back to article Aussie man convicted for Simpsons smut

A second Australian man has been convicted for possessing computer images of cartoon characters in explicit poses. Kurt James Milner, 28, pleaded guilty to charges of possessing child exploitation material and using a carriage service to access child exploitation material. He was sentenced to 12 months in prison, suspended for …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Benny


    Im pretty sure that somewhere I have an email with Simpson porn pics in from 10 or years ago, did the rounds a lot when I was at school.

    Maybe I should find it and delete it ....

    It does make me wonder about the state of mind of the people who think this is child porn, slightly worrying that they make the laws.

    1. Greg J Preece

      Undernet is fucked

      I've seen undernet sites where the porns ads down the side were Family Guy/Simpsons porn. Am I now automatically an 3vil peed0?

      1. Anonymous Coward


        In the eyes of some humourless Plod, almost certainly old son ... or did you think you were joking?

    2. Iggle Piggle
      Thumb Down

      I'm sue if it was a second offence with rel child porn it would have been a longer sentence still.

      Although I'm sure a life of the sex offenders register is going to be no picnic.

      But you seem to be wondering why this is an offence. It is the blurring of the lines between what should be innocent and child like images and blatant pornography. Indeed 10 years ago it probably was funny (perhaps the aussies are 10 years behind the rest of the world) however I suspect a quick search under google images with safe surfing switched off will show that this is not the case.

      But you have to ask yourself, what is going through the mind of someone who creates these images. Sure it is probably quite funny seeing an image of two of the adult characters from the Simpsons going at it. But what is funny about two children or even one child and one adult from the same series getting involved in sexual activity. I agree they are just blobs of mostly yellow pixels, but you are lying if you tell me that the fact that these pixels are portraying young children has no bearing on the sexual fantasy involved.

      OK so no children were hurt in the making of the specific "artwork" but if that is your criterion then I would ask any parents out there the following. Would you be happy if someone took one of your family snaps of some innocent situation and modified it so that it looked like your children were engaged in sexual activity. If not why not? No children were hurt in the making of the "artwork" so no harm done?!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Devils Advocate

        OK but let me ask you this..

        Should we also ban film companies from having scenes where children die?

        Authors from writing books where children are sexually abused?

        How about films like Saw? No body was harmed, but you've got to have a strange mind to come up with something like that. Should we lock the script writers up?

      2. John H Woods Silver badge

        Unintentional hitting nail on the head

        "Would you be happy if someone took one of your family snaps of some innocent situation and modified it so that it looked like your children were engaged in sexual activity. If not why not? No children were hurt in the making of the "artwork" so no harm done?!"

        No I would be seriously pissed off. But - apparently unlike you - I don't consider 'pissing me off' to be a criminal offence. That is the dividing line here: some people think that anything considered to give cause for concern should be criminalized. Build a legal system like that, and watch all our hard-won rights and liberties vanish in the mist.

        1. Richard 81


          OK, so a doctored photo of a family member, if not actually child (abuse) porn because no abuse has taken place, is at least an invasion of privacy. You and your child, assuming they are old enough to worry about it, can suffer some degree of mental anguish because this picture exists. Plus, someone is making the mental link between your child and sex, so harassment may become an issue. Therefore you'd be right to worry and there are already laws in place to protect you from the possible consequences.

          A cartoon however isn't even a picture of a real person. Bart and Lisa don't exist. It's fantasy. Making a mental link between them and sex does not _have_ to lead to a mental link between real children and sex. If someone does make that link, then they become a criminal.

          Child porn is both a cause and effect of child abuse, therefore illegal. Cartoon porn is not an effect of child abuse and _may_ be a cause in a very limited number of cases. You can't go around making laws on the off chance. That way madness lies.

      3. Anonymous Coward


        It's a CARTOON.

        "but you are lying if you tell me that the fact that these pixels are portraying young children has no bearing on the sexual fantasy involved."

        So seeing a cartoon makes you fantasise about young children? Good god, and you think we are sick for finding it funny?

        The people who complain loudest about cartoons hurting children are the only ones I know of who become aroused because a cartoon makes them fantasise about real children, and then project their sick perversions onto the rest of us. The rest of us don't find that a cartoon of the simpsons shagging makes us fantasise about anything, we laugh at it.

        The analogy with family snaps is bogus as they are presumably real children. The characters (not children - Lisa and Bart don't exist) are make believe.

        Some people obviously can't see there is a difference, which scares the shit out of the rest of us.

      4. Anonymous Coward

        Repressed Paedophilia?

        "I agree they are just blobs of mostly yellow pixels, but you are lying if you tell me that the fact that these pixels are portraying young children has no bearing on the sexual fantasy involved."

        What "sexual fantasy"?

        If, when you see such images, you see some sort of "sexual fantasy", that says more about you than it does about anyone else.

        I think you doth protest too much.

        I don't know what the symptoms of repressed paedophilia are, but I suggest you do some homework by finding out. You might find you're in the clear. Or you might find that you've unwittingly revealed to the world that you, yourself, are a repressed paedophile.

        Come to think of it, I do seem to vaguely remember reading something, somewhere, about how paedophiles do perceive (non-existent, delusionary) sexuality in images of children (presumably including cartoon children) that the rest of us are oblivious to. I'm wondering if that's the nature of your "sexual fantasy".

        Now I'm beginning to wonder if this chronic, growing paedo-hysteria might actually be fuelled by repressed paedophilia. The more it grows, the more it's repressed, and the worse it gets - a vicious circle of self-repression. Might that be the awful truth of it?

      5. Anonymous Coward

        GO TO JAIL!

        "OK so no children were hurt in the making of the specific "artwork" but if that is your criterion then I would ask any parents out there the following. Would you be happy if someone took one of your family snaps of some innocent situation and modified it so that it looked like your children were engaged in sexual activity. If not why not? No children were hurt in the making of the "artwork" so no harm done?!"

        No, I wouldn't be happy. I'd really dislike it. A lot. But not as much as I dislike what you've posted.

        In a free society, we don't criminalise people for things we simply dislike - no matter how much we might dislike them.

        But since you seem to believe that strong dislike of something is an acceptable basis for criminalisation, and since I (and plenty of others by the look of the thumbs) very strongly dislike your post, you will now have to accept the implication of your own position: GO TO JAIL!

        And don't try pleading freedom of expression in defence of your post, since that's what you're seeking to deny other people, even when their expressions are kept entirely private.

    3. markp 1
      Thumb Up


      But the problem I detect with people in a lot of these public roles is that if they were actually blessed with the power of critical thought, they'd be in different jobs anyway because they'd realise what a clusterf**k it all is.

      Had a lucky escape once when going for a job in a transport planning office, luckily they cocked up the written test part of the interview so badly I couldn't actually pass. That or their mandatory lobotomy budget had run out.

    4. Mark 65

      Maybe, maybe not

      "It does make me wonder about the state of mind of the people who think this is child porn, slightly worrying that they make the laws."

      That was my first reaction to this piece but then I thought what about the mind of the individual who has been caught doing it for a second time?

      Is this like adolescents who kill cats and other small animals potentially having a disposition to becoming serial killers by showing this or other such psychopathic traits? It may also be akin to rapists who start off with various levels of observation/peeping. Sounds far fetched maybe but I'd be interested to see if there's been research done on this before just slating it out of hand.

      1. david wilson

        @Mark 65

        >>"That was my first reaction to this piece but then I thought what about the mind of the individual who has been caught doing it for a second time?"

        Not only that, but the police [allegedly] got tipped off by someone, which implies not only was he doing it again, but he was telling people he was doing it.

        Even if the law is wrong, that does seem a bit reckless.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The people that make the laws

      Are just responding to media frenzy and "single issue pressure groups" that focus on specifics like how to discipline a child and giving teenagers any quantity of alcohol in the home.

      What is massively worrying is that the policy makers look to these groups at all.

    6. cannon


      you know ive got a copy of the britney spears video somewhere of "hit me baby one more time" now is this considered illegal as she is being sexual dressed as a school girl.

      is it ok for the media industry to sell using sex but not anyone else?

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Dangerous country...

        Half the strippers and kissogram girls in the western hemisphere are dressed as schoolgirls mate. Not to mention both old and newer movies of St Trinians. Increasingly dangerous territory despite the fact no sane adult equates such things with reality.

        When it's a 'matter of principle' there's no holding the self-elected moral guardians of this world - like so many things it's really about power.

      2. david wilson


        >>"now is this considered illegal as she is being sexual dressed as a school girl."

        If it's Australia you're talking of, that might depend how buxom she was.

    7. The Original Ash

      Hello Benny

      Thanks for your public admission of your contravention of the Children's Act 2004. An officer will be in contact with you shortly to arrange for a convenient time for your arrest.

      Please do not use your computer until the police have had time to image all storage media; Any attempt to delete files will be logged by your operating system and submitted as destruction of evidence.

      It's probably not a good idea to even joke about having possibly, at some time even before it was illegal, to admit to anything in any way related to an offence of this type.

  2. Ivan Slavkov


    Can the author of the London Olympics logo be convicted too.

  3. Pete Rowley

    If innapropriate pictures of simpsons characters count as child porn...

    Then surely everyone who has an Olympics 2012 logo somewhere in their posession is guilty?

  4. Anonymous Coward


    They're drawings. As long as this guy carries on in private, I don't see where the victim is?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Totally Unjustifiable

      There is no victim. This is the very definition of a 'victimless crime', a reality not lost on those seeking to criminalise others, merely ignored in the interests of the witchunt. Thus, it has ever been with moral crusaders. They really do consider drawings and cartoons as legitimate examples of actual child abuse; think about that. That's where we are at.

      Despite an acknowledged lack of evidence to show that anyone who 'possesses' such drawings then goes on to offend against real children (the favourite justification from the prosecutors), LEA's and child advocates best interests are served by pursuing these nonsensical and unjust laws - with the paedogeddon now all but out of control there is nobody left to stop them, or call them to their senses.

      It is patently idiotic to call a cartoon, however 'explicit', actual child abuse and to make it's owner or creator a sex offender. How can that ever be justified? Really? Meanwhile, we already see the likes of CEOP here in the UK calling for the outright criminalisation of fictional writing describing sex acts considered illegal. In other words, the creation of the ultimate 'thoughtcrime' for writing one's own thoughts and fantasies. A 'crime' for which one will be rendered a sex offender, stripped of job, home and even freedom. Be in no doubt: the appetite for destruction on the part of our moral guardians knows no bounds.

      We already know if CEOP asks, CEOP gets. Not long now before a whole new section of society can be enrolled into the ever-swelling ranks of the newly-criminalised.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think its time...

    Isn't it about time that we raided all the so called "fine art" museums and burned the horrible pictures showing naked children.

    Thinking a bit more on this, we should also take DNA of everyone who walks into those museums...they must be hotbeds for paedos.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Paris Hilton

    Lisa Simpson

    Can anyone explain why the logo for the 2012 Olympics is Lisa Simpson giving someone's trouser snake a little suck?

    1. Anonymous Coward

      is it just me

      Or does anyone else find the above post to be a bit too creepy?

      1. ravenviz Silver badge

        It's not just you

        Until I read about the 2012 logo 'interpretation' in the news I never noticed the apparent 'similarity' to said sex act. Now I do sort of but it's a bit of a stretch tbh. A bit like saying some stars looks like a hunter clubbing a bear to death.

      2. Anonymous Coward

        Hey everyone

        this is the same guy - look, they have the same name - anonymous coward - he's just trying to distract attention from his post. I am the same guy too. No, wait, what?

  7. Steve Roper

    This opens up an interesting welfare exploit...

    Let's see... Possession of pictures of childlike cartoon characters is child pornography. Child pornography is the exploitation of children. REAL children. Therefore, a cartoon child is now recognised in law as having the same rights as a real child.

    OK. I have a number of Poser renders of 3D models including some of children and young people (not doing anything immoral mind!). I have stories of the lives of the people depicted in these images. That means, that if imaginary characters are now accorded the same rights of protection under Australian law as real people, that means I could theoretically register them with Centrelink (Australia's social security department) as dependents and receive welfare payments for them.

    And when I'm arrested for welfare fraud, I can rightly point out to the judge that since possession of images of my own imaginary characters doing immoral acts constitutes possession of child pornography, then those characters must by definition be protected by the same human rights legislation as protects real children and are therefore entitled to welfare payments.

    It would be an interesting court case. I would lose, of course, but turning the result into a media circus would then severely damage the agenda of these fucking witch-hunting bastards in the eyes of the public.

    1. Liam Johnson

      on the other hand

      You may run in to difficulties when you fail to send them to school. Not to mention keeping them locked inside your computer for all these years. That amounts to slavery and personally I think the police should have your children taken into care and lock you safely behind bars. Or something like that.

      1. The Original Ash

        Re: on the other hand

        Excellent! Then they can become part of the statistics of abusive parents, put in to foster care (potentially as characters in the next Sims game), and enter into an endless cycle of moving between families who find the emotional of the needs too demanding and pawn them off to the Government for care until they're 18 years old. At that time, they will relive their childhood experiences by subjugating those they care for to the same treatment they had as a child, and the cycle continues!

        Part of the problem, not the solution!


        1. Allan George Dyer

          but in that case...

          the guy with the Simpsons porn should've got off because Bart and Lisa are over 18. No, wait, it's the appearance that counts, so they should've decided he was a child because he has small breasts and protected him by placing him in foster care, and arrested Lisa and Bart for child abuse.

          Nooo... noooo..... it's too confusing

  8. Anonymous Coward

    Well so much for 4chan then

    I'm glad I that I don't live there

    What's that Bruno Bear? Ursula Von Der Leyen is posting STOPP Signs over the Internet?


  9. 1of10

    OZ in the new inquisition era

    OZ - from a British penal colony to a puritanical country of obscure inquisition values, sign of the new times.

    Somehow looks a good title for a controversial book.

  10. Eddie Edwards


    Plea-bargains have a lot to answer for. This guy should never have had to plead guilty to holding child "exploitation" images. These are drawings; no children were exploited.

  11. JP Strauss

    Quick question

    If The Simpsons has been running for around 20 years, and Bart was 10 years old and Lisa 11 at the start of series 1, wouldn't that make them both consenting adults by now, seeing as they are roughly 30 years of age?

    Aside from that, I don't know what's worse: being sent to jail for something as stupid as Simpsons Porn, or knowing that there is someone so tight-arsed that they actually decided to turn someone over the police for lewd drawings of said cartoon characters.

    I'm surprised no one in Oz has been sent to jail for possessing Hentai... which is curious.

    1. keddaw

      In the UK...

      The law states that the person simply has to look under 18, the actual age is irrelevant.

      Which suggests young looking porn stars could take the UK gov to the European courts for unfair restriction of trade.

  12. Andy ORourke

    Second Offence

    I hear the first time he was prosecuted for having a copy of Nevermind by Nirvana

  13. Flugal


    All the Simpsons are at least 20 years old....even Maggie!

    How on earth this can be classified as child porn is beyond me. Sure, I can think of better things to get myself off with than a cartoon of Lisa, but each to their own.

  14. LinkOfHyrule

    *joke* Disgusting!....

    "The images included characters from The Simpsons, The Powerpuff Girls and The Incredibles"

    That's sick, its totally disgusting! Inter-studio cartoon p0rn! I mean come on, you can't have someone from Disney doing it with someone from Fox or Cartoon Network, you gotta keep it from within the same production company!

    Joking aside, I'm amazed drawn lines and coloured shapes on a computer screen or bit of paper could be considered porn. Would this mean you could get banged up in Oz for drawing a sausage on the lap of a Mr Man?

  15. Winkypop Silver badge
    Thumb Down


    Where walking on the street was once illegal...

    Home of the cane toad, white-shoe wearing property developers and too many god botherers.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      Queensland... → #

      Posted Thursday 28th January 2010 11:08 GMT

      Where walking on the street was once illegal...

      Home of the cane toad, white-shoe wearing property developers and too many god botherers.

      Thats really unfair, Queensland is a full of culture as Sir Les Patterson could tell you.

  16. Chris Harrison

    Look into my eyes,not around the eyes...

    Wy don't they just employ Derren Brown and convict people for the images they make in their heads?

  17. Anonymous John

    "He was also put on the sex offenders register."

    Will nobody think of the cartoon children?

  18. robert cooke
    Black Helicopters

    I'm not paranoid, but...

    Some of these political types are quite clearly paranoid and delusional. I too laughed at the silly pictures, there are in no way erotic and it makes you wonder about the mindset that does think they are porn. It says a lot more about the lawyers than the poor sad aussie that's just been cuffed.

    I want to go to a new planet, this one is f*£%£d!

  19. BristolBachelor Gold badge


    I know some will ask for a Playmobil reconstruction, however I would suggest that El Reg does not, and if fact deletes some of the past Playmobil reconstructions given the crazy laws going around these days!

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    God help any old hippies in Blighty or Australia who still have a copy of "Fritz the cat" or its sequel lurking in the attic. I doubt any amount of critical acclaim, the fact that it was shown at the Cannes film festival or the producers claim that "Animals having sex isn't pornography" will cut much mustard with M'lud, should the police take one of their famously casual dislikes to you.

    On that note, I must go and burn the doodles on my A-level note books.

  21. Anonymous Bastard

    How is this exploitation?

    No one got hurt. There are no victims. You might be able to claim copyright infringement but since Matt Groening is unlikely to ever publish porn it can't be called loss of earnings. I don't believe what Kurt did was an offence, just a bit sick. He needs help not a fine.

  22. Ally J

    "Rule 34" is now a crime

    Seriously, you couldn't make it up. But for the fact that someone's life has been ruined, this would be hilarious.

  23. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

    Re: I'm sue if it was a second offence with rel child porn it would have been a longer sentence still.

    Good grief. What a depressing comment. I really hate to use the expression, but what you're talking about here is the support of punishment for thought crime, in effect.

    I shall now stand aside and await a massive onslaught of words to this effect to be moderated forthwith. Happy days.

  24. Eden

    OK the biggest problem here...

    The biggest problem here is that if having Drawings, sketches, or cartoons of completly fictional characters that "look underage" (Lisa and bart are actually over 20 years old now...) is treated the same as real CP, then FFS why not just go get real CP! seeing as you'll be treated the same either way. *sigh*.

    I mean wasn't there a case a while back of someone convicted of CP for taking a perfectly legal pic of a topless girl and "reducing" her breas size as he prefered petite girls but to the police this now looked like CP and because it was "edited" was treated as such even though it wasn't?

    The worlds gone crazy

    I hope they never find the pics of me and my ex! she was an A cup and young looking (but 19), would I get done for CP if I decided the picture was too dark and "edited it" to make it look brighter because the judge thought it made my GF look underage?

    1. Anonymous Coward


      Captain Picard?

  25. /dev/me
    Paris Hilton

    Rule 34 -- no exceptions!

    "The judge said the sentence was so harsh because it was Milner's second offence."

    But, but, but, if this was indeed his second offense of possessing 'child exploitation material', then 12 months+fine is a very light sentence. I mean, if this was a serious crime of possessing serious child pr0n, with real pictures and real victims then 12 years would have been more likely.

    But seeing as how there where no victims, no exploitation and no harm done, why bother with sentencing at all? Even in the pre-internet days we all had sexually explicit material of well known cartoon characters and things like that. Sure, most of us lost interest in these things at age 17... but although the thought is tempting I don't think we should start jailing people for having a pubertal sense of humor.

    Paris, she's still legal to look at.

    1. jake Silver badge

      There's that "rule 34" again.

      WTF is "rule 34"?

      No, I'm not going to google it. I don't do google. Especially in this kind of context.

      1. /dev/me

        Oh, ok

        Rule 34: If it exists, there is porn of it. No exceptions.


  26. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

    Re: OK the biggest problem here...

    I doubt very much that there's a lot of correlation between consumers of cartoon child porn and consumers of real child porn. People have different preferences - some are going to prefer the cartoon stuff, it'll be their thing, and it doesn't mean that they're going to 'progress' to the real nastiness. Some are going to go that route, inevitably, but making that assumption/projection in all cases is ludicrous, and dangerous.

    1. 1of10


      I bet that majority of the registered sex offenders are victims of the draconian law. For sure that only a few minority of them have or could eventually molesting a child in reality.

      I don’t think that exist or has been published enough evidence that point out that someone seeing porn of any kind does trigger a person the provoke such problem. From what I eared is enough for a “mental adviser” to point to that possible link in court and without any proof that in fact it has occurred or the chances of occurring are high to convict any person.

      It seems to me that current judicial system prefers the easier path instead of cutting the root that causes that entire problem. It is easier to go after those that see rather than catch those that cause the real harm to produce such materials.

      Based on this, the current draconian law is just an absurd … it’s the new era of Inquisition but this time it has not been created by the Vatican and Spain… and like 500 years ago people won’t be burned in public eyes but a bit worst, their life’s would always be linked to a stigma until they die.

      Just a thought…it looks like the 500 year old Inquisition laws were more humane. At least the victims wouldn’t be seen alive much longer after receiving the guilty verdict.

      1. 1of10

        further more - puritanism

        UK's about to review/add more prostitution laws

        The pure Puritanism in action by the current law makers (probably heavy pressurised by lobby groups).

        How many nations have tried to eradicate prostitution and failed? Does UK think that would be the 1st nation in mankind history to solve the problem by just punishing everyone involved?

        Once again is easy for the judicial system to target those that search rather than those that provide, no disrespect for the woman involved doing a public service (and I'm not referring to those forced which is a total different matter).

        Politicians rather than attack the real problem of prostitution (which in this country is the lack of control) they prefer punishing everyone involved, which for sure it will only make matters worst and it won't stop prostitution.

        It would be nice if one day prostitution could be eradicated and forever. But I suppose that from that day the news would be the high increase of rape cases and divorces.

        These are some of the dangers of social reengineer mainly based simple puritanical views.

    2. ravenviz Silver badge

      Re: OK the biggest problem here...

      It's like saying that teaching kids about same sex relationships is going to make them 'turn gay'.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      The only study that supported peoples belief that drawn porn leads to real porn leads to molestation was dumped by the people that made it becouse it was so flawed. The problem with giving criminals an opportunity to blame their behaviour on something else is that they normally will.

      There's more evidence that shows that such things reduce the chance of offending.

      But it's the same argument pulled out for years by prohibisionists, soft drugs lead to hard drugs, violent movies/games/books make people violent, porn makes people more likely to victimise woman, extreme porn makes it more likely people will abuse woman, playing dungeons and dragons makes you more likely to become a satanist. yadda yadda yadda

      The interesting thing is that none of the people who have had their lives ruined have taken revenge on society yet. I'm sure someone will eventually.

    4. jake Silver badge

      Projection ... an interesting psychological thingie.

      "making that assumption/projection in all cases is ludicrous"

      I fear this is the real issue. The lawmakers are projecting.

      THAT is scary ...

  27. Anonymous Coward

    Q. What's the difference ...

    ... between a cartoon depicting children having sex and a cartoon depicting children getting seriously hurt or killed?

    A. One is a criminal offence with jail time, fines and a lifetime on the sexual offenders register and the other is broadcast into your home every day on prime time television.


    As Voltaire said (condensed), "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."

    In other words, when the powers that be can make the mainstream believe that this ridiculous outcome is right, then we are all lost.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Big Brother


      I was just about to use the Voltaire quote...

      I'll settle for:

      "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him, cobber..." - Cardinal Richelieu

      (OK, he didn't say cobber, but it fits, somehow...)

  28. Anonymous Coward

    OMG I've just realised...

    I watched the Simpsons at the cinema, should I now report myself to the local pedo registration centre? it's got Bart's little todger in it. I feel I should be punished or something.


    1. The Original Ash

      Re: OMG I've just realised...

      If you saw the Simpsons movie and saw Bart's junk in it and thought "Ha, that's funny!" then you should be ok.

      If you saw the Simpsons movie, saw Bart's junk and thought "I'd hit that" then yes, you should. But only after submitting yourself for psychological analysis, as you clearly have difficulty differentiating fiction from reality. Just as the government of Australia do.

  29. Richard 120


    How contrary, the other day I was praising the Aussie attitude to the bloke who put the sexist advert on that jobsite, now today I think they're being slightly mental.

    I don't see how different this cartoon porn is to kids drawing cocks on the walls of the school toilets as tradition defines is required. I'm not sure how much I'd understand even if it was an accurate representation (of children) that it constitutes a criminal offence, I'd have thought that the point was that no harm came to anyone or is likely to come to anyone as a result of the images existing.

    1. Il Midga di Macaroni

      That's the difference...

      That's the difference between our wankers of pollies and our basically good blokes of transport industry workers. Even if Border Express is based in Mt Gambier.

      Mine's the one with the Scania P164 hauling a b-double skel in the pocket.

  30. Anonymous Coward


    So can they claim that the pictures were fake and therefore inadmissable?

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why we need more smut

    Increasing internet access correlates with decreasing sex crime. If people get their fun looking at pictures of fictional children then they are too shagged out to go after live ones. The real danger to children are the people trying to clean up the internet.

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Actualy, no

      Studies indicate that there are stages of arousal – it begins benignly enough but then progresses from pictures of naked children, to pictures of children having sex, then to adults having sex with children, then the pictures are not enough....

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward


        ...this line of reasoning could be used to justify outlawing pretty much anything. It's fairly clear that it was the original Simpsons cartoons which inspired the porn Simpsons cartoons - therefore the former are as obscene as the latter, no?

      2. david wilson

        @AC 15:03

        >>"Studies indicate..."

        And do these studies actually indicate what the kind of person who would get a sexual thrill from images of naked children would do if those images aren't available?

        Evidently, some people are quite capable of going from being sexually oriented towards children to practical activity without the need for any intervening pictures/chatrooms/whatever, since some people have been abusing children as far back in time as you care to think about.

        What reliable statistics are there to show how many practical offenders wouldn't have been expected to do anything in the absence of images of offence?

        If you remove the slippery slope, might you just end up with a cliff?

        Fairly clearly, with the risks of prosecution and/or serious stigma that exist, for someone to deliberately search out [real] child pornography would seem to suggest that there was already more than just a passing interest.

        Also, isn't there always a risk that if everyone is told that a particular kind of pornography leads to further criminal behaviour (or that taking soft drug X typically leads to harder drugs,or whatever) that that can help some people avoid taking responsibility for their future actions, since they can write them off as somehow inevitable and/or someone else's fault?

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC 15:03

        Which studies? There have been no studies to support this claim (as if there had of been CEOP + co would have used them to support their case to have such material banned in the UK) provide links! And provide links to a study other then the discredited (so much so that its makers don't back it) one conducted in a prision where they only asked convicted peadohiles. As opposed to just a claim that they believed there was a link, and a complaint that the police hadn't been able to arrest someone they wanted to arrest becouse he hadn't broken the law.

        Your statement I suspect isn't based on "studies" but claims from various anti-(insert pet hate here) and moralists. The same kind that lie about increases in sex attacks in areas when infact there were drops.

        And it's the same claim wheeled out by prohibitionists over the centuries, that a little bit of this leads to a little bit of that, that leads to a whole lot of something else. In this case as with any other moral panic there is little to support their beliefs.

      4. Anonymous Coward

        What Studies?

        What studies? Conducted how?

        Let me guess. Researchers interviewed convicted child molesters, asking them how they came to abuse. Rather than take full, personal responsibility for their actions, the molesters chose to blame pictures they saw. They blamed pictures, blamed other abusers, blamed society, and even blamed children for wanting to emulate fashionable adults in how they dress. They took the opportunity to spread the blame around, so they wouldn't have to accept that they were entirely, exclusively responsible for their own actions.

        Is that how it goes?

        If so, what happens if we, as a society, validate such feeble excuses by actually legislating accordingly? Does it help stop the abuse? Or does it encourage the abusers to put the blame elsewhere instead of taking personal responsibility?

        If these abusers are so easily influenced by what they see and read, then they'd surely be far more influenced by all that stuff in the media about how abhorrent, disgusting, unacceptable, etc, paedophilia and the abuse of children are. They must know they're in a society that (apparently) overwhelmingly hates their guts. And yet, strangely, they don't seem to be so easily influenced after all.

        Does that, perhaps, so utterly blast that picture-blaming nonsense so completely out of the water that it's not even on this planet any more?

  32. Field Marshal Von Krakenfart

    How did...

    .. this disgusting filth get through the great firewall of Oz,

    Oh hang on....

    Did It originate in Oz?

  33. Graham Marsden

    Don't forget...

    .. that following the introduction of the Dangerous Pictures Act in the UK we now have the Dangerous Drawings Act which, like the Australian Law, means it is "an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited image of a child."


    It is sufficient that an image *looks* like a child (in someone else's eyes) that will get you convicted.

    Great, another victory for liberty and common sense...

  34. ratfox

    Even Disney did it

    Donald's Vacation (Disney 1940)


  35. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    The Register

    should ensure the Ozzies have the Olympics 2012 logo and the Lisa Simpson interpretation as a goodwill gesture. Isn't it called 'investigative reporting'?

  36. david 63

    Mrs Incredible is a fox though

    Oh, now I have to go to prison for imagining what it might be like...

  37. Andy 4


    Unbelievable, glad I don't live there.


    (ascii nob - hand yourselves in to the local dink house)

  38. Antti Roppola

    Legal troll?

    It is quite possible that the legal system is using this as an opportunity to promote discussion about these new laws as passed by Parliament. Nothing like fastidious interpretation leading to a controversial conviction to focus attention. Keep in mind that what is said about a bill in Hansard can be used in the interpretation of that bill.

  39. Anonymous Coward

    New antivirus feature?

    Hmm. Maybe some enterprising AV manufacturer should add "Detection and removal of known dodgy JPGs" to their features list.

    sounds like it could be useful, especially with the recent rise in smut downloader trojans which attempt to extort money from their victims.

    AC for obvious reasons.

  40. tanj666

    2012 Olympics logo?

    Does this mean that the dreadful 2012 Olympics logo will have be banned/redrawn?

  41. Anonymous Coward

    playmobil or it didn't happen

    Oh wait, that's prohibited too.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like