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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   
If there was a law against being utterly bizarre then the judge should have thrown the book at him. As it is I can't really see how this thing was justified, now all his family and friends and stuff know he's a weirdo and probably screwed his life up nicely.

Hey and judges are all hypocrites, they get up to a lot worse than this!



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


I guess your just stupid huh?

You posted in the quote , on its on within its own context, not within another sentence or another paragraph.

Epic fail.

Learn english , grammer and US law before posting again.Ever.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   
The USA tried to have the same type of laws dealing with computer generated child pornography with Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996.

Our Supreme Court found it unconstitutional in the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition lawsuit.

Good, bad or indifferent; the intent of the law was apparent.

Several very good points have been mentioned throughout this thread. Who is actually being victimized with cartoon animation or cartoon pictures?



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
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.


I've read all your post and I agree 100%. A cartoon isn't real. Which is probably why the guy could only be fined. The judge was pushing his own feelings on it, but the law only allowed so much.

People here claim to have woke up, but you are still sleeping when you are still trying to protect the children so blindly. Hell we are all still children. Anyhow, until society changes none of it will go away. You all aid in creating this problem, but you don't want to fix it.

I'm sure you've all said at some point in your life that you hope someone would die or something similar. In that case if you owned something that could kill a person, and who doesn't, just for saying it we could arrest you just in case you were serious.

It's always ok to walk all over the rights of someone you care nothing about, but when your turn comes, why that's just unfair.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
I think that unless a law was in place banning the producing or viewing of that content, he shouldn't have been fined.

Even so, I find it disgusting, myself, and I believe the production and viewing of such materials only fuels the pedo's fire. More importantly, it causes young kids viewing this content for the first time to have warped sexual urges they might not have had before viewing it. It may put their siblings in danger, kids are very impressionable and do as they see done. I know my own little one will do an action move as soon as he sees the cartoon character do it. I'm sure the response to that will be to censure what your child views, but how many children can be guarded every second of the day, and what about when they go over to a friend's house. I'd be happy to know this sort of content is illegal which at least puts a speedbump in the area for the protection of our children. And by the way, not everyone who wants to protect their children has "not thought out the ramifications" of the laws put into place. It's all a matter of priority.



[edit on 8-12-2008 by mmariebored]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by Mercenary2007
 


I guess your just stupid huh?

You posted in the quote , on its on within its own context, not within another sentence or another paragraph.

Epic fail.

Learn english , grammer and US law before posting again.Ever.


Oooookay, this isn't overly on topic , but there are several errors on your post instructing someone to learn spelling and grammar. Perhaps you'd care to make a more sound rebuttal next time. Not that I disagree with you. But Jesus. Look at this post. Grammer? Nope, grammar. Your? Nope, you're. On its on? Nope, on its own, maybe. Minor note, also, but you have no spaces between the period before 'ever'.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
i think i've seen these cartoons, among others, got them in an e-mail. they're a bit sick and crude but, meh. do i think it makes me, or the person who sent them, a peado? no, not even a little bit. the point of the images is clearly satirical rather than erotic.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:19 AM
link   
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read, being fined for naked cartoons - give me a break. And some of you are actually defending it as if it was a good decision by the judge.

It sounds more like the person had this as a joke or something rather than actually deriving any pleasure out of it. If this was something he found appealing he would have loads of that hentai anime stuff on his machine dont you think ?

Either way, this is lame.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by '___'eviant
 


There also shouldn't be a pause after "Learn english" so the comma inserted was moot, not to mention there was a space before AND after the comma and "english" should probably have had a capital letter.

>,< - merely an observation.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I made a thread about this form of pornography a long while back. The debate went on for 14 pages and garnered some interesting viewpoints. If anyone is interested then take a look.


Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   
well, if you have these pictures on the internet, you should track down the ORIGINAL SOURCE and PUNISH THEM. Not a USER.

Its like a drug rink, you take down the DISTRIBUTOR and you KILL the operation.

Going after one low level user is such a waste of resources...

but as long as it makes the local law enforcement feel important.....



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I made a thread about this form of pornography a long while back. The debate went on for 14 pages and garnered some interesting viewpoints. If anyone is interested then take a look.


Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?




I'd allow it,the point is made on the first page,rather these folks look at colours on a piece of paper than real children.Thats pretty much common sense if you ask me.Plus its a drawing...i mean come on,might be distasteful but its still only a drawing.Hope im not off topic...



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Hang on, let's say I get a Tshirt with Mickey mouse humping lisa does that allow me to be hiked off to court and put on offenders list?

Some people in this sicko world still mutilate the genatalia of small boys, because an invisable man in the sky told them to so they claim. Who the hell is setting the standards here ?


Come to think of it, what if Matt groening drew bart humping Lisa, would that make him a perv ?

[edit on 8-12-2008 by moocowman]



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConservativeJack
well, if you have these pictures on the internet, you should track down the ORIGINAL SOURCE and PUNISH THEM. Not a USER.

Its like a drug rink, you take down the DISTRIBUTOR and you KILL the operation.

Going after one low level user is such a waste of resources...

but as long as it makes the local law enforcement feel important.....


I take it your talking about Chief Wiggum ?



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
this is pure unadulterated stupidity on the part of the judge . so when somebody sends me that picture of lisa going down on bart does that mean i have child porn on my phone. no it does not because it is a DRAWING ! THESE JUDGES ARE IDIOTS .there is an old saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions. these guys think they are doing the right thing but really they are making things worse.




posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
This is absolutely ridiculous. I've been sent images like that in mass e-mails, intended as just a 'joke'. I hope I don't get hauled off to court for it and have my name dragged through the mud. While it is distasteful and i'd rather not see it, no one was harmed in the creation of it. The judge is a moron.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I am not going to get into the legal aspects here because they have already been touched on.

Anything that two consenting ADULTS (meaning of legal age) do in their bedrooms is not the business of the government or anyone reading this. Similarly what one person does in his or her bedroom, that does not cause harm to anyone else, is not the business of the government or any other individual.

The whole problem with child pornography is that children are exploited and many times hurt (both physically and mentally) by the act. When you get right down to it, the pictures are not the real concern; it is the safety of the kids. Governments are justified in making laws regarding the restriction of such material.

The debate here is whether or not computer generated or hand drawn images should be restricted. An image that does not depict an actual human being should not be in the same category as child pornography.

I personally have no problem with someone “enjoying” an illustration (computer generate or hand drawn) of any kind, as long as they do not go out and trample the rights of anyone else. This goes for everyone, not just those viewing underage illustrations. If a person watches a pornographic event consisting of two willing adults, and then goes out and rapes someone, I think we can all agree that said individual is more guilty than these illustration viewers.

I see some posts making the argument that a person who views these images is likely to go out and abuse a child. I do not believe anyone can determine this. It is just as likely that a person have these images and never even touches a child. Further, I don’t personally go about judging how other people live their sexual lives (as long as members are consenting or non-existent).



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
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!!!!!


The baby Jesus picture is making me all hot and bothered.

There, its a crime now...



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Ok, I asked those that were assuming that this guy was a child predator a reason for their assumption. I thought that there may have been some evidence, and that I missed it. I guess not. Pedophilia and pornography are clearly two different things. There are several well adjusted, sane, non-criminal contributors to society who enjoy porn. This does not mean that they get their jolly's looking at kids. I do not understand why people cannot differentiate the two. Perhaps they are the ones with the problems.

Also, this had been said several times...What we are talkin' about here with the Simpson's pics... This aint even porn people. Let alone child porn. There are no victims. No one is being harmed. I do not see an intent to harm. It's BS like this that takes away from real problems, and there is someone out there who IS getting away with harming a child, because the resources are being wasted.



posted on Dec, 8 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Simpson porn??
You mean those yellow guys???
What The Hell?


You could probably find 'blueberry muffin porn' these days...



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join