Aussie convicted over Simpsons sex pics An Australian man has lost his appeal against child pornography charges for possessing images of the Simpsons characters having sex. The Supreme Court of New South Wales upheld a lower court's decision which found him guilty of possessing child pornography. Alan John McEwan was convicted in February of possessing child …
Between this and the Scoripons Album cover it seems like weas a race need to make a decision between protecting children and just plain stupidity. Perhaps if people spent more time looking out for our children and less time trying to find a way of prosecuting others for having pictures of fictional cartoon characters having sex then maybe there would be less abused children in the world..
Oh, but I forgot it'sa lot easier to block a website and waste time in court than to go out and visit at risk families and protect children from being abused or killed.
This is Bob ! he is 10 years old.
This is Sarah () she is 8 years old.
And this (!) has just landed you in deep trouble for downloading kiddie porn.
Or is that just silly?
Does this also mean that all those Halloween specials count as snuff movies because someone always dies - and usually in a very nasty way!
/me grabs coat and starts looking for a lift off this stupid planet!
Ok this is getting ludicrous, this NANNY state world we now live in has been designed to protect PEOPLE, most children.
Yes ok whilst I agree that having a cartoon of two children having sex is disgustic, the fact is, THEY ARE NOT REAL!!! No one is actually being harmed here and therefore no one is being protected by this conviction.
This does not even mean he gets aroused by this material as a quick search for simpsons porn (which I'm sure many people have done in the past) in google images with safe search off will yeld at least one or two images of the kids screwing around, whats more due to the nature of the internet, if you have done that search on your current computer and have seen those thumbnails. YOU TOO have 'child porn' on your PC as it will remain in your cache for a considerable amount of time.
think about it as Labour soon will get in mind reading machines and even reading this
article will render you guilty of having it in your brain, albeit for informational purposes.
Yes siree we live in a weird ,and not very nice,world after 11 years of Labour . If
only could go back to 70's or 80's when things were great.
So, by the judges logic, I'm guilty of mass murder if I detonate the bomb in Megaton in Fallout 3, or kill any of the named characters in GTA IV, because they are depictions of fictional people. I just don't get it.
I feel as dumb as Paris now.
As Yeardley Smith and Nancy Cartwright, the actresses that play Lisa and Bart respectively, are both well over the age of consent, shouldn't this be treated in the same way as "schoolgirl porn", where the actresses portraying schoolgirls are clearly over the legal age?
It's only kiddie porn if kids are involved, surely.
After looking at the works of Damian Hirst, how many people go out and pickle a bisected cow?
http://www.af-moma.no/images/D_hirst_mother_and_child_divided(0).jpg
Looking at about 250 pictures a day for ten years did not cause this man to molest a child.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/04/third_former_ames_worker_jailed_for_child_p/
Hordes of child molesters have not turned up in Springfield. Homer and Marge have not had to take any special precautions to protect Lisa as a result of these pictures.
Perhaps the money would be better spent educating parents about how child molesters earn trust, and catching the few complete sickos who are a real threat to children.
Does this mean all the "spunking cock and balls" drawings I did as a minor (this kind of thing, though strangely sans love-p1iss: http://blogs.creative-jar.com/image.axd?picture=DSC_0782.JPG ) are now illegal in my posession, given they were based largely (or smalley) on my own sub-18 year old dangly bits?
Perhaps we need an opinion and ruling from somebody whose opinion on legal matters we can all respect unquestioningly - Wacki Smith?
There are plans afoot in consultations and committees within Parliament to introduce similar laws of 'obscenity' and 'indecency' here in the UK (originally to have been included in the new 'extreme laws already on the books) with regards to comics, cartoons, drawings, paintings and wholly CG imagery. CEOP are foremost at the vanguard calling for the Government in the UK to outlaw completely fictional (i.e. no photographic - or pseudo-photo - content at all) images of children as 'child pornography'. This will include Hentai/Manga comics.
This is all being done to 'prevent' the 'production of child pornography', with many 'experts' citing in testimony to Parliamentary consultations that in their view even completely fictional depictions of CP, such as in cartoons or 3D CG imagery, fuel paedophiles to commit crimes against real children. The evidence for these claims has, so far been, noticeably absent.
Possession would result in lengthy prison sentences and entry onto the Sex Offenders Register, despite the fact the evidence that finds you guilty neither contained pictures of real children, nor any evidence of an actual crime.
Room 101 because my head hurts.
<article>Rude versions of Simpsons cartoons were a leading meme of the internet in the late 90s, second only to Star Trek jokes</article>
As I recall -in the early ninties- it was Simpsons jokes [as in blackboard quotes] and rude depictions of Star Trek characters.
Plus ca change.
["i] cloaking device duly engaged (off to delete the clip with Six of One, just in case)
How dare this man exploit innocent, disabled (three fingers) disfigured (look at their heads) and jaundiced children for his own amusement. It is bad enough exploiting healthy, normal and attractive children, but to abuse the disadvantaged in such a way is morally reprehensible. He should have the book or at least the DVD thrown at him for possessing such schoolboy humour. oops sorry, child porn.
I suspect there are children, yes real children worldwide viewing and giggling at these and similar cartoons. They should all be rounded up and placed in correctional facilities before it is too late.
How about forming child protection laws around the input from and consultancy with actual victims of child abuse, instead of paranoid knee jerk reactionaries.
i played a game of civilisation 3 over the weekend, during which i conducted bombing raids in which civilians were killed. i also invaded greek territory without a formal declaration of war. under the new 'global stupidity' regime controlling the planet i am therefore guilty of heinous war crimes.
sorry!
[can we have a spaceship leaving the earth smiley please? - as in "stop the world i want to get off!"]
With all those cupids flying around?
A lot of victorian era art contains cupids, think naked babies / children with bows, harps and wings, so is this all going to be illegal?
And if so does this mean that we need to arrest everyone who owns it, think stately homes, musems, town hallls, houses of parliment (not sure but bound to have some), or does it mean they will have to destroy it all, causing great damage to our history and culture? Or is this fine because its old and is therefore "art"?
... thinking Australia was one of the last bastions of common sense in a world of moronity. This article has just proved me wrong.
I think that judge and whoever decided to bring the whole criminal proceedings in the first place are clearly in desperate need of a life.
... or maybe a shag. :P
Time to get rid of your Simpsons, Southpark and Family Guy DVD collections before the dawn chorus includes the sounds of large policemen battering in your front door.
I am certain that once we have similar cartoon/drawing laws in place then all of these programs will contain material that could land you in court.
Looks like America will soon be the only place that gets to watch all of their home grown TV.
This entire subject makes me angry, you can just about convince me on the CP rap for only one reason really and that's that you are watching an actual child actually get abused. Their's an actual crime being commited, and all in all it's bad.
Now with pictures and writing there is no victim, no crime, no nothing, fap to it as much as you like.
Ahhh f--- it. I hate the whole debate and it makes me angry beyond comprehension.
The Simpsons Movie features a naked Bart on a skateboard, complete with a black "modesty bar" superimposed over The Parts Of The Body That Would Be Covered Up By A Bathing Costume. However, during the nude skateboarding sequence, Bart passes behind a hedge and his disembodied todger is visible through a gap in the foliage.
Black Helicopter, because I'm not sure they aren't after me now.
This post has been deleted by its author
I remember in an episode (behind the laughter or something like that) it is revealed the children are given drugs to keep there youthful looks. Homer says something along the lines that "it would be impossible to get all 4 age reduction drugs into their breakfast every morning..." (in a manner which leaves even a judge viewing the clip to realize they are being drugged!).
Based on the shows own canon they are not kids!
This story (and the wiki related story) make me cry out and want to go into the offices of the self appointed moral guardians of our society, grab them by the hair and bang their fat heads into their plush expensive desks and yell "do something worthwhile in life, like protect the children with abusive parents" (95% of all child abuse comes from its parents, or people known to the parents)
More seriously, this is not about 'protecting children' its not about 'sending pervs to jail' its about power
They have the power to moniter what you watch, what you download, what you listen to, and they are never ever going to give that power up
but it wont be long before they're at the sistine chapel spraying the ceiling with whitewash because there semi naked images of children on it...
A black helicopter because it looks like I'm guilty of thought crime and it will not be long before the midnight knock at the door to takes me aw
...he merely concludes that it's possible a fictional image may constitute child pornography, and that whether or not the Simpsons pics are child porn is a question of fact. Given this fairly reasonable contention, he doesn't have the power to point out that the original Magistrate is an idiot and the pictures clearly shouldn't be considered child porn.
If imaginary characters are real, that means that Kyle has to suck Cartman's balls! They are both 10, just as real as Bart and Lisa and forcing a boy to perform sexual favors for another boy means that both of them are being molested and it's all the judge's fault!
Not in the UK. It's already illegal to have porn where a person may be overage but pretending to look younger (a general theme of most porn since porn was invented surely. After all, look at all the "barely legal!" stuff!!). And that also includes computer generated porn and similar (inc cartoons I bet).
Basically don't even think about it, as shortly NuLabour will have mind reading detector vans patrolling the streets driven by the Daily Mail brigade, looking out for the slightest dubious thought.
Welcome to Winston's world. 24 years later than predicted.
I think we need to remember that the point of such cartoons is humour, not eroticism. They might not actually be that funny, but humour is their intent.
Who could become aroused at the Simpsons cartoon? Geez, it's not like you are looking at a cartoon of Jessica Rabbit or anything.
Moral panics always lead to bad laws, and this is just another example of that rule. The child porn laws in Australia (and I presume other Western nations) were deliberately worded so as to "catch" anyone trying to Pixar their way around them (virtual/animated/CGI images of children are regarded the same as real images). The legislators were warned at the time that it would result in absurd convictions like this, but the screams of the "won't anyone think of the children!" brigade won the day.
for Matt Groening once the extreme porn laws come into force?
A still from a film can be considered extreme porn.
A cartoon is a series of stills.
Bart's penis in the Simpson's movie must therefore be considered CP in the context of the EP laws. Assuming the Simpson's creators keep their original work (they are presumably able to go to it and amend it if necessary) shouldn't we be seeking their extradition on dissemination of CP globally?
Easter Island had it's last few trees - someone cut them down.*
The Sumerians had their land clearances with subsequent desertification.
Can we be at that point in civilisation where it all comes tumbling down through gross stupidity?
*from the book "A Short History Of Progress" by Ronald Wright
Excuse me, but when's the next shuttle to Mars please? This world is definitely off the rails and heading straight to the moronic black hole. From Americans making EULA breaking a criminal offence, then charging a girl with child porn charges for sending a picture of HERSELF, to the UK ISPs unilaterally banning Wikipedia, to most if the Arab world, and now this, I think I've definitely heard the flush of doom. Armageddon isn't about fire and brimstone, it's about anyone with an IQ of over 50 committing suicide because of the pain. Also turns out it was a bad translation. It wasn't "the MEEK shall inherit the Earth" but rather "the MORONS shall inherit the Earth".
Who knew?
"shouldn't this be treated in the same way as "schoolgirl porn", where the actresses portraying schoolgirls are clearly over the legal age?"
No, it's the other way round, schoolgirl porn will be next. If you have a copy of Britney Spires video of her in the school uniform and especially if you have been watching cirtain bits of it then you have had lustful thoughts about schoolgirls. It is your thoughts that make it porn. Or even just what other peoples dirty minds can imagine you imagining when you look at the material.
That would surely make the prosecutors as guilty as you but it does not work like that since then you would not get prosecuted. Also the makers of the Britney Spires video would not get prosecuted because they are successfull.
It's all a bit crazy and has potential to get a lot more crazy.
BTW, I am obviously guilty of looking at Britney in a pervey way.
Convicting anyone for possession of cartoons, drawings, wholly CG-generated imagery of children in any state of dress/undress is the illogical, inevitable conclusion of the Inquisition. Absurdity always wins over reason and common sense when there is the frisson of a witch-hunt in the air and Mob are tooled up and ready to go. Never mind that no children were abused, never mind that no sexual offence has taken place - the Courts will fall into line with the dictats of the Witchfinder-General and what is not real will be made real for the purposes of gaining those convictions and setting some sort of perverted 'example' for the benefit, mainly, of those edifices whose job it is to be seen to be 'protecting the children' from the armies of Paedophiles stalking the land, the world over.
Things are going to get worse, have no doubt about it. That's not pessimism; it's just the way it is going to be. New laws in many countries are being formulated, massive budgets are being allocated and whole new structures of repression are being built by vested interests and over-eager zealots with a cause. There will be no argument: it is not permitted (and the laws have been rewritten in such a way as to ensure this) and if you do dissent you will be vilified, belittled and humiliated before your peers as some sort of 'paedophile sympathiser' (in the best tradition of all dictatorships).
As adults, we are being reducated to view all children as objects to be feared, which is only natural when they are possibly one of the most powerful armaments in any government's armoury of fear. If you do not get the message you will be paraded before the public and made an example of, your family, your job, your home and ultimately your freedom will all be taken from you.
When a simple cartoon or drawing, involving no real people at all, can be said to be 'real' by a court of law we are in very, very deep trouble. God help us all.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people...period.
Comes to mind when I hear things such as this, it is absolutely sickening that laws are now being created, which have no limits, nor sense.
It starts slowly, seemingly sensible, but as it gains momentum, it becomes uncontrollable, and become used for anything and everything, like terror laws are now used for common crimes, because the terror laws remove most of the civil rights that people have, and therefore it is much easier to use those laws.
The Child protection laws are likewise a tool to ban what certain groups do not like, eg porn, and the definitions are vauge enough so that you can extend it to cover pretty much everything.
is it just the simpsons? Or the various other bits of toon porn that *cough* some people have stuck on their computers?
What if it's framed, does it become art?
Also, I agree with the commentor that suggests we stick this guy into a cartoon jail.
Surely, as there were no children harmed, it's not child abuse? If it IS now child abuse, does the Judge not now have to answer where the line lies? Does a stick figure with bunches count as a stick-figure kid? No, how about two stick figures having sex when one is smaller than the other? How about if they're fleshed out a little bit further, but bear no real resemblence to human beings, are monochrome and crude to the point that schoolboys would say "wow, that's shit"?
Oh, wait- that's the level of drawing that we're talking about. They've not even been untooned.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
