The Simpsons are people, too

Albert Mond · 12-09-2008, 07:16 PM

CARTOON characters are people too, a judge has ruled in the case of a man convicted over cartoons based on The Simpsons, in which children are shown having sex.
In the New South Wales Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a "person" within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.

Alan John McEwen was appealing his February conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.

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

The cartoons showed characters such as Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex.

McEwen was convicted and fined $3000 and placed on a good behaviour bond.

"In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word 'person' included fictional or imaginary characters ...," the judge said.

"... The mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a 'person'."

In dismissing the appeal, the judge ordered each party to pay its own legal costs in the first case dealing with the "difficult" issue.

KontanKarite · 12-09-2008, 07:55 PM

*jaw drops*

Fucking... dumb. If a judge could make that call, he needs to step down from his position. This had epic fail scribbled all over it.

Albert Mond · 12-09-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

*jaw drops*

Fucking... dumb. If a judge could make that call, he needs to step down from his position. This had epic fail scribbled all over it.

I'd hate to see what this guy would do to Matt Groening.

KontanKarite · 12-09-2008, 08:05 PM

No, seriously... he needs to be removed from his job. I don't know what kind of books people go by there, but to see common sense yield to those books tell me that they need new judges.

What the fuck ever happened to common sense?

Sanguine Mind · 12-09-2008, 08:33 PM

Who The fuck would watch Simpsons porn?

alyroi360 · 12-09-2008, 08:34 PM

No they're not, they're cartoons with people doing the voices.

Beneath the Shadows · 12-09-2008, 08:38 PM

First of all, "Bart get out I'm piss!"

Now that that's out of my system... Australia's a little back asswards. Cartoon characters can constitute child porn, but photographs of a nude 13-year-old does not? At face value, it seems that it should be the other way around. Given the context of both examples, though, neither should be.

Despanan · 12-09-2008, 08:56 PM

Wow, looks like people are starting a crackdown on cartoon porn worldwide now.

Didn't the US supreme court rule in 1999 or something that drawings of children having sex was not child porn?

Albert Mond · 12-09-2008, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Despanan

Wow, looks like people are starting a crackdown on cartoon porn worldwide now.

Didn't the US supreme court rule in 1999 or something that drawings of children having sex was not child porn?

Not sure. I know it was legal there before the Iowa thing, though.

Beneath the Shadows · 12-09-2008, 09:07 PM

The legal situation in America is confusing.

To sum up...

1996: "Virtual child pornography" (which means any drawn or computer-generated images of children having sex) is made illegal.
2002: Above law deemed unconstitutional.
2003: Bush sings the PROTECT Act, making VCP illegal again (unless it meets a specific set of criteria).
2005: PROTECT Act first used to convict someone for possessing VCP.
2006: Supreme Court overturns a portion of a conviction which was obtained through the PROTECT Act.

So, technically it's illegal, but it's such fuzzy territory that any convictions gained have as much of a chance at being overturned as they have at being upheld.

Saya · 12-10-2008, 02:43 AM

Christ, this is going to get hentai into a lot of trouble again.

DRAWINGS ON PAPER ARE NOT PEOPLE. If DRAWINGS have rights, than so should every other inanimate object that resembles people.

Don't eat that gingerbread man, sir! That is murder!

Darth Nihilus · 12-10-2008, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

Christ, this is going to get hentai into a lot of trouble again.

DRAWINGS ON PAPER ARE NOT PEOPLE. If DRAWINGS have rights, than so should every other inanimate object that resembles people.

Don't eat that gingerbread man, sir! That is murder!

Does this mean setting Barbie dolls ablaze would constitute torture and murder? If so, many young boys are in for quite an interesting life.

SKULHEDFACE · 12-10-2008, 02:59 AM

This seems so amazingly ridiculous to me. I really don't understand how people can get bent out of shape over something like Simpsons porn when real threats related to child pornography continue to exist.

The day you lock up every pervert who looks at or participates in creating REAL child pornography is the day they should even consider looking into this other bullshit.

To my understanding child pornography is not allowed because the child themselves is having their rights stripped from them. They are being taken advantage of by an adult or someone who should know better, for said adult's own perverse reasons. In this instance a child is being damaged whether it be physically or mentally (not to mention what may happen later down the line in that individual's life which could rehash all sorts of shit).

With drawn or digital porn who exactly is being injured?

Perverts will find a way to get off no matter what. The real sick bastards who do go through with acts related to CP will continue to find their jollies elsewhere. God forbid the courts make these fuckers so afraid of getting caught on the internet that they decide to go to a playground or park instead.

Saya · 12-10-2008, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Nihilus

Does this mean setting Barbie dolls ablaze would constitute torture and murder? If so, many young boys are in for quite an interesting life.

When I was a kid, my older sister decapitated all my barbies, put the naked bodies in one box and all the heads in another. Little did she know that fifteen years later, I would be able to bring her to justice.

She was also the one to give me the sex talk and did so with a hilarious demonstration between barbie and ken. I can add **** to the charges as well.

CptSternn · 12-10-2008, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Nihilus

Does this mean setting Barbie dolls ablaze would constitute torture and murder?

No, but posing them in sexual positions could get you arrested and labeled as a pedo.

Beneath the Shadows · 12-10-2008, 02:13 PM

I thought Barbie was supposed to be an adult. I mean, how many kids do you know with a car and a house?

NightmareInShiningArmour · 12-10-2008, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

Christ, this is going to get hentai into a lot of trouble again.

God damnit. I was gonna say "hentai's fucked then".
haha.

This is probably the stupidest thing ever. I didn't think our judges were that stupid...

dead_dreams · 12-11-2008, 09:22 AM

I don't like the Simpsons, but that Judges' decision is going overboard.

dead_dreams · 12-11-2008, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

Christ, this is going to get hentai into a lot of trouble again.

(tenletters).

Tralis · 12-11-2008, 11:32 AM

Remember the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliet with Olivia Hussey's underage boobs? Is that underage porn under modern law? She's a real person, after all. Those boobs are not cartoon boobs, they are real 16 year old boobs. And the lady who took photos of her young children in the bath who got arrested for child porn? I seriously think the law for child porn should be that its defined by the acts depecited. Taking photos of nude children should be allowed if its a reasonably innocent depiction of the children and doesn't involve making them do anything sexual. Perverts are free to watch real live children and get their twisted jollies. All fetishes are that way. Someone can look at the feet in a shoe catalog and do their thing, that doesn't make the catalog porn.

I also think counting a cartoon character as a person is extremely dangerous. Can Fox sue on behalf of Bart and Lisa for libel, slander, or defamation? And how do we defined the age of a cartoon character who's age in never stated? And the whole virtual child porn is dumb. Plenty of classical paintings had nude underage subjects. No children are harmed in making them. Sure child porn is gross, but don't people have the right to due disgusting things in the privacy of their own home? Couldn't the porn makers defend "Oh, that's just a very young looking woman?"

MegearaErotica · 12-11-2008, 04:51 PM

This whole thread made me laugh...
EDIT: Very embarrassingly...

Darcnyss · 12-11-2008, 07:02 PM

Idiotic.
So, if a cartoonist intentionally kills off a cartoon character in his stories, would he then be guilty of premeditated murder?
After all, according to this judge, it would equate to the willful and planned killing of a "person".

Alain · 12-14-2008, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beneath the Shadows

Cartoon characters can constitute child porn, but photographs of a nude 13-year-old does not?

If you're referring to the art exhibition that was shut down a while ago, with nude images of children, then it wasn't classified as porn because it showed no sexual acts, did not exploit the children, but was still closed within days of opening. If not, what are you referring to? I haven't heard about it.

The problem with Australia is that there is currently a lot of controversy regarding censorship, appropriateness of content, and child pornography. There is an internet filter planned, that hardly anyone knows about despite word-of-mouth and media coverage, that is aimed at providing a "clean feed", although it is demonstrably ineffective, expensive, and likely to ruin Australia's online small business expansion. Our politicians are very silly and very thoughtless when it comes to these things, because a graduate employment program I registered for had its' budget cut, about the same time that billions were promised to develop this useless IP-level filter. Cutting off our feet to spite our legs, in a way.

Our video game classification system has been the centre of a non-child-porn censorship controversy for some time, with a few elder politicians etc blocking an R18+ classification for video games (thus making any new game with drug use effectively censored or banned) while the majority of Australians are clamouring for better ratings laws.

So yes, we are a bit behind the times in terms of free speech and commonsense. It sucks. Keep on complaining, please, and maybe these issues will start to get the media attention they deserve!

Albert Mond · 12-14-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alain

So yes, we are a bit behind the times in terms of free speech and commonsense. It sucks. Keep on complaining, please, and maybe these issues will start to get the media attention they deserve!

Do people still send their outlaws over there?