Yesterday an Australian man has lost his appeal against child pornography charges. The Supreme Court of New South Wales upheld a lower court's decision which found him guilty of possessing child pornography.

The child pornography consisted of the Simpson's cartoon characters having sex. Yes, you read that right. You probably have received a few of them in the past, possibly from well meaning friends overseas. Well, its now officially against the law, and possessing them will get you criminal record, and at the very least a hefty fine.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/08/simpsons_supreme_court/

I always thought the justification for censoring child pornography was that children were harmed in producing it. Apparently not.

I heard this story as well. This makes a mockery of our child protection laws. I've seen similar pictures long before the internet was common and they are not erotic in any way whatsoever. They are comical.

Child pornography laws need to be modified so that only material in which a real child (not imaginary)is actually abused is illegal.

This is getting to be a real witch hunt which could see many innocent people charged. There is also the danger that when a paedophile's criminal record is checked, and it is noted that he (or she) had convictions for child pornography, it may be dismissed as possessing cartoons when in fact it may have been real vile images involving children in the worst kind of abuse. Remember the story about the boy who cried wolf.

Not much more than a week ago a man was arrested in Sydney for photographing fully clothed children and charged with child pornography offences. This is scary, as on occasions when I have been photographing items of interest at tourist locations, it is inevitable that a child may be in the image.

If we produce, or reproduce, child porn even in cartoon form we add to the decay of our civilisation...which is rapidly backsliding like the final days of Rome.
The signs are there.

Its the stimulation of the lust by the fantasy (i.e. like cartoons do) thats the trouble.

Those prone to child porn need to be dealt with firmly.

If they were in a 3rd world country they might just get the cane.

We dont need to pamper pedo's...some kill their victims.

I remember a crim who was put in solitary confinment and one of the guards threw in a Bible ...and guess what...the crim gave his life to Jesus and got saved.
He went on to become a dynamic preacher.

The cage and the Bible works well for me as a solution.

I've got an Xmas email of Donald Duck dropping his duds exposing a massive....ummmm.....'wing'. Does that count as beastiality?.

This is insanity. Don't 'spose they found any ACTUAL child porn?. Excessive amounts of 'Simpsons Porn' is nothing more than odd, but criminal?. What about people who own that Japanese anime porn...Hentai?, or something. That the same thing?.

Seriously, I haven't seen much it but what I did see was animated rape. Does that mean I'm guilty of not reporting a fictional animated crime?.

Utter madness.

Madness? This is SPARTAAAAAAAAA!

Gibo I look forward to Bart fiddling like Nero in “The Simpsons, the Fall of Rome” episode.

With Homer in Nero’s father’s role not only do we have drunkenness (Duff Beer) and sex and scandal but we get some incest thrown in too… maybe you could offer your cartoon image as a standing for Ned Flanders. . .

As for “The cage and the Bible works well for me”

That’s almost too kinky for words

I agree with rstuart,” I always thought the justification for censoring child pornography was that children were harmed in producing it.”

Now on to South Park …. Does what happens to a cartoon gerbil qualify as animal cruelty ?

There's great stuff in David Marr's book The Henson Case about this issue. The various regulatory bodies are still working on a definition of child porn whereby children are in sexual poses. Community standards appear to have shifted to define child porn as anything that may turn a pedeophile on.

In other words, pedeophiles now determine what we can and cannot see.

Is killing in animations now considered SNUFF?.

A couple of clarifications are required. Firstly, when the Child Pornography laws were drafted in 2005, they very clearly included cartoons.

Secondly, this isn't the first successful prosecution over cartoons. Eg this man posted Manga, a Japanese-style cartoon featuring younger looking characters having sex onto a Thai website. From the report, this convicted trafficker in paedophilia was surprised at being prosecuted:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22029072-5005961,00.html

Finally, as food for thought, I offer you Michelangelo's David. Believe it or not, no one alive has ever this statue front on. The original is in the Galleria dell'Academia in Florence since 1873. It has always been turned to face into a nearby column. But with the aid of lasers and clever computer software, we can for the first time see David as Michelangelo intended. A word of caution though before you click on the link. David was under 18 at the time, so having this image on your computer risks criminal prosecution under our Child Pornography laws:

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/david/David.htm

rstuart,

Let's make unanimous, this is truly an example of irreducibly asinine application of ‘black letter law’ as one can get?

If the defendant was proven to be disseminating this maybe a misdemeanour charge of lewd behaviour et al might be in order but lumping this person in with paedophiles is wanton and malicious over kill. If the crime was recorded will adversely effect his life.

It should be noted that the judge was there to determine if the magistrate’s judgement was correct ‘in law’ not if the case had merit or made sense. In that light one wonders at the mentalities of the complainant, the police and prosecution and the magistrate to waste time on such drivel. These unfunny ‘jokes’ are all over the internet and have been sent to me.

If I were in NSW I would be petitioning the Attorney General and the Premier. It isn’t a matter of liberalism; it’s a matter of nanny state on steroids.

In the final analysis the defendant is guilty in my mind of having bad taste and a juvenile sense of humour neither of which are illegal. The legal definition is wrong, unfair, idiotic and should be amended forthwith to reflect reality.

Disgusted Ant

All most of you folk are thinking is loss of freedoms.

Loss of freedoms is far, far less than having thousands of Dennis Fergusons' running around touching children.

My thinking goes towards 'accessory to the crime'... with just about all of you, so far.

To the Supreme Court of New South Wales:

EAT MY SHORTS!

Examinator,

I will be writing to the Attorney General, as I'm sure people like Gibo have already done. (He appears to be the only one so far to agree with the prosecution).

It's time to get rid of these stupid laws.

Gibo, these laws could be used to outlaw the Bible, so please think very carefully what you may be saying about this.

I don't think Dennis Ferguson would be turned on by the Simpsons.

” I always thought the justification for censoring child pornography was that children were harmed in producing it"

The same weirdness is going on with ISP filtering. Some are trying to create the impression that it's about protecting children, but the filters won't stop people from abusing kids.

All this sort of rubbish does is distract our attention from where it should properly be - catching and punishing the real abusers. I wonder how many real kids were brutalised during the course of that ridiculous court proceeding? I wonder how many powerful people in high places, say, judges, are personally involved in child abuse right now?

Why are we wasting resources this way?

If the Bible got outlawed Steel Mann it would just go underground. The Word has a roaring fire that no man could ever put out.
No one ever has!
In times of persecutions... thousands pour into Christs Kingdom.

Lets keep porn and kiddie porn under the tightest of restrictions.

When we approve of the porn and the kiddie porn EVEN for the sake of freedoms we are not better than the offender.

He does the act...we sit back and say "Onya mate" as we strive to keep the governments from controlling it, to control the offenders.

On the spiritual plane...its all the same to God.

Gibo “When we approve of the porn and the kiddie porn EVEN for the sake of freedoms we are not better than the offender.”

Separating “porn” from “kiddie porn”

No offence is committed by engaging in the viewing, reading or dissemination of “porn” by to and between adults,

therefore

there is No “Offender”

since there is no “Offender”, your or my approval (or otherwise) is moot.

Conversely, “kiddie porn” involves, by definition “kiddies”.

“Cartoons” are not “kiddies”.

“Cartoons” may well depict something similar to “kiddies”

but they remain crafted images (rather than child images), inscribed and disseminated through visual media.

“On the spiritual plane...its all the same to God.”

And I will be judged by him, not by usurpers of his authority, who pretend to act in his name.


Like chainsmoker said “Why are we wasting resources this way?”

"Lady Chatterley's Love" was, until quite recently considered "Porn"

but now DH Lawrence has been politically "rehabilitated",


(although I do not eat figs)

It is too much like Stalin, "political correctness" and the "bullying arrogance" to pointlessly repress the freedom of individual adults to decide what they will view when their chocie remains among the "legal" ones.

It's the precedent and the hypocrisy that's the problem. It's a reality people like Gibo and the judge will never comprehend due to their own insane hypocrisy.

What's even more ridiculous is the ruling stating that

"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
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767202-2,00.html

So cartoons are people now?

But the simpsons premiered on Jan 14 1990, and so even Maggie Simpson should be well over 18 years old by now. That's not even counting their first appearances on the Tracy Ullman Show in 1987. The fact that they haven't aged at all means that you cannot tell what age they actually are. If their development has been kept back by a coporation for monetary gain, and they have 'rights' as people for the purposes of law, then why can't the NSW courts prosecute FOX for child abuse?

hi to all the forgotten australians

well the way our society is being going they may as well have no laws at all .

i tried to get justice in the sydney supreme court for the rapes and abuse and torture i suffered by two staff employees of daruk boys home . state run institution ,of which the minister for welfare was responable for all us children , as is of today .

im in my late 40's now and i was raped and abused when i was 14 at this boys home by the very people i stated in the court case ,

but as we have it the courts have covered up the rapes and abuse that happend to me , the state crown lawyers even stated the record log books of this institution were either lost missplaced or destroyed, now if the state goverment had nothing to hide surley they would of produced these documents but have made out to the courts they are no longer available,

but if i want i can get who came on the first fleet, and so on

so how is it possable the state goverment D.O.C.S state these records are missing,

im still awaiting a response from the attorney generals office as i asked for help to take the case to the high court but yet have had no contact from them and i have rang on three occassions in the last week ,

the last day for me to lodge to the high court, was 4/12/2008,

so much for help from our goverment , and the attonrey generals office

regards a real victim of child abuse

It seems our courts are more concerned about cartoon characters than real children huffnpuff.

huffnpuff,
You are well off topic. I understand you feel pain but you are letting it drive you and your logic. All it takes is a few wrong people to cover up their misdeeds and records are lost/destroyed et al. That does not imply that DOCS is in on the conspiracy or even incompetent.

We all hoot and holler about paedophiles but to really do much it would take a greater budget and that means taking the money from somewhere else or more taxes and more legislative control all are nearly impossible to implement.

A word from the wise the best thing you can do is take steps to deal with the events and move on. In terms of the tranquillity prayer this is an issue you can’t change. Even if you get ‘justice’ it still won’t help you recover. Sooner or later you’ll have to face the issue that it’s all up to you.
“No matter how well you nurse a grudge it will never get better.”

I've heard about this case.

I believe that the man was fined $3,000
(instead of going to prison). What I
don't understand is how come this case
ever got to court in the first place?

The cartoon was on his computer. So, who
reported it? What's the story?

Can a cartoon character be classified as 'child
pornography?' Can intent to harm be proven
in a case like this?
And whose children was this harming?

None of this makes sense at all.

Perhaps this judge should be retired?
It sounds like he's lost the plot.

Hi Col Rouge.

"Separating "porn" from "kiddie porn"?

There isnt any separation for the two... when it comes to the moral decline of a civilisation.

It maybe that its not illegal to view adult porn... but it sure is morally wrong to partake of the filth when the filth comes down to doing little other than inspiring criminal activity and letchery and disrespect towards women.

Everyone who views porn regularly, is an offender in that they approve of all that porn does in society.

All porners are in their very own, very real way no different from the sex offenders...criminals-by-consent in their support of a product involved in the moral decline of society and offences against the victims of sexual attack.

Its the lust for the porn, that binds the porner to believing otherwise.

A nobler age when men knew the difference between right and wrong... sure is passing.

i've also heard about this story, and i think it's a little bit strange that a sort of simpsons should be erotic! I just think that they are comical, and have nothing to do with pornography! I just think it's just illegal if a real picture of child is seen

The judge has obviously not heard of Rule #34 or spent much time on the internet.

God help you if you even think about drawing dirty pictures (or build apartments higher than 5 stories in school zones)!

Gibo,

You miss the point. What you say about porn I won't argue with. The question here is, is this material porn? I have seen this material long before I even heard of the internet. It is not intended to be erotic. It is intended to be comical. In your case, it may be morally wrong, but to make this stuff illegal and classify it as child porn is totally ridiculous. You are the only poster on this thread who doesn't feel the court's deciscion is stupid.

By all means fight child pornography to protect children, but please, if society is to take child protection seriously we must not turn this into a witch hunt.

Yes Steel Mann it is material porn.
It is, if it stirs up the same feelings inside people as material porn...and it will.

Gibo,

Perhaps this material stirs up those feeling within you but it doesn't with most people, and definately not with me.

Porn is intended to sexually arouse. Even full frontal nudity of real people (ie nudsit magazines) is deemed to be non-pornographic.

Read my other post on "Man Charged With Posting Video" for further comment.

Gibo,

I've exceeded my daily limit on the other thread, but I suggest we stop mud slinging now and agree to disagree now otherwise you're going to find yourself getting put on the banned list again. I don't want that to happen and most people on this forum enjoy your posts even if we disagree.
No, I'm not with the athiest foundation and I don't personally know any gay christians, neither am I a gay myself, (although I do have gay neighbours and they are very nice people).
I don't agree with a lot of traditional Christian thinking, but a lot has changed over time.
Do you know Gibo, that at one time the many churches would not admit anyone that had been divorced as a member? Even the innocent party.
Women were traditionally banned from speaking in church. Many Christian groups banned interacial marraige and in the 1800's condoned slavery. All done in the name of God and used the Bible to justify it. All these things have changed thankfully. I live by the two commandments Jesus gave us, to love God, and to love your neighbour as yourself. My greatest enemies (just like Jesus had) are the religious people.

Steel Mann...just warning folks about you.

In 26years as a born again christian and having been to many christian churches, I never seen anyone with such loose doctrine as yourself.
You support immorality, where other christians flee from it.

Ive never met or heard of a christian supporting nudism or giving way to support of gays in committed christian churches.
e.g. Venn-Brown walked away from the AOG churches because he wanted to remain a gay and the Bible says we must repent of it...yet you support him.
Its common knowledge what he became. His site is humanism with complaints against the AOG church.

Its because of all of this that I think your either a spy for an antichrist group...or extremely bitter about christians and as a result, extremely cunning about your attacks on Bible doctrine.

I dont believe anything you say, about anything thats to do with christians and/or the churches.
I think youre a danger to other christians here and what they preach and if that offends you... tell Graham Young.

I wont communicate with someone, I see, who is clearly unscriptural... who appears to be a very cunning agent for 'the other side'.

Further more you seem fixated with me.

I went through your USERS thread file and my name pops up all over the place.
You cant stay away from me.
One of your earlier threads I recall revealed that you came STRAIGHT off the internet to OLO looking for me.
Its as if you were hunting me before you got here.
Thats pretty weird.

Gibo,

I've put some comments on your thread about caning. Please read them if you haven't already.

In the last couple of months Gibo, I've been learning to understand you and respect your views even when I don't agree. Please don't undo all this by accusing me of being a spy for an anti-Christ group, because I'm not. It's when we get threads like this one where we do oppose each other. I'm not a person who supports immorality, in fact quite the opposite. I am currently reading Anthony Venn-Brown's book. I haven't read enough of it yet to give an opinion of him. I think it's important to know the other side of the story. I've said it before Gibo, and I'll say it again, the nudist lifestyle is not sexual, at least, not the type of nudism I participate in. If you search the Web you will find a number of Christian nudist groups, however, I don't necessarily agree with them all. I do find you legalistic, Gibo, and that is the main issue that I have with you as I am totally opposed to legalism. I've put up with plenty of that in my life and I now desire the freedom that Christ has given me.

Gibo
"Separating "porn" from "kiddie porn"?

There isnt any separation for the two... when it comes to the moral decline of a civilisation.”

There is, as far as the statute books are concerned and for me, it is the law which matters, not your personal opinion.

“It maybe that its not illegal to view adult porn... but it sure is morally wrong to partake of the filth when the filth comes down to doing little other than inspiring criminal activity and letchery and disrespect towards women.”

The evidence of inspiring criminal activity has not been proven and in fact I recall posting of a link to some Dutch research which resolved the opposite were true.

We are each entitled to be as lecherous as we wish, lechery is not a criminal offence.

We are all entitled to be as disrespectful as we wish

And on that point

Do you not consider yourself “disrespectful” of the rights of other adults to decide for themselves, rather than pretend you have a monopoly on the definition of ‘righteousness’ and morality?

“A nobler age when men knew the difference between right and wrong... sure is passing.”

On a legal basis, adult pornography whilst it may not be necessarily considered ‘right’ is not ‘wrong’ either
And I suppose that ‘nobler age’ was when eugenics was still considered a ‘science’.

To your later posts
“It is, if it stirs up the same feelings inside people as material porn...and it will.”

And provided I satisfy those ‘feelings’ with another ‘consenting adult’ what has it got to do with you?

I do not claim or even give the pretense to being a born again Christian, I do however hold true to my moral values.

As far as my moral values are concerned, what occurs between consenting adults is strictly between them and their God.

If they like to ‘spice up’ their sex life up by viewing, in any media format, what you might consider ‘pornography’, then they as adults, are mature enough and free to make that choice, just as you are free to make yours.