Judge Says: Simpsons = child porn

[Sharwood]

Link.

'Simpsons' sex toon is child porn: Judge

An internet cartoon showing characters modelled on Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson engaging in sex acts, is child pornography, a judge has ruled in a landmark case.

In February at Sydney's Parramatta Local Court, Alan John McEwan was convicted of possessing child pornography and using his computer to access such material.

He was fined $3,000 and required to enter a two-year good behaviour bond in relation to each offence.

McEwan appealed against the conviction, but it was dismissed in the NSW Supreme Court on Monday, with Justice Michael Adams concluding a fictional cartoon character is a "person" within the meaning of Commonwealth and NSW laws.

"The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpson," the judge said.

"Sexual acts are depicted as being performed, in particular, by the 'children' of the family.

"The male figures have genitalia which is evidently human, as do the mother and the girl."

He noted the figures made no pretence of imitating any actual, or fictional human beings.

"In particular, the hands bear only four digits and the faces have eyes, a nose and mouth markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being," he said.

The magistrate had rejected a submission that cartoon depictions or representations of fictional characters such as The Simpsons were not of "persons".

Justice Adams said the legislation's main purpose was to combat the direct sexual exploitation and abuse of children that occurs where offensive images of real children are made.

But, he said, it was also calculated to deter production of other material, including cartoons, which "can fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children".

He upheld the magistrate's conclusion that the figures in the cartoons were depictions of persons within the meaning of the definitions in the laws.

Justice Adams ordered each party to pay its own costs, as it was the first case dealing with the "difficult" issue.

What do people think of this? Personally, I think it's a horrible decision. If this is classed as child porn, then, I've got to tell you, I've looked at child porn several times, and my ex-girlfriend used to find it hilarious, and felt the need to send it to me regularly.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that it is a wrong decision. Child porn, afterall, is illegal because the children in it are being hurt/exploited, something which is obviously not the case with a drawing.

 

[Jazzmail]

Absurd.

The whole point of making porn illegal in the first place is to protect the kids (real kids). Nobody is harmed in the making of a cartoon.

concluding a fictional cartoon character is a "person" within the meaning of Commonwealth and NSW laws.

Even more absurd. Now Australia will have to grant cartoon figures human rights.

 

[IglooDame]

It seems that no country has a monopoly on really moronic judicial decisions.

 

[Shekwan]

a friend told me about Simpsons porn before, maybe I should give him a call; tell him to clear his browsing history.

 

[Phlegmak]

I think the judge in that case would be wrong.

I haven't seen the cartoon in question, nor do I want to, but perhaps there's something special in that cartoon that made the judge come to his wrong conclusion?

 

[Bill3000]

But, he said, it was also calculated to deter production of other material, including cartoons, which "can fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children".

So you're banning teenagers, then?

 

[ThePrussian]

I think that it is a wrong decision. Child porn, afterall, is illegal because the children in it are being hurt/exploited, something which is obviously not the case with a drawing.

But, non-exploiting kiddie porn begins sexualizes children. And with all porn participation is better than being a spectator. You create the risk of the sexual exploitation of children.

 

[raketooy]

Killing toon characters is murder?

 

[Jazzmail]

Killing toon characters is murder?

Only in Australia, because cartoon characters there are "persons" to the law.

 

[Bill3000]

But, non-exploiting kiddie porn begins sexualizes children. And with all porn participation is better than being a spectator. You create the risk of the sexual exploitation of children.

No it's not, as the aesthetics of a drawn character are completely different than real children. Someone who finds the simpsons sexually attractive and nothing else would find real children disgusting.

I'd disagree on "participation being better than a spectator", too, considering voyeurism.

 

[ThePrussian]

Killing toon characters is murder?

Nope, because it is not murder. You are depicting murder (which there are some valid arguments to censor). But the depiction of children whether it be cartoon or realistic GCI is child porn. You are depicting children (and the Simpson characters are infact children) in sexual acts, therefore it is child porn.

 

[Bill3000]

So much for ThePrussian being a libertarian.

 

[ThePrussian]

No it's not, as the aesthetics of a drawn character are completely different than real children. Someone who finds the simpsons sexually attractive and nothing else would find real children disgusting.

So, badly animated child pornography is okay but well animated child pornography is wrong?

 

[holy king]

Nope, because it is not murder. You are depicting murder (which there are some valid arguments to censor). But the depiction of children whether it be cartoon or realistic GCI is child porn. You are depicting children (and the Simpson characters are infact children) in sexual acts, therefore it is child porn.

well........

McEwan appealed against the conviction, but it was dismissed in the NSW Supreme Court on Monday, with Justice Michael Adams concluding a fictional cartoon character is a "person" within the meaning of Commonwealth and NSW laws.

 

[Bill3000]

So, badly animated child pornography is okay but well animated child pornography is wrong?

I can see an argument if you're talking about, say, an animate child that is indistinguishable or quite close to a real child (such as good CGI), but not simply because it's "crappy animation".

(But a ban on either is unconstitutional in the US either way.)

 

[general_kill]

Nope, because it is not murder. You are depicting murder (which there are some valid arguments to censor). But the depiction of children whether it be cartoon or realistic GCI is child porn. You are depicting children (and the Simpson characters are infact children) in sexual acts, therefore it is child porn.

Nice logic there. /sarcasm

 

[IglooDame]

So, badly animated child pornography is okay but well animated child pornography is wrong?

Well, it does beg the question: how not-people-ish does a cartoon depicting younglings engaging in sex acts have to be before it falls outside this judge's child porn standard? Okay, Simpsons is in. South Park? SpongeBob Squarepants? Are stick figures far enough out?

 

[Aegis]

McEwan appealed against the conviction, but it was dismissed in the NSW Supreme Court on Monday, with Justice Michael Adams concluding a fictional cartoon character is a "person" within the meaning of Commonwealth and NSW laws.

I think the bigger story is that the Judge considers the Simpsons to be real "people."

 

[general_kill]

Well, it does beg the question: how not-people-ish does a cartoon depicting younglings engaging in sex acts have to be before it falls outside this judge's child porn standard? Okay, Simpsons is in. South Park? SpongeBob Squarepants? Are stick figures far enough out?

Good logic