[KnightoftheNite]

That's what an Australian court has ruled.

Originally Posted by BBC

Quote:

An appeal judge in Australia has ruled that an animation depicting well-known cartoon characters engaging in sexual acts is child pornography.

The internet cartoon featured characters from the Simpsons TV series.

The central issue in the case was whether a cartoon character could depict a real person.

Judge Michael Adams decided that it could, and found a man from Sydney guilty of possessing child pornography on his computer.

The defence had argued that the fictional, animated characters were not real people, and clearly departed from the human form.

They therefore contested that the conviction for the possession of child pornography should be overturned.

Justice Michael Adams said the purpose of anti-child pornography legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of "real" children were depicted.

But in a landmark ruling he decided that the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.

He ruled that the animated cartoon could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children," and therefore upheld the conviction for child pornography.

Rather than jail the man, however, he fined him Aus$3,000 (US$2,000).

I guess I understand where the jduge is coming from, but just the same this is a messed up ruling. Nobody is being harmed. These cartoons are not people. No matter what happens in these cartoons, no matter how fucked up the person who created them is and no matter how fucked up the person watching them is, no real person is being harmed.

I suppose next we should start prosecuting people in possession of violent cartoons, because they might fuel real violence?

[Andrew X]

Its "safe" because thouse people that "enjoy" that kind of thing will use the cartoons instead of the real thing...

[mdmflutterby]

I wonder if he includes hentai in with this. Because there are a lot of underage "kids".

[Caelis666]

Originally Posted by KnightoftheNite:

That's what an Australian court has ruled.

I guess I understand where the jduge is coming from, but just the same this is a messed up ruling. Nobody is being harmed. These cartoons are not people. No matter what happens in these cartoons, no matter how fucked up the person who created them is and no matter how fucked up the person watching them is, no real person is being harmed.

I suppose next we should start prosecuting people in possession of violent cartoons, because they might fuel real violence?

It's a bullshit ruling with a bullshit legitimation. As far as I know there's as little or less evidence that cartoon child porn creates an urge for the real thing as there's evidence of cartoon violence creating an urge for real violence. Obviously the real reason is a moral one, but of course every lawyer would have a field day if the judge would admit that.

[dantendo]

Originally Posted by Caelis666:

It's a bullshit ruling with a bullshit legitimation. As far as I know there's as little or less evidence that cartoon child porn creates an urge for the real thing as there's evidence of cartoon violence creating an urge for real violence. Obviously the real reason is a moral one, but of course every lawyer would have a field day if the judge would admit that.

Well said. While I find the idea a bit disturbing, I can't see how it hurts anyone, or how a court can decide without any evidence that watching this would lead to watching 'real' child porn.

[EvilDH]

Quote:

He ruled that the animated cartoon could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children," and therefore upheld the conviction for child pornography.

There are many, many things that could "fuel demand..." including adult pornography using models that look very young, but are over 18/21/age of consent in said country. Banning this creates a precedent that could be used to ban a great many other things.

While I don't find 'simpson's porn' particularly tasteful, this is a terrible ruling.

[Mars II]

This seems to be a moral restriction rather than what is actually the basis of the law. They are saying: you can't have it because we think that's wrong not because it is hurting someone.

[dantendo]

Originally Posted by Mars II:

This seems to be a moral restriction rather than what is actually the basis of the law. They are saying: you can't have it because we think that's wrong not because it is hurting someone.

There is a legal basis for this - the judge ruled that as the simpson characters involved were presented as human children to a wide audience in the show of human children, this cartoon of them performing sexual acts constituted child pornography. The case hinged on whether a cartoon character could depict a "person" under law.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/techno...584795005.html

My personal opinion is that the judge got it wrong - I don't think for a second anyone believes that any of the Simpson's characters are people. I think the judge has impressed his own morals on this ruling, which IMO sets a ridiculous precedent - as highlighted by others in this thread.

[Voice of Reason]

I don't think we have enough information on this.

What this guy is doing is looking a depictions of child sex. If he was looking a photos or videos, he is still looking at depictions of child sex. He is not doing it himself, so in neither case is anyone being harmed by the individual. So why is nobody arguing against photos and videos being illegal? Because we assume that the sort of individuals who get a kick out of that stuff is not the best choice of babysitter. The judge here seems to have taken the same principle - that the sort of guy who gets a kick out of watching animated kids having sex is not a great of babysitter.

The problem is that we are quite happy with cartoon violence. It is no problem because we sit and laugh at it; nobody freaks out when Homer strangles Bart. By the same reasoning, we should not freak out over cartoon child porn.

What we don't know is how this individual was viewing the cartoon. If he was sat laughing at it, treating it as cartoon comedy, then it is not really fair to punish him for it. If he was using it as child porn, using it in a sexual way, then he is not a great babysitter.

What does puzzle me is the fine. That seems to be neither one thing nor the other. If he was just laughing at a cartoon, a fine is unjust. If he is a budding child pornographer, a fine is not helping in any way.

[Spectre19]

Quote:

What this guy is doing is looking a depictions of child sex. If he was looking a photos or videos, he is still looking at depictions of child sex. He is not doing it himself, so in neither case is anyone being harmed by the individual. So why is nobody arguing against photos and videos being illegal?

Because if you view child pornography you support the industry, which does harm children. The individual isn't harming them directly, but still...

Anyway, while I do think this sort of thing is pretty fucked up, animations aren't hurting anybody and there is no real rational justification for making it illegal.

[Eltargrim]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

What this guy is doing is looking a depictions of child sex. If he was looking a photos or videos, he is still looking at depictions of child sex.

The difference is the former can be constructed without anyone being harmed. The latter requires child sex to occur. There's a bit of a difference.

Quote:

He is not doing it himself, so in neither case is anyone being harmed by the individual. So why is nobody arguing against photos and videos being illegal?

Again, because photos and videos require a child to be exploited. Cartoons don't.

I'm actually surprised by your reasoning here, VoR. There's a fundamental difference between fiction and non-fiction, to use these terms here. Cartoon depictions of child porn can be produced without any child being exploited, abused, or harmed. To have a similar photo or video would require the harming of a child. There is a fundamental difference.

Just to establish a comparison: a woman is raped. Her rapist films the attack. Her rapist then publishes the video on the internet. Someone downloads it; should he be punished for possession of the products of rape?

There's no obvious law on the books for the scenario I presented, but the difference is there is no established market for real rape videos. There is an established market for child pornography. The authorities of these countries can't always strike at the source of the child porn due to limits of jurisdiction, so they crack down on the demand side of things as a means to combat the spread. Effective? Debatable. Should cartoon depictions be involved? I think not.

[Mars II]

Originally Posted by dantendo:

There is a legal basis for this - the judge ruled that as the simpson characters involved were presented as human children to a wide audience in the show of human children, this cartoon of them performing sexual acts constituted child pornography. The case hinged on whether a cartoon character could depict a "person" under law.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/techno...584795005.html

My personal opinion is that the judge got it wrong - I don't think for a second anyone believes that any of the Simpson's characters are people. I think the judge has impressed his own morals on this ruling, which IMO sets a ridiculous precedent - as highlighted by others in this thread.

That's what I was saying. I don't thing the logic used made sense and I do think he is just using it to impose moral restrictions.

[Greeney]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

What we don't know is how this individual was viewing the cartoon. If he was sat laughing at it, treating it as cartoon comedy, then it is not really fair to punish him for it. If he was using it as child porn, using it in a sexual way, then he is not a great babysitter.

What does puzzle me is the fine. That seems to be neither one thing nor the other. If he was just laughing at a cartoon, a fine is unjust. If he is a budding child pornographer, a fine is not helping in any way.

I agree. If he was not using it sexually, he shouldn't be fined. If he was using it sexually a fine isn't going to change anything, and at least it shows he's able to control his repulsive urges more than someone who looks at pictures of real children. The only problem I see is if there's enough of a reason to believe it will become a gateway to that sort of crap for the specific individual, which is way too complicated to tell without the individual admitting an abnormal interest in young children.

As for watching cartoon characters having sexual intercourse with another:
WHAT THE FUCK MAN?!

Originally Posted by dantendo:

There is a legal basis for this - the judge ruled that as the simpson characters involved were presented as human children to a wide audience in the show of human children, this cartoon of them performing sexual acts constituted child pornography. The case hinged on whether a cartoon character could depict a "person" under law.

I don't really agree with that interpretation. I think if someone (on his/her own) pulls the clothes off of an underage barbie-like doll, for (mentally deprived) shits and giggles; nobody in their right mind (outside of Feminazi's) is really going to give a shit.

[Voice of Reason]

Originally Posted by Eltagrim:

The difference is the former can be constructed without anyone being harmed. The latter requires child sex to occur. There's a bit of a difference.

Originally Posted by Spectre19:

Because if you view child pornography you support the industry, which does harm children. The individual isn't harming them directly, but still...

Eltagrim... note that I specifically stated 'the individual'. There is a reason for that.

If someone makes a video of child porn, children are being harmed, but does it make any difference how many copies are made after that? If our hypothetical individual does not watch it, are the children less harmed? The making harms children, the viewing doesn't, so by that logic the possession of child porn by individuals is harmless.

Quote:

Cartoon depictions of child porn can be produced without any child being exploited, abused, or harmed. To have a similar photo or video would require the harming of a child. There is a fundamental difference.

The guy we are talking about has produced neither a cartoon nor a video.

Quote:

Just to establish a comparison: a woman is raped. Her rapist films the attack. Her rapist then publishes the video on the internet. Someone downloads it; should he be punished for possession of the products of rape?

A woman is raped. Her rapist thinks "that would make a cool cartoon!", makes one, then publishes the cartoon on the internet. Someone downloads it; should he be punished for possession of the products of rape?

Lets consider a different imaginary scenario. The law decides that cartoon depictions of child sex are legal, so all the child porn producers recreate all their videos as cartoons so they can sell them legally. Would you be happy with that?

Originally Posted by Greeney:

I don't really agree with that interpretation. I think if someone (on his/her own) pulls the clothes off of an underage barbie-like doll, for (mentally deprived) shits and giggles; nobody in their right mind (outside of Feminazi's) is really going to give a shit.

What would you think about an inflatable underage-sex-child produced purely for those purposes? No harm done to any child anywhere, and the weirdos humping the child substitute are harming no one. No reason for it to be illegal, so that would be okay?

[Eltargrim]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

Eltagrim... note that I specifically stated 'the individual'. There is a reason for that.

It depends if you interpret creating demand as precipitating harm.

A supplier depends on demand, no? We see this with illegal drugs, weapons smuggling, and child pornography. Some of the time, the supplier is within the reach of the authorities of the jurisdiction (Crystal meth, grow ops [Another issue entirely], etc), but in the case of child pornography, a hefty portion of it is from Russia, where American, Australian, Canadian, and EU police forces have no hold.

This is why the methods targeting the consumer are being used. To quote Wikipedia:

Quote:

According to Jim Gamble, CEO of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, around 50 per cent of sites showing children being abused are operated on a pay-per-view basis. "The people involved in these sites often aren't doing it because they're deviant by nature. They're doing it because they're business people. It's risk versus profits. We need to reduce the profit motivation." The CEOPP was established in 2006, and targets the finances of organised criminal gangs selling images of child abuse.

By taking out the available demand, you reduce the size of the market, and therefore reduce the number of suppliers. Or so they hope, at least.

The possession of child pornography is harmless in as much it cannot make that one act any worse; however, the proliferation of child pornography creates a market, and a market creates suppliers, and suppliers abuse children.

Originally Posted by VoR:

Lets consider a different imaginary scenario. The law decides that cartoon depictions of child sex are legal, so all the child porn producers recreate all their videos as cartoons so they can sell them legally. Would you be happy with that?

Happy? No. I'm never happy with the proliferation of material encouraging the perception of children as sex objects.

However, if the hypothetical producers stopped producing real child pornography as a result of that ruling, I would be much less displeased.

To be clear: I support prosecuting those in possession of (and especially those who distribute) child pornography only because it strikes at the market for such. It can be damn difficult to prove intent to possess, and I've spoken out on other forums against cases where the only record of child pornography was in a thumbnail cache. However, when it is clear that the accused has been accumulating large quantities of child pornography, by prosecuting them you remove a customer from the market.

As to the guy in question, I think the ruling of the judge was unfair and trying to legislate morality. Nobody was harmed by these cartoons; I do not believe that the producers of such cartoons should be prosecuted, and their possessors most certainly should not.

Originally Posted by VoR:

A woman is raped. Her rapist thinks "that would make a cool cartoon!", makes one, then publishes the cartoon on the internet. Someone downloads it; should he be punished for possession of the products of rape?

To reiterate: I support the prosecution of possessors of child pornography only because it strikes at the market that the abusers use to sell the pornography. I apologize for not making my stance clear earlier.

Originally Posted by VoR:

What would you think about an inflatable underage-sex-child produced purely for those purposes? No harm done to any child anywhere, and the weirdos humping the child substitute are harming no one. No reason for it to be illegal, so that would be okay?

Sadly enough, I think Japan beat you to it.

Do I like it? No. However, no harm was done to a child.

[Voice of Reason]

Quote:

It depends if you interpret creating demand as precipitating harm.

A supplier depends on demand, no? We see this with illegal drugs, weapons smuggling, and child pornography. Some of the time, the supplier is within the reach of the authorities of the jurisdiction (Crystal meth, grow ops [Another issue entirely], etc), but in the case of child pornography, a hefty portion of it is from Russia, where American, Australian, Canadian, and EU police forces have no hold.

As far as child porn goes, I am less convinced than you that it precipitates harm. Sexual abuse of children predates photos, videos, or the internet. Those people making the videos would still abuse the children in the absence of video. They just make a video of something they were going to do anyway.

Quote:

According to Jim Gamble, CEO of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, around 50 per cent of sites showing children being abused are operated on a pay-per-view basis.

Pay-per-view is a different issue altogether.

Quote:

Happy? No. I'm never happy with the proliferation of material encouraging the perception of children as sex objects.

Yet you are happy with cartoons that do that?

Quote:

Sadly enough, I think Japan beat you to it.

Do I like it? No. However, no harm was done to a child.

That doesn't entirely surprise me, knowing the whole schoolgirl thing they have going on there...

Regarding the inflatable child, do you think it should be legal - in light of your previous 'I'm never happy with the proliferation of material encouraging the perception of children as sex objects.' comment?

[dantendo]

Originally Posted by Greeney:

I don't really agree with that interpretation. I think if someone (on his/her own) pulls the clothes off of an underage barbie-like doll, for (mentally deprived) shits and giggles; nobody in their right mind (outside of Feminazi's) is really going to give a shit.

Good - neither do I. It was the judge's interpretation. I went on to say that I disagreed.

[Spectre19]

Quote:

As far as child porn goes, I am less convinced than you that it precipitates harm. Sexual abuse of children predates photos, videos, or the internet. Those people making the videos would still abuse the children in the absence of video. They just make a video of something they were going to do anyway.

I disagree. They may still abuse children, but if they are producing and selling videos they would obviously be doing more of it to produce those videos.

Quote:

Yet you are happy with cartoons that do that?

He never said he was happy with it, he said it shouldn't be illegal.

----------------

Anyway, I was browsing on 4chan a few hours ago, and the picture was on there. My opinion is that in no way is it anywhere near child porn. It is drawn comically, and bart and lisa do not look like real people. It is just a cartoon, and while I'm sure there is someone in the world that is turned on by it, it doesn't seem that a paedophile would be.

[Mars II]

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:

As far as child porn goes, I am less convinced than you that it precipitates harm. Sexual abuse of children predates photos, videos, or the internet. Those people making the videos would still abuse the children in the absence of video. They just make a video of something they were going to do anyway.

Purchasing or viewing cartoons that depict it would only encourage people to draw it. There is much less risk in drawing dirty pictures than abusing a child. Purchasing videos or pictures encourages people to make them which is wrong in more than just a disgusting sense.

Quote:

Yet you are happy with cartoons that do that?

Regarding the inflatable child, do you think it should be legal - in light of your previous 'I'm never happy with the proliferation of material encouraging the perception of children as sex objects.' comment?

I would be hesitant to equate "happy with" to legal. I don't think any of us are happy with depictions of child sex but what should be made illegal is another matter. What I would say is that cases involving real children are definitely illegal where as the fictional depiction is not our business. We aren't necessarily "happy" with it but don't think it is our business either.

[KnightoftheNite]

Nobody is being harmed.

Cartoons are not real people.

Shouldn't that be the end of it? Let people be messed up in the head if they are, but they aren't harming anybody. And if they can get off on cartoon porn, isn't that better than them trying to acquire some real child porn?