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.

Originally posted by AccessDenied
WHO reported him as possessing porn in the first place?
WHY was his computer checked?

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]

reply to post by justgeneric


I'm sure many people while using the internet for it's one true reason..Searching for porn have seen some of these "toon porn" pics and movies listed in any of the many list sites. Many times you don't even have to be looking for porn. I was overseeing one of my kids surf the net for cartoon pics she could print out and put on some poster board for a project and I watched as she clicked a link saying they had thousands of toon pics. The page that opened was of Bart Simpson having sex with his mother, sister, and even the little Maggee. I about broke my child's arm going for the mouse to close the window.

There is no way one can see something like this and not understand it's message. Drawn or not. It is kids having sex. Say not to take it serious? It's a little hard to do when one starts to think just how easy things like that are to find and just who would want these things to look at over and over. It's symptomatic of a serious problem. I'm sure that particular niche of porn was made so as to try and disarm those that would have a problem with someone having pics of naked kids. "It's only a cartoon!!" why are you getting so bent?!?!?"

Anime that shows naked people is still naked people. Animated kids are still kids having sex. No matter how stupid one chooses to draw it. I'm sure if someone made a caricature of someone (child) close to any of us and had that caricature having sex with say...Homer Simpson it would stop being so funny.

Bottom line is to be entertained by the idea of a kid - made up or not having sex is just plain wrong.

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.

Judging someone on what they might do is wrong. their is no way to know what someone one is going to do so the judge is wrong and you are wrong if you agree with the judge. If you belive that i am wrong for saying so then wait till they kick in your door cause you have some thing stupid on your computer lets say like music obtained legally to transfer to your i pod or what ever they use now a days( because now thats its their you might distribute it ) , or a coke or pepsi commercial i cant remember witch one it was with the dog pulling the kids diaper ( watch out its not just child porn its beastallity that last one is kinda sick but it sold soda or somethin but its the same deal it can easily be construed that the dog was slowly undressing the pour kid ) if you want to complain about stuff that should be kept out of ppls reach you should start with the movies like thirteen and kids their are many more that depict under aged behaviors ( including sexual acts that should have probably never been released to the public ) and if you own them maybe you are guilty of being a pedo too. Also the simpsons are plenty old enough to give concent now if any thing the person who made the vid should go down for copyright violation that being said cartoons are not real they do not constitute a living breathing thing no one is hurt by that guy having it on his computer and to you who say you think porn is disgusting i would guess that you have at least one porn in your house and if not how do you even make your assumption you must have watched one at one time or another at least would that not make you a hippocrit to quote a famous prez " But I Did Not Inhale" you still smoked it and i could care less

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.

reply to post by Now_Then

So if you have a cartoon of one toon shooting another is it a snuff film? And is the artist a murderer?

Its a cartoon. The Simpsons are imaginary. They are not even realistic depictions of humans, they do not exist. Sheesh.

I'm sure the guy wasn't using the cartoons to "get his rocks off" he probably thought it was funny. These pics have been going around through emails for at least 10 years.

Remember rule 34 of the internet : if it exists there is porn of it.

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.

Originally posted by groingrinder
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

"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.

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]

reply to post by Chadwickus


Or what about Anne Rice's interview with a vampire???? Pitt and Dunst were lovers....

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]

now this one got my attention. All those FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC books, etc......hmmmm......

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

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.

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?