Man loses appeal over cartoon porn

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767142-29277,00.html

According to the law, cartoon children are still children. Discuss.

[anriana]

My position on this is the same as it is with all victimless crimes - the government should butt out. As repulsive as I find hentai or would find Bart and Lisa doing naughty things together, I'd much rather that be created than child porn with real children.

Is the normal punishment for child porn offenders in Australia being "fined $3000 and placed on a good behaviour bond?"

[crazylegs]

The creation of pseudo images is an offence within the UK as well, whether or not this covers cartoon images is another matter.

[Saydrah]

I'll immediately begin proceedings to convict Matt Stone and Trey Parker of murder for willfully killing Kenny several hundred times on the TV series "South Park." Next I'll be suing M. Night Shyamalan for creating Avatar, which willfully places juveniles into dangerous situations. If I have time later tonight, I'll proceed by initiating bestiality charges against Lois of Family Guy for that episode where she let Brian feel her boobs.

[Dreamstalker]

My position on this is the same as it is with all victimless crimes - the government should butt out. As repulsive as I find hentai or would find Bart and Lisa doing naughty things together, I'd much rather that be created than child porn with real children.
Exactly. The double-edged sword with that seems to be "how do we know it's made up?"

I would think that if the creator willingly admits it's a fabrication (if it looks in any way realistic such as photomanipulation) that should be proof enough; but the expected rebuttal is "how do we know you're not lying?". Maybe I'm being optimistic about this, but I would think the scumbags would be more likely to outright deny it and continue the denial.

As far as something that is obviously a cartoon, give me a break. Anyone can see it's not real.

Most hentai falls into that gray area, as females are typically drawn to look younger (although I would think that the fantasy stories there would be even more obvious).

[Flyndaran]

Surprised they didn't try to say that they aren't children. They are over 20 years old now, right?

[Devilboy]

Surprised they didn't try to say that they aren't children. They are over 20 years old now, right?
I'm surprised it wasn't played out as a copyright infringement case.

Calling it "kiddie-porn" is just plain ridiculous.

[Flyndaran]

I'm surprised it wasn't played out as a copyright infringement case.

Calling it "kiddie-porn" is just plain ridiculous.

It wouldn't work like that. All works are available for satirical purposes legally. Copywrite and all such laws were made to prevent others distoriting and making money off of plagierism. They aren't meant to stilfe free speech.

Kidd-porn is nonsense. It's more accurately for fetishists of cranio-facial deformities and jaundiced CARTOONS.

I hate that in a hypothetical world with no children, someone could write, animate, draw, etc. youthful characters in sexual situations and charged with abusing a group that doesn't even exist.

It isn't even the fear of thinkers/readers/watchers acting them out in real life, because violent crime is allowed to be displayed in such ways with little fuss.

It's simply because most people can understand the urge to violence, but few understand sexual urges they don't have. And icky things should be banned to their way of thinking.
It's disgusting. I should be able to doodle all I damn well want without having to fear arrest or getting mobbed by those offended.

Only those that hurt others directly should be arrested. Otherwise you get ridiculous situations like kids taking nude pictures of themselves and being arrested for child abuse and pornography.

[Sylvia727]

As far as I can see, the judge upheld the law, which states no sexual portrayal of underage persons. The opening sentence of the article is inaccurate and draws a conclusion that is not supported by the rest of the article. Sure, Lisa Simpson isn't a real person, but she is a real portrayal of a person. The law says no sexual portrayals, not no sexual photographs. I think they should change the law so that it reflects a desire to protect real children from harm, not a desire to police people's sexual proclivities. But in this particular instance, the judge did the right thing.

[Flyndaran]

As far as I can see, the judge upheld the law, which states no sexual portrayal of underage persons. The opening sentence of the article is inaccurate and draws a conclusion that is not supported by the rest of the article. Sure, Lisa Simpson isn't a real person, but she is a real portrayal of a person. The law says no sexual portrayals, not no sexual photographs. I think they should change the law so that it reflects a desire to protect real children from harm, not a desire to police people's sexual proclivities. But in this particular instance, the judge did the right thing.
Avoiding the disgusting nature of such a thought crime law...
The Simpsons aren't real anything. They lack human skin tone or anything more than the vaguest of human proportions. They look somewhat humanoid, not human at all.

[Sylvia727]

The Simpsons are humans. Yes, they're distorted and simplified, but still recognizably human. It doesn't have to be a realistic depiction of a human to still be a portrayal of a human. And that's where I think the law is wrong. It should outlaw photographs of actual children, not just any portrayal. But as the law stands now, cartoons are within its boundaries.

[Flyndaran]

The Simpsons are humans. Yes, they're distorted and simplified, but still recognizably human. It doesn't have to be a realistic depiction of a human to still be a portrayal of a human. And that's where I think the law is wrong. It should outlaw photographs of actual children, not just any portrayal. But as the law stands now, cartoons are within its boundaries.

Maybe you should move away from that nuclear power plant if you think the
Simpsons look human rather that humanoid. ;)

[Sylvia727]

Who, me? I'm more worried about the guy who finds them sexually arousing. :D

[Slytovhand]

Couldn't "real portrayal" also be defined as text? So if a sex act was described in words, with Lisa Simpson, would that also count??

[Flyndaran]

Couldn't "real portrayal" also be defined as text? So if a sex act was described in words, with Lisa Simpson, would that also count??

I'ld imagine so. Those that actually consider doodles real kiddy porn are probably also the ones that consider words equivilant to violent actions.

For a couple of years before the supreme court slapped it down as unconstitutional, it was illegal in the U.S. to doodle or write about kids "doing it".
In 1996 the U.S.S.C slapped down that Ashcroft nonsense as patently against free speech.

It jsut makes me feel sad for the couple of people jailed for such and unable to get new trials even though their "crimes" were made legal again.

[Boozy]

Outlawing text portrayals would effectively silence victims of child sexual abuse. Their survivor accounts could be considered "child porn".

There is a very real slippery slope when you get into thought crimes.

[Flyndaran]

Outlawing text portrayals would effectively silence victims of child sexual abuse. Their survivor accounts could be considered "child porn".

There is a very real slippery slope when you get into thought crimes.

We all have messed up thoughts. That's normal. It's crosses the lines when they become actions.
I have some perverted fantasies such that I would rather die than act them out in reality. That doesn't make me a pervert. Only those that act things out can be labelled outlaw perverts.