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.
Child Porn
- Thread starter Mr. TM
- Start date
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The alternative is unthinkable.
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.
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.
