It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:10 PM
reply to post by RFBurns

Why do the viewers have to hide.

Because it is graphic material, not illegal material. As to why people hide this fetish from others and may not openly discuss it? I don’t know, maybe because they run the risk of you grabbing your pitch fork.

Obviously the material was considered illegal.

You have yet to argue the legality of this case at all; you just ramble about broad assumption and your own opinion that is disconnected from the law and reason (on this particular issue).

none of you here can absolutely show without any doubt that it would not have gone further than it was.

And can you show without a doubt that it would have? That’s not how legality works. A man has fake children on his PC (with no real child porn found) and you’re ready to lock him up and throw away the key? Not only that but you’re willing to consider he was a menace to society who would have corrupted children and gone on to viewing real child porn. Pretty extreme, you’re being more extreme than the judge, the judge sentenced him unfairly but he didn’t lock him away and throw away the key. He made a judgment about the material being illegal- which in itself really doesn’t coincide with who this man is at all, possessing an “illegal” drawing doesn’t automatically make him an evil pervert.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:33 PM
You know this may not have even been a twisted fetish, maybe the guy just thought it was funny, not even taking into consideration the ages of the CARTOON characters involved.
I see this as the kind of thing that could go email rounds through co workers or friends and not even think about it being child porno.
I guess the cops and the judge saw it differently though.
Id still like to know something someone brought up about 20 posts ago..
Who or what brought this video to the attention of the authorities?
Maybe its like i mentioned and someone sent it to him and in turn, he sent it to someone else, who didnt see the humor in it.
In any case, there is no more information regarding this issue and I think we should let this thread go to the forum graveyard.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 03:35 PM

Originally posted by RFBurns
Now can ANY of you honestly say that none of you would eventually get tired of watching that same movie so many times? Does it mean that eventually, the movie will be changed to something else because the previous became boaring after seeing it again and again?

Yea, I'm gettin tired of watchin' Friday the 13th, perhaps I'll go & kill some campers. ` Your logic is seriously flawed.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 04:22 PM
My only problem with this case is that these cartoons have been around for years.

And there never was a legal ruling on them making a statement TILL this person was convicted.

In the US this conviction would be classed as a violation of the ex post facto rules of law.
In that it had been legal because it had been happening for years with out a clear ruling that it was illegal till someone was tried and convicted without a clear change in the law.

The fact that these cartoon had been around for years and suddenly the court convicts someone with out a change it the rule of law on these cartoons makes a case that this person was convicted ex post facto.

It makes this case look like a setup just to convict this person on something for other reasons then these cartoons.
like a vendetta against this person

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 05:30 PM

Originally posted by ANNED
It makes this case look like a setup just to convict this person on something for other reasons then these cartoons.
like a vendetta against this person

I was also thinking a similar thing, however, less to do with a vendetta against this individual, and more about someone else OR everyone else.

I feel it could have potentially been ruled so that there is now this ambiguous precedent set for someone else they are after or so they can use it to charge people they have nothing to go on except that they have painted Cherub babies in their house.

OR i just feel this way because i spend TOO much time on ATS LOL.

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 07:09 PM
don't worry, Vanity Fair is busy publishing suggestive photos of 16-year-old Miley Cyrus while countless Hollywood high school movies ask audiences to sexualize teenagers. Cartoon porn is defeated. nothing to see here.

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 01:19 AM
Wow, I've seen the same Simpsons knockoff "porn" - I can hardly define cartoons as pornography, but I guess they can take me away for even stumbling across the website which had it. They're drawings, for Christ's sake. I knew people in college in the media arts department who made stuff like this, too. Whoop-de-doo.

This guy should appeal this all the way to the top. The Appellate and Supreme courts have, for decades, consistently declined to include drawings, sculpture, and other non-photographic arts, where no victim has been exploited, as child pornography. Well that they should. This verdict will, and should, be thrown out on appeal, Sounds like some overzealous, right-wing, small-town judge who should be thrown off the bench for sheer stupidity.

Have you ever seen the Edgar Degas sculpture, "The Little Dancer"? It's a wonderful statue of a pubescent ballerina. The subject of the work, a girl named Marie van Goethem, was 14 years old when Degas sketched and sculpted her. What is not generally known by casual viewers of the sculpture is that young Miss van Goethem's impoverished parents essentially rented her out (i.e. pimped her) to the artist, both as a model, and for -ahem- whatever else he had in mind. It is understood that they had a sexual relationship, very common at the time. Picasso was also infamous for screwing his teenage models, often with his wife working in the kitchen downstairs. Big deal.

Christ, you'd think that sexualized images of children had been invented yesterday, judging by the responses of some puritanical Christian nutjobs in this country. Get over it.

So I suppose these lunatic zealots think we should smash all those ancient Greek urns with nude paintings of muscular teenage boys on them? Or perhaps we should all be arrested for going to museums?

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 02:27 AM
OMG Please I am submitting myself for arrest , I have two movies on my sys and in collection that are child porn. Any one remember Blue Lagoon ?? or what about Fast Times At Ridgemont high or Porky's , they all show underage parts involved in sexual acts , So am I a child stalker ? I have a three daughters and a son . So the judge better lock me up . Christ on a crutch , besides the simpsons arent even anatomically correct. Unless there is a new breed of humans with less fingers lol. If the man had real human children in situations like that I would be the first to say hang him. But a comic or a cartoon is just that if anything arrest the person who created them . Arent they guilty too for the thought crime !

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 02:44 AM
I do not understand the point of view many of you are coming from. One reply mentioned that this is an example of how media has warped our minds. I do not believe this statement as pornography has been around long before the television or magazines--that is unless you count ancient, erotic paintings as media.

Another mentioned point was that it is about time to not give in to our sexual urges anymore. I also disagree with this statement, as to displace our sexual desires is to ignore a huge part of what makes us human. You sound like a member of Big Brother, straight out of 1984.

In regards to the OP, I think child pornography is disturbing, but I do not think that punishment can come from the viewing of cartoon "children".

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 05:24 AM
FFS people grow up! The whole simpsons porn thing was a joke, it's been around for more than 10 years and it was funny as hell when it first came out. I don't know what's worse, the fact that this ever made it to court or the fact that there are people in this forum defending the judgment that was made.

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 05:55 AM

Originally posted by RFBurns

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?)

People get off to other people eating feces. This is your opinion. We all have different sexual tastes. There is nothing psychologically wrong with viewing pornography that has been drawn. Ask a psychologist perhaps?

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 08:18 AM
What's wrong with Cartoon Porn? No matter who it depicts. We have progressive liberalism now in force across our great nation. Atheism is on the rise. Religious limits on behavior is now seen as pagan and based on superstition. Homosexuals proudly dance through the streets of Cities like San Fransisco wearing little clothing displaying lewd behaviors right in front of any child in viewing distance. Given this new atmosphere of enlightenment we need to take in the cultures of others where sex with children are condoned and is a part of life recognizing that children are also sexual beings.
Where children are not stigmatized by being a victim of sexual abuse but are seen as participating in life's many joys. Some one may want to read the history and sexual practices of the Island cultures of the Pacific and other areas like Africa.

I write this with tongue in check, but let's face it. We as Americans are pretty much stuck in Victorian thinking when we talk about Sex. We generally are pretty up tight even when we think we are not.

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 08:58 AM
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

But they don't seem to understand.. They sound like the type that supports the GOP plan of armed guards in every bedroom to make sure it is only a married man and woman doing missionary style. Anything different is a crime. But on topic, cartoons are not people. If so Kenshin is going to jail for all the people he killed before he became a non killer. If so Spike and Edward and Jet are going to jail for well, every thing they've done. And of course in Blood+ all those killed. Hmm... And Homr is going to jail for child abuse for strangling Bart Simpson all the time. This is absolutely ridiculous. If you like toon poon have at it. Not for me, give me the real deal, real men, real women, more real women and men, mmm, and that means more toon poon for the ones who like it.

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 09:54 AM
Yet more Irrational alarmist PC moonbats dragging society down the crapper.

United "Socialist" Kingdom is even worse though thanks to these narrow minded self obsessed nutjobs who seem to want to ban everything they don't agree with or lack the intelligence to comprehend

[edit on 11/12/08 by Discotech]

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Discotech
Yet more Irrational alarmist PC moonbats dragging society down the crapper.

Considering America is supposedly the land of the free every news report I hear coming from there makes me think the opposite.

The United "Socialist" Kingdom is even worse though thanks to these narrow minded self obsessed nutjobs who seem to want to ban everything they don't agree with or lack the intelligence to comprehend

Again WTF does this story have to do with the United States?

For the 1000th time this happened in AUSTRALIA
For the 1001th time this happened in AUSTRALIA

[edit on 12/11/2008 by Kr0n0s]

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
reply to post by RFBurns

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?

Well, let's dissect the argument:

Sex with minors is bad. Child pornography often pictures sex with minors or encourages sex with or sexual thoughts about minors, which is bad. Child pornography promotes the sexual abuse of minors. Even if you don't abuse the minors yourself, viewing or paying for the photographs of minors being abused sexually is contributory essentially making the viewer an accomplice or co-conspirator in the crime.

That is the rationale behind prosecuting child pornography.

That said, what's the hubbub about with non-real "child pornography"? Well, the rationale is that promoting child porn promotes the actual abuse of children or contributes assistance (monetary) to those who abuse children. Thus it's bad.

The question then becomes semantic in some ways. We have the technology to computer-animate characters (cartoons or 3D "people"). Does the act of computer animating (or sketching, or otherwise rendering graphic representations), in a sexual way, characters with the likeness of children constitute child pornography?

The answer given by the judge says 'yes.' The intent of the depictions is to depict sexual acts or sexual situations with children. Thus it promotes a sexualization of children and is contributory to the problem of child pornography. Not only that, but those who purvey cartoon kiddy porn may also purvey the real thing. Supporting them by viewing or purchasing the fake kiddy porn may still contribute to the business of exploiting actual minors. In any event, it still contributes to the problem of the 'idea' of kiddy porn, insofar as it promotes a sexual image of children or ties arousal to images of children.

So, in that sense, kiddy porn is kiddy porn regardless of medium (actual photographs, 3D simulated photographs, cartoons depicting underage sex acts, etc.).

However, as you state: it raises implications of a ripple effect. Does this mean that owning other cartoons or media depicting underage sexual acts will now subject people to prosecution, whereas it may have not been enforced previously?

In other words, if it is illegal to depict graphic underage sexual acts, is it also illegal to depict them in literature? Under what circumstances? At what threshold? If it's casually mentioned in a longer unrelated story? Or only if the majority of the piece is devoted specifically to the act(s)? In other words, would a book about a pre-teen's life which has a paragraph or a page devoted to some aspect(s) of their sexual maturation or experiences be prohibited? Or would only stories where some major percentage of pages are devoted to such topics (IE, erotica featuring minors) be policed, while other more mainstream sources with only passing mention would be exempted?

Is literature given more of a pass than explicit images? Both may achieve the same end result, conjuring fantasies in the human mind with relation to minors. But literature seems to get more protection under "free speech" rules. Don't know how far that extends into the erotica area of literature.

But, it also begs the question about owning things like Manga and Anime from Japan, which can feature underage stuff. Their rules and societal norms seem much more lax with regard to sexuality than in some other parts of the world.

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 01:18 PM

But, it also begs the question about owning things like Manga and Anime from Japan, which can feature underage stuff. Their rules and societal norms seem much more lax with regard to sexuality than in some other parts of the world.

Just to correct something here because I read Manga and watch Anime.
Manga is a Japanese comic, completely clean and legit and Anime is a Japanese Cartoon, clean and legit.. Examples of these are Naruto, like my avatar, Dragonball Z, Full Metal Alchemist and Bleach.

What youre referring to is "Hentai" which is the perversion of regular anime, making the characters perform sexual acts etc..
I suppose it could be called "Adult Anime" by people but it usually referred to as hentai.
Im not trying to give you a hard time, I just wanted to straighten that out because I had already mentioned, in an earlier post, that I read Manga and watched Anime.
Didnt want people to get the wrong idea and think im a perv

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 04:01 PM
reply to post by mgmirkin

That said, what's the hubbub about with non-real "child pornography"? Well, the rationale is that promoting child porn promotes the actual abuse of children or contributes assistance (monetary) to those who abuse children. Thus it's bad.

The big difference is one has a victim and one does not. The reason child porn is successfully outlawed from viewing is the victim involved. No study has however linked cartoon sexually drawn characters to the abuse of children, since no victim can be argued into the case from any side of the argument the legality of outlawing victimless drawings crumbles.

As for Japan the country has actually made underage sexual drawings of children illegal in some areas, but completely legal to make and sale in others.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by rapinbatsisaltherage]

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 04:22 PM
How does it promote child pornography? its pictures that are drawn and coloured in for crying out loud,its a far far cry from an old man abducting and raping innocent children,or taking part in a child pornography ring etc etc seriously some people are completely ludicrous these days and it keeps getting worse and worse..

I think whats happening here is people cannot seperate from what they find distasteful and from what should be legal or illegal.Like rapin said there is no victim,therefore it should be legal...simple as.

[edit on 11-12-2008 by Solomons]

posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 05:04 PM
Well, i suppose that all of the 10 million people that bought Nirvanas "Nevermind" CD are considered sex offenders and should turn themselves in at once, since its cover had a naked baby swimming in the water.

BTW, I had completely forgotten about this CD until just now when I read the story on CNN


Spencer Elden, the underwater infant pursuing a dollar bill on the cover of 1991's "Nevermind," is doing swimmingly these days, having graduated a year early from a Los Angeles-area high school. Being the "Nirvana baby" -- as Elden calls himself -- has been profitable. Now 17, Elden says he was paid $1,000 to re-enact the famous pool pose for photographers. Compare that to the original shoot, which paid $200.


[edit on 12/11/2008 by Kr0n0s]

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in