|
I thought this article was funny in a really disturbing way.
The Full Article is on
http://tvguide.sympatico.msn.ca/TVNews/Articles/081209_simpsons_child_porn_DW
‘Simpsons’ kiddie porn
By Denette Wilford
2008-12-09
Man convicted of ‘Simpsons’ child pornography
Cartoons showing sex acts involving children based on Simpsons characters are pornographic, a judge ruled.
In Australia’s New South Wales Supreme Court, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a “person,” reports the Herald Sun.
Last February, Alan John McEwan was convicted of 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.
"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.
McEwan was convicted and fined $3,000 and placed on a good behaviour bond.
Any thoughts?
|
ROFL @ people these days.
just LOL. woooooow o.o
|
Hahahahahahaha, getting in shit for that must be so embarrassing. I can't believe they consider that child pornography though.
|
51454 Posts
oh boy
he lives in my state
|
yeah its ridiculous
whts more ridiculous would be being that guy, and everyone who knows him knowing that he enjoys cartoon pornography
|
LOL that sucks. must be so embarrassing.
|
general forum on fire today, seriously :D
|
hahaha thats is hilarious. I bet those lawyers would have a field day if they found out what the hell a 4chan was.
|
LOL wow
the simpsons was created 18 years ago, wouldnt that make everyone legal age? LOL
|
On December 11 2008 15:16 BlackJack wrote:
LOL wow
the simpsons was created 18 years ago, wouldnt that make everyone legal age? LOL
HAHAHAHAHAHA
|
Noooo Maggie!? What do they have against baby porn? Next thing you know, they're gonna outlaw fetal porn.
|
|
|
On December 11 2008 15:16 BlackJack wrote:
LOL wow
the simpsons was created 18 years ago, wouldnt that make everyone legal age? LOL
lmao thats pretty good
too bad the guy didnt think of it for his defense plea
|
On December 11 2008 15:21 ish0wstopper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 15:16 BlackJack wrote:
LOL wow
the simpsons was created 18 years ago, wouldnt that make everyone legal age? LOL lmao thats pretty good too bad the guy didnt think of it for his defense plea
The person has to be of legal age at the time of recording.
|
lol Australia
you guys sure dont like the internet
|
On December 11 2008 15:16 BlackJack wrote:
LOL wow
the simpsons was created 18 years ago, wouldnt that make everyone legal age? LOL
ROFL good one!
|
On December 11 2008 15:16 BlackJack wrote:
LOL wow
the simpsons was created 18 years ago, wouldnt that make everyone legal age? LOL
Haha, aigo so sad
|
I can't imagine being that guy and now everyone knows that he is into Simpsons Porn.
|
On December 11 2008 15:28 ilovejonn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 15:16 BlackJack wrote:
LOL wow
the simpsons was created 18 years ago, wouldnt that make everyone legal age? LOL ROFL good one!
LOOOOL
|
|
|
|
|
Is all anime child porn now?
|
On December 11 2008 15:50 aRod wrote:
Is all anime child porn now?
Yes, and that includes Pokemon. Your childhood was a lie.
|
not surprising...australia is one of the most fucked up countries for this
cartoon underaged porn has always been illegal
infact if you get your girlfriend to dress up as a schoolgirl you can get sent to jail for supporting child rape
aus = pathetic country
|
i'm just wondering what complete fucking reject went to the police and reported him
|
|
|
LOL, isnt all porn illegal in AUS though.
I can't believe that he can't defend this, its obviously not real porn. Its more of a gag to send people and laugh at. How did he get caught anyways?
|
On December 11 2008 16:08 CharlieMurphy wrote:
LOL, isnt all porn illegal in AUS though.
I can't believe that he can't defend this, its obviously not real porn. Its more of a gag to send people and laugh at. How did he get caught anyways?
simpsons porn = bart and lisa = kids = kiddy porn = lucky he didnt go to jail
|
Kinda funny, however also really wrong.
Pokemon supports animal fighting, should we make that illegal? because its definately illegal to enter my dog into a real dog fight.
A cartoon is not real. Therefore no wrong doing has taken place. No child was exploited.
Also how does one determine the age of a character in a drawn picture? Child pornography is pornography with people under 18. Who judges the age of a cartoon character?
I hope that judge realises that hes probably destroyed that mans career. Now whenever he goes for a job interview and has to report his criminal convictions he has to put child pornography on the list. Im sure that will go down well.
|
i think the better question is who the fuck made simpsons porn?
|
Wow wtf...On December 11 2008 15:16 BlackJack wrote:
LOL wow
the simpsons was created 18 years ago, wouldnt that make everyone legal age? LOL
haha and nice one
|
On December 11 2008 16:46 clazziquai wrote:
i think the better question is who the fuck made simpsons porn?
The internet, that's who.
|
On December 11 2008 15:13 GTR-2-Go wrote:
oh boy
he lives in my state
^^^ lmao sorry^^
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
haha reminds me of the child porn legislation reform going on in japan right now.
|
So, if I take out a piece of paper and pen right now. Draw 2 children having sex, I get fined?...
|
This is really creepy, but at least he didn't kill people over video games, or because of a mysterious voice, or rape his family members in a basement. I wish more crimes were like this, rather than like those.
|
I never knew these things existed.
|
On December 11 2008 16:19 suidfhiufh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 16:08 CharlieMurphy wrote:
LOL, isnt all porn illegal in AUS though.
I can't believe that he can't defend this, its obviously not real porn. Its more of a gag to send people and laugh at. How did he get caught anyways? simpsons porn = bart and lisa = kids = kiddy porn = lucky he didnt go to jail
Troll much? Every definition of "child" has either "person" or "human" in it. A drawing cannot be a child.
|
United States42694 Posts
imo there's nothing wrong with pedophilia. In the same way that there's nothing wrong with having a rape fetish, which a lot of perfectly normal men will admit to. The problem occurs when they start raping people (or children in the pedophilia example). Child porn is actively targeted because it funds molestation, if there were sites selling videos of actual rapes I'd expect them to get fucked for the exact same reasons. But if a guy wants to enjoy cartoons of pedophilia or read stories about it or whatever then that's fair enough. He's not harming anyone by doing it.
The problem isn't pedophiles, it's when you get someone who is both a pedophile and a rapist and therefore by extension the problem is simply rapists.
|
the U.S. Supreme Court actually heard a case similar to this and they ruled you couldn't be prosecuted for this. Simpsons characters makes this just downright retarded. They're yellow and they have spikey heads, they're closer to aliens than children.
|
|
|
On December 11 2008 16:59 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 16:19 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:08 CharlieMurphy wrote:
LOL, isnt all porn illegal in AUS though.
I can't believe that he can't defend this, its obviously not real porn. Its more of a gag to send people and laugh at. How did he get caught anyways? simpsons porn = bart and lisa = kids = kiddy porn = lucky he didnt go to jail Troll much? Every definition of "child" has either "person" or "human" in it. A drawing cannot be a child.
edit: sorry i snapped
|
United States42694 Posts
On December 11 2008 17:27 suidfhiufh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 16:59 LonelyMargarita wrote:On December 11 2008 16:19 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:08 CharlieMurphy wrote:
LOL, isnt all porn illegal in AUS though.
I can't believe that he can't defend this, its obviously not real porn. Its more of a gag to send people and laugh at. How did he get caught anyways? simpsons porn = bart and lisa = kids = kiddy porn = lucky he didnt go to jail Troll much? Every definition of "child" has either "person" or "human" in it. A drawing cannot be a child. HI RETARD THE JUDGE JUST SAID IT IS, MANY COUNTRIES SAY IT IS, WHY DO U THINK IM TROLLING OH MAYBE UR JUST A FUCKING IDIOT
I still don't fully know if you're trolling or not...
Maybe if you mixed in some italics and a bit of bold then I'd get the inflections you're putting on the words.
|
On December 11 2008 17:10 Kwark wrote:
But if a guy wants to enjoy cartoons of pedophilia or read stories about it or whatever then that's fair enough. He's not harming anyone by doing it.
the argument against this is that indulging in deviant behaviour encourages deviant behaviour
|
United States42694 Posts
On December 11 2008 17:32 suidfhiufh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 17:10 Kwark wrote:
But if a guy wants to enjoy cartoons of pedophilia or read stories about it or whatever then that's fair enough. He's not harming anyone by doing it. the argument against this is that indulging in deviant behaviour encourages deviant behaviour
And the argument against this is that what a consenting adult does (in this case with his right hand) in the privacy of his own home is no business of the state.
|
On December 11 2008 17:31 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 17:27 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:59 LonelyMargarita wrote:On December 11 2008 16:19 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:08 CharlieMurphy wrote:
LOL, isnt all porn illegal in AUS though.
I can't believe that he can't defend this, its obviously not real porn. Its more of a gag to send people and laugh at. How did he get caught anyways? simpsons porn = bart and lisa = kids = kiddy porn = lucky he didnt go to jail Troll much? Every definition of "child" has either "person" or "human" in it. A drawing cannot be a child. HI RETARD THE JUDGE JUST SAID IT IS, MANY COUNTRIES SAY IT IS, WHY DO U THINK IM TROLLING OH MAYBE UR JUST A FUCKING IDIOT I still don't fully know if you're trolling or not... Maybe if you mixed in some italics and a bit of bold then I'd get the inflections you're putting on the words.
the judge just said a drawing of a person counts as a person
therefore the guy can be prosecuted
i clarified to charliemurphy how the logic works
then this retard above me says im trolling and making things up
when im literally and SO SO FUCKING SIMPLY re-iterating what is in the OP
so i shout at him
|
On December 11 2008 17:33 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 17:32 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 17:10 Kwark wrote:
But if a guy wants to enjoy cartoons of pedophilia or read stories about it or whatever then that's fair enough. He's not harming anyone by doing it. the argument against this is that indulging in deviant behaviour encourages deviant behaviour And the argument against this is that what a consenting adult does (in this case with his right hand) in the privacy of his own home is no business of the state.
if it "encourages" deviant (illegal) behaviour then it is seen as a public risk
we cant own machine guns because it is deemed as a public risk, nomatter how responsible an individual may claim to be, or how he only keeps that gun within his own home. the potential risk is still there and unmoderated.
if everyone "indulged" in guns then gun crimes would rise. fact. there has to be a blanket and inflexible law simply for the sake of practicality (which is made up of several arguements)
|
United States42694 Posts
I believe his problem wasn't misunderstanding what the judge said but rather disagreeing with it. Repeating the judge doesn't clear anything up.
|
On December 11 2008 17:35 suidfhiufh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 17:31 Kwark wrote:On December 11 2008 17:27 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:59 LonelyMargarita wrote:On December 11 2008 16:19 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:08 CharlieMurphy wrote:
LOL, isnt all porn illegal in AUS though.
I can't believe that he can't defend this, its obviously not real porn. Its more of a gag to send people and laugh at. How did he get caught anyways? simpsons porn = bart and lisa = kids = kiddy porn = lucky he didnt go to jail Troll much? Every definition of "child" has either "person" or "human" in it. A drawing cannot be a child. HI RETARD THE JUDGE JUST SAID IT IS, MANY COUNTRIES SAY IT IS, WHY DO U THINK IM TROLLING OH MAYBE UR JUST A FUCKING IDIOT I still don't fully know if you're trolling or not... Maybe if you mixed in some italics and a bit of bold then I'd get the inflections you're putting on the words. the judge just said a drawing of a person counts as a person therefore the guy can be prosecuted i clarified to charliemurphy how the logic works then this retard above me says im trolling and making things up when im literally and SO SO FUCKING SIMPLY re-iterating what is in the OP so i shout at him
Just a friendly suggestion, you shouldn't call veteran members of the forum you joined less than 3 days ago retards, and you should not make posts in all caps.
|
On December 11 2008 17:45 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 17:35 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 17:31 Kwark wrote:On December 11 2008 17:27 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:59 LonelyMargarita wrote:On December 11 2008 16:19 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:08 CharlieMurphy wrote:
LOL, isnt all porn illegal in AUS though.
I can't believe that he can't defend this, its obviously not real porn. Its more of a gag to send people and laugh at. How did he get caught anyways? simpsons porn = bart and lisa = kids = kiddy porn = lucky he didnt go to jail Troll much? Every definition of "child" has either "person" or "human" in it. A drawing cannot be a child. HI RETARD THE JUDGE JUST SAID IT IS, MANY COUNTRIES SAY IT IS, WHY DO U THINK IM TROLLING OH MAYBE UR JUST A FUCKING IDIOT I still don't fully know if you're trolling or not... Maybe if you mixed in some italics and a bit of bold then I'd get the inflections you're putting on the words. the judge just said a drawing of a person counts as a person therefore the guy can be prosecuted i clarified to charliemurphy how the logic works then this retard above me says im trolling and making things up when im literally and SO SO FUCKING SIMPLY re-iterating what is in the OP so i shout at him Just a friendly suggestion, you shouldn't call veteran members of the forum you joined less than 3 days ago retards, and you should not make posts in all caps.
ok sorry , i got ticked off when someone suddenly called me a troll for apparently no reason when i thought i was being crystal clear and helpful to someone
|
hopefully they'll somehow repeat the "magistrates arguement" which convinced the judge this since it's such a collossally mind boggling and landmark thing to happen
|
Wow, that is bad.
Let the guy have his fantasies.
As weird as it may seem to fancy cartoon characters, I dont see any harm in that.
To consider that as child pornography is so absurd.
|
Korea (South)3086 Posts
Hm, this is such a weird case I don't even know what to make of this... -_-;
Further advice suidfhiufh, I would recommend you editing previous posts instead of meaninglessly double posting.
|
On December 11 2008 17:27 suidfhiufh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 16:59 LonelyMargarita wrote:On December 11 2008 16:19 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:08 CharlieMurphy wrote:
LOL, isnt all porn illegal in AUS though.
I can't believe that he can't defend this, its obviously not real porn. Its more of a gag to send people and laugh at. How did he get caught anyways? simpsons porn = bart and lisa = kids = kiddy porn = lucky he didnt go to jail Troll much? Every definition of "child" has either "person" or "human" in it. A drawing cannot be a child. HI RETARD THE JUDGE JUST SAID IT IS, MANY COUNTRIES SAY IT IS, WHY DO U THINK IM TROLLING OH MAYBE UR JUST A FUCKING IDIOT
Oh I see. So judges are now infallible? No judge, in the history of life on earth, has ever been incorrect on any decision? That's interesting. Also, you may want to log off and calm down. It's the internet.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On December 11 2008 17:35 suidfhiufh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 17:31 Kwark wrote:On December 11 2008 17:27 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:59 LonelyMargarita wrote:On December 11 2008 16:19 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:08 CharlieMurphy wrote:
LOL, isnt all porn illegal in AUS though.
I can't believe that he can't defend this, its obviously not real porn. Its more of a gag to send people and laugh at. How did he get caught anyways? simpsons porn = bart and lisa = kids = kiddy porn = lucky he didnt go to jail Troll much? Every definition of "child" has either "person" or "human" in it. A drawing cannot be a child. HI RETARD THE JUDGE JUST SAID IT IS, MANY COUNTRIES SAY IT IS, WHY DO U THINK IM TROLLING OH MAYBE UR JUST A FUCKING IDIOT I still don't fully know if you're trolling or not... Maybe if you mixed in some italics and a bit of bold then I'd get the inflections you're putting on the words. the judge just said a drawing of a person counts as a person therefore the guy can be prosecuted i clarified to charliemurphy how the logic works then this retard above me says im trolling and making things up when im literally and SO SO FUCKING SIMPLY re-iterating what is in the OP so i shout at him
I feel that the judge is retarded and is making a huge mistake. Just my opinion.
I look at it like this:
Real child porn is bad because a child or multiple children are being exploited or hurt by it's production.
On the other hand, things like these cartoons or more notably hentai and lolicon, aren't hurting anyone.
You can argue that getting off on that kind of art encourages sexually deviant behavior as well. That basically, some percentage of those people who indulge in such a thing will go on to actually molest or rape a child. This is quite probable, I won't argue that. However, it's a really slippery slope if you go down the path of banning such art.
For example, animals are frequently depicted in movies and cartoons being killed or mutilated or maimed in some way. Now, in movies and cartoons both, no animals are actually being harmed, however, what if some impressionable kid sees some joke gag where a dog is blown up with firecrackers or some such and decides to try it out himself? Well, now we have a depiction of an illegal/immoral act in a cartoon "encouraging" illegal deviant behavior (animal cruelty). So what now? Ban any depictions of animals being harmed in art or movies or cartoons?
I know, I know, it's a bit of a stretch, but it's only one example. Rape, gun violence, murder, drug use, spousal abuse, child abuse, and god knows what else is frequently depicted in art, songs, movies and basically all facets of the media. We all know its a bad influence on people to some extent. So where's the line?
|
im not going to edit them all but im sorry i snapped like that, ive had a very very bad last few hours IRL. sorry =/
|
On December 11 2008 18:05 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 17:27 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:59 LonelyMargarita wrote:On December 11 2008 16:19 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:08 CharlieMurphy wrote:
LOL, isnt all porn illegal in AUS though.
I can't believe that he can't defend this, its obviously not real porn. Its more of a gag to send people and laugh at. How did he get caught anyways? simpsons porn = bart and lisa = kids = kiddy porn = lucky he didnt go to jail Troll much? Every definition of "child" has either "person" or "human" in it. A drawing cannot be a child. HI RETARD THE JUDGE JUST SAID IT IS, MANY COUNTRIES SAY IT IS, WHY DO U THINK IM TROLLING OH MAYBE UR JUST A FUCKING IDIOT Oh I see. So judges are now infallible? No judge, in the history of life on earth, has ever been incorrect on any decision? That's interesting. Also, you may want to log off and calm down. It's the internet. + Show Spoiler +
i wasnt saying he was "right" i was just putting it in clearer terms since charliemurphy didnt appear to me to understand the judges logic
if u see my other post i say i think this particular case at least is rediculous
|
On December 11 2008 18:07 suidfhiufh wrote:
im not going to edit them all but im sorry i snapped like that, ive had a very very bad last few hours IRL. sorry =/
When you're brand new to a forum, are the only person arguing on one side of a thread against people who have been here for years many of whom are in law school or already graduated, insist on calling veterans retarded multiple times, type in all caps, and won't edit it out of your posts, I would seriously recommend logging off.
|
On December 11 2008 18:11 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 18:07 suidfhiufh wrote:
im not going to edit them all but im sorry i snapped like that, ive had a very very bad last few hours IRL. sorry =/ When you're brand new to a forum, are the only person arguing on one side of a thread against people who have been here for years many of whom are in law school or already graduated, insist on calling veterans retarded multiple times, type in all caps, and won't edit it out of your posts, I would seriously recommend logging off.
just reread our posts and see that you completely misunderstood my intentions in my first post and responded by calling me a troll, to which i violently overreacted
|
wow that's dumb o.O
imo let the paedophiles look at cartoon child porn... it's not hurting any children and it lets them relieve their pent up horniness towards kids.
win/win no? I thought the reason against child porn was that those kids aren't at the age of consent and can't be making that kind of decision themselves... whereas a cartoon doesn't have that problem.
|
Something to consider is how was he caught. Because you don't get fined just for having a photography on your computer. You need to actually do something that gets the police on your tail, such as actually accessing real child pornography, distributing child pornography, seeking out and making sextalk to children in chatrooms etc. The police actually need a reason to raid your home and take your computer.
They probably just couldn't find real evidence and decided to prosecute based on the simpsons pictures because so many resources had gone into hunting him down. The judge's ruling is strange though. The pictures must have been very bad indeed.
|
On December 11 2008 18:44 stenole wrote:
Something to consider is how was he caught. Because you don't get fined just for having a photography on your computer. You need to actually do something that gets the police on your tail, such as actually accessing real child pornography, distributing child pornography, seeking out and making sextalk to children in chatrooms etc. The police actually need a reason to raid your home and take your computer.
They probably just couldn't find real evidence and decided to prosecute based on the simpsons pictures because so many resources had gone into hunting him down. The judge's ruling is strange though. The pictures must have been very bad indeed.
i dont think so
i think the most likely senario is that he printed them off as a joke to show his work buddies (simpsons porn commonly circulates schools etc, since its pretty funny) and some asshat took offense (or was just a brainwashed person) and reported him
and imo since the judge DID rule that its child pornography (possession and distribution), he got off very lightly
|
|
|
If that ever happened in Japan, there would be mass suicides
|
Um, so...I guess that means we should keep him away from all of our yellow, 3 fingered children, huh
|
On December 11 2008 18:22 -orb- wrote:
wow that's dumb o.O
imo let the paedophiles look at cartoon child porn... it's not hurting any children and it lets them relieve their pent up horniness towards kids.
win/win no? I thought the reason against child porn was that those kids aren't at the age of consent and can't be making that kind of decision themselves... whereas a cartoon doesn't have that problem.
The one problem with this is that I would assume pictures like this are a 'gateway' to 'harder stuff'. Just like marijuana is gateway to heroine. Only like 1 in 20 marijuana smokers might go onto heroine eventually; but if you are saying like imagine only one in 20 paedophiles go from looking at pictures like that all the way to kidnapping and abusing real children; it kinda makes sense to cut the root off at the stem.
Though I'm like half way between the two. Right now, I'm standing on the guys side for this one, but I can see where the law is coming from. But I can't agree with the judge, the characters are NOT people and no one was harmed.
|
You are speaking defenses of cartoon child porn based on one thing which it does not have in common with real child porn, that it wasn't made at the abuse of real children. However that argument alone assumes that that is the only thing wrong with real child porn. It's immoral to fantasize about immoral acts, even if no actual harm is being done. There's something wrong with your moral integrity when the idea of an immoral act is still attractive to you. It might be a miracle of psychotherapy to actually remove lingering desires from a pedophile's system, our subconcious inclinations might be beyond our control to the point of being poor basis for judgement of character. As long as someone finds entertainment in imagining what it would be like if an immoral act took place though, i doubt that they take the immorallity of the act very seriously. Whether it should be illegal is a different matter, but there's definately something wrong with the man, in my opinion, if he is actually jerking off to bart and lisa.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
nice to see you're still alive and kicking  old habits die hard eh?
|
United States42694 Posts
On December 11 2008 19:39 zobz wrote:
You are speaking defenses of cartoon child porn based on one thing which it does not have in common with real child porn, that it wasn't made at the abuse of real children. However that argument alone assumes that that is the only thing wrong with real child porn. It's immoral to fantasize about immoral acts, even if no actual harm is being done. There's something wrong with your moral integrity when the idea of an immoral act is still attractive to you. It might be a miracle of psychotherapy to actually remove lingering desires from a pedophile's system, our subconcious inclinations might be beyond our control to the point of being poor basis for judgement of character. As long as someone finds entertainment in imagining what it would be like if an immoral act took place though, i doubt that they take the immorallity of the act very seriously. Whether it should be illegal is a different matter, but there's definately something wrong with the man, in my opinion, if he is actually jerking off to bart and lisa.
Morality is purely subjective. It's a sexual preference. A deviant one, but there are all sorts of deviant fetishes out there. As with any other preference, if it's consensual and in private then that's fair enough. In the case of pedophilia it cannot be consensual because a child cannot consent and therefore it has to remain fantasy. But what you're suggesting is thought police purging people with immoral thoughts. As for the "something wrong with your moral integrity", never had a rape fantasy?
|
On December 11 2008 19:39 zobz wrote:
You are speaking defenses of cartoon child porn based on one thing which it does not have in common with real child porn, that it wasn't made at the abuse of real children. However that argument alone assumes that that is the only thing wrong with real child porn. It's immoral to fantasize about immoral acts, even if no actual harm is being done. There's something wrong with your moral integrity when the idea of an immoral act is still attractive to you. It might be a miracle of psychotherapy to actually remove lingering desires from a pedophile's system, our subconcious inclinations might be beyond our control to the point of being poor basis for judgement of character. As long as someone finds entertainment in imagining what it would be like if an immoral act took place though, i doubt that they take the immorallity of the act very seriously. Whether it should be illegal is a different matter, but there's definately something wrong with the man, in my opinion, if he is actually jerking off to bart and lisa.
I like watching movies where lots of people get killed. Action entertains me. I like my movies bloody too. I enjoy the Saw series. Clearly I have no moral integrity and I don't take murder and death seriously.
+ Show Spoiler +just in case: sarcasm!!!!
I do agree that Simpson's porn is weird, but we don't even know if he WAS getting off too it. He could have just had at as a joke or some shit and got screwed over by some asshole.
|
On December 11 2008 19:39 zobz wrote:
There's something wrong with your moral integrity when the idea of an immoral act is still attractive to you.
No, moral integrity is only in question when choice is involved.
ps. might as well just leave kwark to this one.
|
|
|
On December 11 2008 19:44 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 19:39 zobz wrote:
You are speaking defenses of cartoon child porn based on one thing which it does not have in common with real child porn, that it wasn't made at the abuse of real children. However that argument alone assumes that that is the only thing wrong with real child porn. It's immoral to fantasize about immoral acts, even if no actual harm is being done. There's something wrong with your moral integrity when the idea of an immoral act is still attractive to you. It might be a miracle of psychotherapy to actually remove lingering desires from a pedophile's system, our subconcious inclinations might be beyond our control to the point of being poor basis for judgement of character. As long as someone finds entertainment in imagining what it would be like if an immoral act took place though, i doubt that they take the immorallity of the act very seriously. Whether it should be illegal is a different matter, but there's definately something wrong with the man, in my opinion, if he is actually jerking off to bart and lisa. Morality is purely subjective. It's a sexual preference. A deviant one, but there are all sorts of deviant fetishes out there. As with any other preference, if it's consensual and in private then that's fair enough. In the case of pedophilia it cannot be consensual because a child cannot consent and therefore it has to remain fantasy. But what you're suggesting is thought police purging people with immoral thoughts. As for the "something wrong with your moral integrity", never had a rape fantasy? When i said that whether it should be illegal or not was a different matter, i meant to make it quite clear that i wasn't advocating thought police actions. Though it might be wrong to enforce some laws because they involve taking the rights away from the many in order to control the few, and though i think it's excessive to fine or incarcerate someone for that which describes the quallity of their individual and not their behaviour, that doesn't mean that that quallity isn't a serious flaw.
I've tried to answer your claim of subjective morallity in a number of ways but they all rely on pointing out inconsistancies in your beliefs, and i don't actually know what you believe. So i can't practically respond to this argument without more information. Too bad i spent like at least 20 minutes running over these arguments before i figured that out. I wouldn't mind if you pmed me.
|
I totally feel for this guy, Lisa is damn sexy.
I just threw up a little in my mouth as I was typing this.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
another example of Australia's inability to cope w/ the internet lol
|
It would be pretty weird if people managed to make realistic computer generated images. Where would we draw the line between harmless drawn pictures for deviants and child pornography. Or other "weird" fetishes.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
hahahaha omgggggggg thats hilarious
and nice one blackjack
|
On December 11 2008 19:28 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 18:22 -orb- wrote:
wow that's dumb o.O
imo let the paedophiles look at cartoon child porn... it's not hurting any children and it lets them relieve their pent up horniness towards kids.
win/win no? I thought the reason against child porn was that those kids aren't at the age of consent and can't be making that kind of decision themselves... whereas a cartoon doesn't have that problem. The one problem with this is that I would assume pictures like this are a 'gateway' to 'harder stuff'. Just like marijuana is gateway to heroine. Only like 1 in 20 marijuana smokers might go onto heroine eventually; but if you are saying like imagine only one in 20 paedophiles go from looking at pictures like that all the way to kidnapping and abusing real children; it kinda makes sense to cut the root off at the stem. Though I'm like half way between the two. Right now, I'm standing on the guys side for this one, but I can see where the law is coming from. But I can't agree with the judge, the characters are NOT people and no one was harmed.
You can't outlaw something that might influence a small percentage of people to do something illegal. It's a slippery slope. You outlaw marijuana simply because harder drugs are bad. Then you have to outlaw cigarettes because 5% of smokers will take up marijuana. Then you have to outlaw caffeine because 5% of caffeine users will take up smoking. Then you have to outlaw sugar....etc.
And I'm pretty sure the logic is flawed anyway. If anything, I'd bet it's overall the opposite (I've heard studies saying both). For every person that rapes a child because he looked at the bart and lisa porn, I'm sure there's at least one guy who relieved his urges to do so by looking at the same thing. Are men who look at regular porn more likely to rape women because of it? Biologically, they are relieved from the sexual aspect of it by looking at the porn, and I seriously doubt looking at porn somehow influences the power aspect of rape.
Back to the legal route, we'd obviously also have to outlaw video games and movies with guns, since once every five years some kid shoots up his school from playing too many fps games. It goes without saying we'd outlaw alcohol, since that would prevent all DUIs. The problem is laws are intended to protect the right of citizens, not to control the influences of activities on otherwise law-abiding citizens. It's 1984 when you do that. I'm quite happy living without too much thought crime prosecution. The only arguably just thought crime is conspiracy to commit a crime, and personally I'm against that in most cases (since you can't ever prove it 100%).
|
I drew a picture of two stick figures using ASCII characters in notepad, then labeled one of them as being 8 years old, does that mean I'm an evil pedophile now who deserves to be arrested?
Seriously, what the fuck. Incoming rant.As much as I dislike child pornography of any kind, when there aren't people under the age of consent involved in it in any way, I don't see what the fuck is wrong with it? It's not hurting anyone to draw a fucking picture of it, it is if it actually happens and is recorded, etc. Besides, couldn't you just give some bullshit reasoning behind it like, oh it's a robot that only looks like Bart, a robot that only looks like Lisa, etc. Then how are they going to arrest you? Is robot porn illegal now?
[EDIT]Oh, and there's a reason why rape is usually considered a violent crime, not a sex crime in the United States. The mentality of rapists is generally about power and control, not pleasure.
|
On December 11 2008 23:20 CFDragon wrote:
I drew a picture of two stick figures using ASCII characters in notepad, then labeled one of them as being 8 years old, does that mean I'm an evil pedophile now who deserves to be arrested?
Good god, dont post it in this thread, I dont want to be charged with looking Child pornography 
For anyone who supports this judges decision, its the same argument made with violence in video games just with different contex. If you believe that cartoon child porn should be illegal because it leads to real child porn, then you must also agree that violent video games should be illegal because it leads to killing people. Games like GTA have cartoon people going out into the street and killing people. Yes, some people are insane, and a very small group of people will go out into the real street and copy what they saw in an animated game, but that is not justification for making the game illegal.
Also, a large assumption has been made here. That this man has hordes of cartoon child pornography on his computer and that he jacks off to it every day. What is more likely is that he found it and thought it funny, or someone sent it to him because they found it funny. This stuff circulates for the humour value.
While someone might argue the punishment is light, if this guy had a career that involved children, its over. And all he might have done wrong was have someone send him an email titled "lol check these funny pictures out"
The judge is way out of line with this judgement and this mans rights have been violated.
|
It's a dangerous time to be an australian anime fan
|
That's the equivalent of arresting anyone that has that hentai shit with children on the internet.
|
On December 12 2008 02:11 onihunter wrote:
That's the equivalent of arresting anyone that has that hentai shit with children on the internet.
I can't see any downside to that
|
On December 11 2008 23:08 LonelyMargarita wrote:
You can't outlaw something that might influence a small percentage of people to do something illegal. It's a slippery slope.
I'm quite considerably against slippery slope arguments. I think you can make abstract any subjective concept to make it look unwise with them. Note that I am not against your opinion, because I am halfway between pro and against this idea; but I think the point is that setting paradigms and deciding the point at which something is too far is important. It's an all or nothing mentality which I am against.
I would speculate that, because people are not brought up to consider children as sexual partners, most paedophiles will have to go through a sort of 'discovery' of their unusual sexual urges. This will, I assume, feature going through different levels of pornography and then onto real life. It's one for the research, and I don't have time to look through the academic papers.
Suffice to say I don't think your point of view there is incontestable. General consensus is to keep marijuana levels to a minimum, because it is a gateway to harder stuff; and the law reflects this. It has been decided that marijuana is one step too far, but nicotine is not...the slippery slope is avoided because people set the line and don't go for an 'all or nothing' mentality...and I think it could be argued that the same should go for child pornography of any kind.
|
Laws are different in Japan than in the rest of the world.
If you download the stuff mentioned then you probably are in violation of the child porn rules. You risk being in jail for quite some time.
I guess you are ok if the females all have huge breasts or something.
[edit] Ok apparently they now have comparable rules after US pressure.
In 1998, Japan was the world's biggest producer of child pornography and Parliament recently refused to pass a law banning the production of child pornography, citing "business reasons." Under American pressure, in 2003 the Japanese government updated its child pornography laws to match those of the west, however it failed to curtail the industry.
Laugh all you want at that 'dumb judge' but he is just applying the current laws correctly.
|
One other issue may be...is it wrong to be sexually attracted to the body features of children? I was thinking that if a guy wanted to marry that Shawn whatever her name was from the USA gymnastics, he would really have to have some sort of paedophilia gene in him. She looks identical to a child. There's a 20 year old girl in my house who used to be a gymnast and she gets ID'd for 16's at the cinema. She is tiny and flat chested...would her boyfriend be considered a paedophile?
If not, technically any cartoon involving small people with underdeveloped bodies would not be paedophilia unless it were specified that their age were below 18 in the actual cartoon. Ofc it's different for characters from the simpsons.
|
On December 11 2008 15:20 dronebabo wrote:
what a dumb judge
HAHAHA
feel threatened?????
|
On December 12 2008 03:13 HamerD wrote:
One other issue may be...is it wrong to be sexually attracted to the body features of children? I was thinking that if a guy wanted to marry that Shawn whatever her name was from the USA gymnastics, he would really have to have some sort of paedophilia gene in him. She looks identical to a child. There's a 20 year old girl in my house who used to be a gymnast and she gets ID'd for 16's at the cinema. She is tiny and flat chested...would her boyfriend be considered a paedophile?
If not, technically any cartoon involving small people with underdeveloped bodies would not be paedophilia unless it were specified that their age were below 18 in the actual cartoon. Ofc it's different for characters from the simpsons but im interested in developing (intended) this.
Stop trying to justify your lust for children, pervert.
Go blow one on Lucy from Charlie Brown Christmas and leave us alone.
|
|
|
On December 12 2008 03:17 ChaosSyndrome wrote:
Stop trying to justify your lust for children, pervert.
Go blow one on Lucy from Charlie Brown Christmas and leave us alone.
I'd pay for you to go to comedy camp but it would bankrupt me to get you funny. Don't be absurd and kindly die.
|
|
|
oh fuck yeah I hope this law passes in the west as well
|
On December 12 2008 03:20 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2008 03:17 ChaosSyndrome wrote:
Stop trying to justify your lust for children, pervert.
Go blow one on Lucy from Charlie Brown Christmas and leave us alone.
I'd pay for you to go to comedy camp but it would bankrupt me to get you funny. Don't be absurd and kindly die.
No surprise that you responded so quickly. Waiting for your Dakota Fanning up-skirt gifs to load?
Pervert. You make me sick.
+ Show Spoiler +On July 04 2008 06:55 HamerD wrote:
1. I'm far more talented than you'll ever be at lots of things (I have no proof but I really, deeply expect so)
2. I'm far more funny than you'll ever be (around people who aren't stupid, whooping american seals at least). I am not entirely in tune with TL humour because it is far below the usual sort of humour of my friends, and it's hard to stoop
3. I'm attractive
4. I'm definitely more intelligent, philosophical, wise, well-read, charming and intellectual than you
5. I'm an exciting, enthusiastic person; with a lot of time for any charitable cause. I'm a passionate and emotional philanthrope.
6. I'm an elitist, and refuse to accept anything but the best
7. I have an incredibly eclectic range of things I enjoy, which is stimulating for people around me. I am always busy. From sports/ gym, to philosophy and politics, to gaming, to music, to academia and esoteric exploration; I do a lot of things which means I have a lot of interesting things to talk about.
8. I take life seriously...I have a lot of emotion and passion. I care about things, and I'm very protective and loyal of and to my friends.
9. I can fit more children in my van than you can
|
|
|
I watched this like 3 times and I still dont know wtf is going on.
|
This ruling is idiotic. Obviously no children were harmed by the making of "simpson's porn". As for immoral urges: in the first place, what is immoral about a fantasy? If I fantasized about killing someone would that make me immoral? In the second place, if this guy does fantasize about Bart and Lisa, he will do it with or without the picture. Are you going to prosecute him for that?
|
damn Australia seems to be at the center of all this kind of censorship shit lately.
|
If they want to ban this they should also ban any form of film/game violence and have people go to jail for training martial arts etc :/
Lolicon is illegal in Sweden too btw.
|
Why do people keep comparing graphic depictions of children having sex with video game violence? How are they at all related? For some reason, beating off to children is disturbingly prevalent in society today among young male adults. I don't understand why, but it's honestly frightening seeing people rationalize it and how seemingly normal it is among internet using men to collect and watch the shit
|
They are related since depictions of violence isn't real violence and so no one gets hurt. Same way lolicon is a depiction of children having sex so no one gets hurt or is exposed in any way. They are also related since it has never been proven that watching depictions of violence makes you violent and neither has it been proven that watching lolicon makes you more likely to rape someone. Only reason lolicon is illegal in some places is because it is considered "immoral" whatever that means.
Even if watching violent movies made you slightly more likely to act violently I cant see a reason to ban it. Alcohol consumption makes people a lot more violent on average anyway. I don't think it should be possible for people to go to jail for what they draw or fiction they write or own. Its art and you don't censor art, you just don't.
|
On December 12 2008 03:02 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 23:08 LonelyMargarita wrote:
You can't outlaw something that might influence a small percentage of people to do something illegal. It's a slippery slope. I'm quite considerably against slippery slope arguments. I think you can make abstract any subjective concept to make it look unwise with them. Note that I am not against your opinion, because I am halfway between pro and against this idea; but I think the point is that setting paradigms and deciding the point at which something is too far is important. It's an all or nothing mentality which I am against. I would speculate that, because people are not brought up to consider children as sexual partners, most paedophiles will have to go through a sort of 'discovery' of their unusual sexual urges. This will, I assume, feature going through different levels of pornography and then onto real life. It's one for the research, and I don't have time to look through the academic papers. Suffice to say I don't think your point of view there is incontestable. General consensus is to keep marijuana levels to a minimum, because it is a gateway to harder stuff; and the law reflects this. It has been decided that marijuana is one step too far, but nicotine is not...the slippery slope is avoided because people set the line and don't go for an 'all or nothing' mentality...and I think it could be argued that the same should go for child pornography of any kind.
On December 11 2008 05:38 Flaccid wrote:
Sounds like something a SCORPIO would say!!!
|
So since "the word ‘person’ included fictional or imaginary characters" if a 25 year old actress played a 16 year old on a TV show, would nude pictures of that character be considered child porn? I think not but who knows how Australia would see it.
Ridiculous
|
On December 11 2008 17:35 suidfhiufh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2008 17:31 Kwark wrote:On December 11 2008 17:27 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:59 LonelyMargarita wrote:On December 11 2008 16:19 suidfhiufh wrote:On December 11 2008 16:08 CharlieMurphy wrote:
LOL, isnt all porn illegal in AUS though.
I can't believe that he can't defend this, its obviously not real porn. Its more of a gag to send people and laugh at. How did he get caught anyways? simpsons porn = bart and lisa = kids = kiddy porn = lucky he didnt go to jail Troll much? Every definition of "child" has either "person" or "human" in it. A drawing cannot be a child. HI RETARD THE JUDGE JUST SAID IT IS, MANY COUNTRIES SAY IT IS, WHY DO U THINK IM TROLLING OH MAYBE UR JUST A FUCKING IDIOT I still don't fully know if you're trolling or not... Maybe if you mixed in some italics and a bit of bold then I'd get the inflections you're putting on the words. the judge just said a drawing of a person counts as a person therefore the guy can be prosecuted i clarified to charliemurphy how the logic works then this retard above me says im trolling and making things up when im literally and SO SO FUCKING SIMPLY re-iterating what is in the OP so i shout at him
OMG, I tore apart an old Simpson's comic book I had full of drawings of persons which count as persons. By the judge's logic, I must have committed murder!!!
o_O
|
In every western country graphic child porn is as illegal as real child porn. And every year in each country there are many people that get convicted on basis of that law.
Really, I don't see why people are surprised.
|
On December 11 2008 15:16 BlackJack wrote:
LOL wow
the simpsons was created 18 years ago, wouldnt that make everyone legal age? LOL
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool
|
SEND ME T JAIL OMG
NSFW
+ Show Spoiler +
and lol in the simpson's movie it shows bart's penis. I am a pedophile for watching it.
|
On December 12 2008 09:37 CharlieMurphy wrote:SEND ME T JAIL OMG NSFW + Show Spoiler +and lol in the simpson's movie it shows bart's penis. I am a pedophile for watching it.
oh god... oh god... oh god...
this is becoming like that one filth site full of little kids venting their anger about being abused at school and not being able to play football, so they end up staying at home all day on the internet looking at wierd porn and playing games, such as starcraft
|
wait that kinda turned me on
|
On December 12 2008 13:05 warribbons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2008 09:37 CharlieMurphy wrote:SEND ME T JAIL OMG NSFW + Show Spoiler +and lol in the simpson's movie it shows bart's penis. I am a pedophile for watching it. oh god... oh god... oh god... this is becoming like that one filth site full of little kids venting their anger about being abused at school and not being able to play football, so they end up staying at home all day on the internet looking at wierd porn and playing games, such as starcraft What does that have to do with anything... Blatant troll??
|
this is ridiculous. I think somewhere at my parents house I still have a floppy disk with Simpson's porn on it. I remember it being pretty funny when I was 13. I guess I could get put away. lol
|
Haha good thing this wasn't ruled in japan ruin a much of perverts evenings
|
On December 11 2008 15:15 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
hahaha thats is hilarious. I bet those lawyers would have a field day if they found out what the hell a 4chan was.
haha pwnt
|
This shit is on 4chan on a daily basis...lol.
|
|
|
On December 12 2008 15:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:
This shit is on 4chan on a daily basis...lol.
Yeah but there it's because children are posting it. If they aren't children and they are posting on 4chan sigh... sad sad poeple
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img02.picoodle.com/img/img02/8/4/13/f_simpsonsporm_de1da5c.jpg)
