animators!

lol.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
Child porn is any pic of an underage child with there clothes off. They could just be modeling, or performing a sexual act.


Well I've got to admit something. For my sisters birthday I made her a (comic) birthday card of my niece (her daughter) having and getting out of a bath. It's was loads of small photos in a collage that covered the whole front and back of the card - and yes the 3 year old girl was naked in most of them.


That card is a treasured artefact - a moment in time that will be looked back at... harmless and funny. Not to be shared with perverts of course, but it has granny, uncle and the cat (and of course a 3 year old girl) forever captured in a family collage. Is that porn???
It's more likely (and was intended) to be something that will be drawn from whatever shoe box her mother (my sister) decides to store it in for embarrassment purposes on her 18th birthday, of her wedding day something like that.

This media obsession with paedophiles is disturbing and damaging - it's like they just suddenly 'discovered' them. There have always been, and there will always be paedophiles. At best all the media is doing is 'fetishising' the whole issue. It's starting to grow thin.

And now I guess I sit back and wait to be raided by the police



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


under the law yes its child porn. i know it sounds stupid but yes it is. don't get me wrong i see nothing wrong with it and i understand your intentions with it. yes in your case its harmless and funny. I'm a parent myself and see nothing wrong with the intentions you had.

and yes i agree that society is getting way out of hand with a lot of things, you can see proof of that in this thread.

I'm going to assume that you made that card on your computer, If you did and if anything happens to your computer and you have to take it to a repair shop, or have a tech come to your house and work on it. just hope they don't find those pics on your computer. They will call the cops and you'll have to answer to them about the pics.

Its stupid i know but a friend of mine took a pic of his son he was almost a year old, naked laying on his stomach from his sons head but off to the side a little bit. he had it on his computer to print it out and his computer crashed. took the computer to a repair shop they recovered his computer went through the files saved on his hard drive and seen that pic and called the police on him. He spent several thousands of dollars fighting it in court before he was found not guilty.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   
now,now...just because you don't like something ,doesn't mean other people don't..

the judge ruled on what he thought ,not on the first amendment. there was no one injured,or taken advantage of.

AND PLEASE DON'T FORGET,THE SIMPSONS FIRST APPEARED IN 1989,SO THAT MAKES THEM ALL,EVEN THE YOUNGEST,OVER 18!!!!!!!



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007
reply to post by Now_Then
 


under the law yes its child porn.

No its actually not.
It is according to that particular Judge in that particular place in Australia at this particular time.
For example the site nastydisney.com is full of that stuff and is hosted Dallas and Houston through the planet internet and has been since 2002.
And has its images plastered all over Google images.
If it was illegal, they would be shutdown and in jail.
There is hundreds of sites of this cartoon parody which depicts sex acts of cartoon characters all over Google images.
A cartoon character is not a person because, they don't exist.
They are a figment of peoples imagination.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


Just to be clear.. I dont know about australia's laws regarding nudity depicted in photography/art/etc involving children, but in america....

The depiction of adults and children nude in the visual media has enjoyed constitutional protection in the United States since 1958, when the Supreme Court vacated a Court of Appeals finding that Sunshine & Health magazine could be obscene (Sunshine Book Co. v. Summerfield, Postmaster General, 355 U.S. 372). The right to depict adults and children in innocent nude poses has been upheld without a pause for 41 years. In case after case, the Supreme Court and lower courts have always upheld the constitutionality of "nudity without more," specifically referring to the nudist depiction as a fully constitutional form of expression.

(from www.bebaretoo.com 's website regarding legality and issues. You can find the same info elsewhere on the net, google naturism legality)



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by AgentOrangeJuice
 

you really want to take a chance a judge in the U.S. wouldn't find you guilty of child porn the way the Judges have been going here lately i wouldn't put it past them.

And yes any picture that shows an uderage child naked is child porn in this day and age. whether it is innocent or for the purposes of child porn.

its not like when i was a kid or my parents were kids when you could take a picture like that it is wasn't child porn! it was an innocent picture taken by a parent of their kid just to embarrass them when they were older.

as for the cartoon pictures. all it takes is for a the right church leader to see their kids looking at those cartoon pictures and the judges will start ruling the same way here in the states. I guess for now we are lucky that judges here in the states know the difference between cartoon people and a real person.



reply to post by Jomina
 


if that was the case then people that have pics of underage children posing nude would not be arrested and charged with federal child porn charges in the U.S. they would only be charged with child porn charges if the underage child was performing a sexual act.

Which was not the case with my friend. he was charged in federal court for child porn for taking a pic of his son naked on laying on his stomach from his head. you couldn't see his privates just a butt check!

And yes this was in America!

Now as for Now_Then i was only warning him of what could happen if a computer tech saw those pics on his computer. who is the cops and CPS going to believe him or the computer tech? They will believe the computer tech over the person they suspect of having child porn!



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


amazing


Child porn is any pic of an underage child with there clothes off. They could just be modeling, or performing a sexual act.


i have a picture of my baby daughter , aged 10 minutes old , she is on her mother feeding and totally naked - so in your opinion i should be arrested and thrown in prison for saving such a tender moment.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Not to mention where is the birth certificate or other ID proving that these cartoon images are indeed underage?



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


amazing


Child porn is any pic of an underage child with there clothes off. They could just be modeling, or performing a sexual act.


i have a picture of my baby daughter , aged 10 minutes old , she is on her mother feeding and totally naked - so in your opinion i should be arrested and thrown in prison for saving such a tender moment.


i guess you can't read huh??? never once did i say a parent should be arrested for pics like that. i said that is how society is going! learn to read then you won't look like you do now.

I didn't say i thought the pics Now_then or you are talking about was child porn or that he should be arrested!

i said under the law the pics he was talking about was child porn. and yes any pic of an underage child naked is child porn under the law. and don't be fooled by Jomina's post see they failed to mention that the pics had to be taken before 1995 to be exempt! and the children represented in those pics had to be over the age of 14! maybe he should have read 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
What about people with fetishes? Let's convict them too! Let's get serious here people, anything other than missionary style sex should be outlawed because it disagrees with my moral fiber. (sarcasm)


Actually, that's quite a serious issue in England and Wales at the moment. 'Big Sister' minister Jacqui Smith is pushing for an 'extreme porn law' that's so worryingly vague that it really does potentially cover practically anything other than the most vanilla of pornography.

As for the thread topic, "pseudo-photographs" - basically, computer generated representations of people of child age - are already covered by The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in England and Wales.

I personally think it's all a nonsense. Much of this is very, very poorly thought-out by people who don't seem to be able to think of potential ramifications of these laws. They just hear that the internet if full of horrible pornography and want to be seen as doing what they think is the 'right' think - 'we're only protecting the kids!'



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:38 AM
link   
[quoteAnd 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.



LOL and michelangelo then depicted those ones as the ones in hell in the 16th chapel!!!!





posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007

I'm going to assume that you made that card on your computer, If you did and if anything happens to your computer and you have to take it to a repair shop, or have a tech come to your house and work on it. just hope they don't find those pics on your computer. They will call the cops and you'll have to answer to them about the pics.


Yhea no worry's about me handing my computer into the shop! I built the thing
no way I paying some idiot by the hour for him to substitute my components for inferior ones, make copy of all my personal data and passwords and put key logging software on it - If I want all those things done I'll so it my self thank you very much!

But I do get your point, and I always make sure I can account for everything on my HDD and also what I do with my IP address



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


Hey friend I did not know as far as the statutes of the 1995 thing, i was just trying to toss out info to add to the thread. No need to portray me there as some kind of entrapper



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
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!!!!


I do not recall where in that article it claimed that anyone needed to see this stuff. Apparently the person just thought that doing something perfectly legal was nota big deal and happend to have this stuff. Could you please show me where anyone was claiming to need this stuff or access to it?



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007


Child porn is any pic of an underage child with there clothes off. They could just be modeling, or performing a sexual act.


Dude really get a clue!


BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ WRONG!!!!!!!!

Not in the United States. Modeling is not pornography. Child porn is clearly defined as sexually gratuitis poses or depictions and or gratuitis shots of getatalia. Please look these things up before posting them as fact.

Want that clue back?

[edit on 8-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

[edit on 8-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
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.

Perhaps the judge is showing his FAILINGS as a flawed human being and he monumentally STUFFED UP.

Perhaps this judge needs to be shown that his decision is clearly wrong and reflects his own personal bias towards the defendant's private life style.

Screw the law. Another example of why this planet is screwed.



What if this guy lived next door to you and you had kids?

Then I'd go around his house with a USB stick and get a copy of the images. I can help educate my kids about what mummys and daddys do!!! If they're old enough to understand it, then big deal! If they're too young to understand it, then they won't know the difference!



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mercenary2007

i said under the law the pics he was talking about was child porn. and yes any pic of an underage child naked is child porn under the law. and don't be fooled by Jomina's post see they failed to mention that the pics had to be taken before 1995 to be exempt! and the children represented in those pics had to be over the age of 14! maybe he should have read 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75


First of all, please go back and read it more carefully this time. You will find that you do not have a full understanding of the technicalities of the law or else you would not have been able to make this statement -

took the computer to a repair shop they recovered his computer went through the files saved on his hard drive and seen that pic and called the police on him. He spent several thousands of dollars fighting it in court before he was found not guilty.


Not guilty. See, not guilty. He was found not guilty because, even though it sucks it cost a lot, he was able to remind the court that a naked pic of his infant son is not pornography. See how your story contradicts your angry correcting of people?



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 05:16 AM
link   
What is Australia coming to? I’m really concerned at the amount of idiots running this country.

I’m curious, if cartoon characters are now to be considered as real people, what happens when one gets killed in the cartoon, will the animator be charged with murder?

This is getting ridiculous.

Mikey



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by Mercenary2007


Child porn is any pic of an underage child with there clothes off. They could just be modeling, or performing a sexual act.


Dude really get a clue!


BUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ WRONG!!!!!!!!

Not in the United States. Modeling is not pornography. Child porn is clearly defined as sexually gratuitis poses or depictions and or gratuitis shots of getatalia. Please look these things up before posting them as fact.

Want that clue back?

[edit on 8-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

[edit on 8-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]


I thought the same thing!!!!!

I was like damn! should I get rid of my Nevermind album?????????????????????????




top topics



 
14
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join