Child Porn

[Mr. TM]

‘Simpsons’ kiddie porn
By Denette Wilford

2008-12-09

Man convicted of ‘Simpsons’ child pornography

Cartoons showing sex acts involving children based on Simpsons characters are pornographic, a judge ruled.

In Australia’s New South Wales Supreme Court, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a “person,” reports the Herald Sun.

Last February, Alan John McEwan was convicted of 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.

"In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the Commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word ‘person’ included fictional or imaginary characters," the judge said.

McEwan was convicted and fined $3,000 and placed on a good behaviour bond.

Is this really child porn? A man has a fetish for animated pornography of children for a television show. He may have an interest in animated children, but should he have really been charged for possession of child porn? Aren't those laws meant to protect the children, and not convict the people with the fetishes? No children were hurt in this. The justice system did not work here.

 

[Tim]

This is really stupid. PLease explain to me how an animated character is a person? And please explain how a naked drawn child cartoon character should be classified as child porn? This is just stupid. There are a million sites that have this sort of thing on them, and are they getting banned? Are they even trying to stop them? This is a stupid case, and doesn't even mke sense.

 

[Sparky]

I still cant stop laughing. I read this yesterday at work, and I think its the stupidest thing ever. How on earth is a cartoon Character, under Commonwealths Law a fucking Human being? Thinking of how many times i have seen that picture and simialar on friends mobile phones, The Local Jail would be field to the rims. Lol this is the Justice system for you. ******s.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Depends how you look at it. Bart & Lisa are still children. It's supposed to amuse, but it's still depicts two children in a sexual situation. Child porn isn't amusing, but those images make light of it.


Cartoon or not, why would you want to find stuff like that over the internet? Although I have to say I've seen those pictures (can't recall where) and it didn't really occur to me that they were both children, it's just two cartoon characters as far as I'm concerned.

On the one hand it's stupid, on the other it's perfectly reasonable.

 

[Slyfox696]

Depends how you look at it. Bart & Lisa are still children.

Actually, no they are not.

The Simpsons were first drawn and characterized in 1987 for the Tracy Ullman show. It is now 2008. That means they were first born in 1987, and would now be 21 years of age. Thus, they are no longer children.

If we are to determine these fictional characters as human beings, then these fictional characters are 21 years old, and are simply actors PLAYING AS CHILDREN, but not really children. Thus, ignoring for a moment how stupid this ruling was in terms of determining a cartoon as a person, even the ruling is wrong, as these characters would now ALL be over the age of 18.

So, not only was this judge stupid, he/she couldn't count either.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

Actually, no they are not.

The Simpsons were first drawn and characterized in 1987 for the Tracy Ullman show. It is now 2008. That means they were first born in 1987, and would now be 21 years of age. Thus, they are no longer children.

If you have a porn film with adults, it's illegal for them to say they're under age. If they're 18 they can't pretend they're 12. It's part of an obscenity law. Bart & Lisa in The Simpsons are 8 or so. It's not relevant that they'd be in their 20's now.

 

[Slyfox696]

If you have a porn film with adults, it's illegal for them to say they're under age. If they're 18 they can't pretend they're 12. It's part of an obscenity law. Bart & Lisa in The Simpsons are 8 or so. It's not relevant that they'd be in their 20's now.

I haven't seen the porn version of the cartoon, but does the porn cartoon say they are 8 or 12? Because while it may be illegal to say they are under age, at least in America, there is no law prohibiting from trying to LOOK under age. Additionally, there is no law forbidding one actor from trying to impersonate and look like another actor.

And considering I seriously doubt that Matt Groening or his team drew this particular cartoon sex, then it stands to reason that the only way you can find this guilty is by taking huge leaps of faith, which is completely unfair in a legal system.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I haven't seen the porn version of the cartoon, but does the porn cartoon say they are 8 or 12? Because while it may be illegal to say they are under age, at least in America, there is no law prohibiting from trying to LOOK under age. Additionally, there is no law forbidding one actor from trying to impersonate and look like another actor.

From what I can remember they're just still images. I have a book on porn legislation somewhere. I'll try to look for it and write some of it out. It might intrest you.

And considering I seriously doubt that Matt Groening or his team drew this particular cartoon sex, then it stands to reason that the only way you can find this guilty is by taking huge leaps of faith, which is completely unfair in a legal system.

The person making & distributing is the one who's going to be in the real shit. However the images are looked at, it's still copyright infringement.

 

[Azrael Cain]

Images depicting children in a sexual act -- drawn, photographed, Etch-n-Sketched, whatever -- is still images depicting children in sexual acts; which is child porn. And child porn is not only illegal but disgusting. And while I can understand that some men (or women) may be turned on by it, that is as far as my beliefs on the matter will allow me to go. Mind you, now, this is images depicting real children.

And that brings me to this case. The Simpsons are a fictional creation (albeit, Matt has said somewhere they are based on his family and friends, is that correct?) and as a fictional creation are not "real." They don't even resemble "real people," if we are drawing lines and defining. Therefore, any acts they engage in are not grounds to be judged in the realm of our reality.

What the man is in possession of if pornographic images, not necessarily pornographic images of a minor. A fictional character is in no way a real person. If anything, he is guilty of copyright infringement (if he indeed did draw the images himself) and possession of obscene material. Though someone with a better knowledge of law, feel free to help me out/prove me wrong.