X-rated cartoons child pornography?

posted at 8:28 am on December 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

I’m on jury duty today, so legal issues will probably catch my eye more than usual, and this story is pretty unusual.  An Australian judge convicted a defendant of possession of child pornography for having hard-core animated cartoons featuring child characters of The Simpsons:

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

The internet cartoon featured characters from the Simpsons TV series.

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

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

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

I’m not going to defend this particular form of pornography.  It’s a case of arrested development, and it’s more than a little perverse.   But that doesn’t make it child pornography, although it certainly is a copyright infringement of the most unsympathetic kind.

We proscribe child pornography to keep children from getting sexually exploited.  Cartoon characters aren’t real people, and we don’t need to protect them from predators.  Extending the definition to fiction makes a mockery of the law and the real damage done to real children by actual violations.

Even the judge appeared to have less than full confidence in his decision.  Despite convicting the man of the crime, he only sentenced him to a fine equivalent to US $2000.  He’d have been better advised to have the defendant use that money to seek help and then scold prosecutors for overreach.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Like I said, and I’ve said this before. I am not your average Democrat, and I could ALMOST be a Republican were it not for the Religious Right’s influence in your party.

your_worst_enemy on December 8, 2008 at 11:20 AM

You speak as if the Republican party is one giant monolithic belief system. No agrees with anyone about all things here. It’s a big tent and there’s a whole lot of hollerin’ going on inside. You ought to join up and get in the debate. The more the merrier I say. You’re not my “worst enemy”. Just a friend I don’t happen to agree with on everything. The “religious right” isn’t anywhere near as frightening as you make them out to be. I swear you’d like them a lot more if you got to know them, and vice versa.

I really wish everyone in this country could understand that tolerance and approbation are different things. The vast majority of Americans are very tolerant, as we must be if we wish to live together in peace. We don’t have to approve of each other, and any effort to force us to do so is wrong. I’m sure you don’t approve of religious people, but you must tolerate them. They don’t necessarily approve of your lifestyle, but they must tolerate you.

Cheers!

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM

Would someone please show me that George Washington or Joseph Story or John Adams, someone among the founders, anyone, can be attributed as arguing for 1st Amendment protections for pornographers, even those using adults as subjects? Oh wait, there were no cameras in their day, so there was therefore no pornography.

Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Oh, they had “naughty images” back then too and they had “naughty books”. Many of our Founding Fathers had dogeared copies of “Fanny Hill” and “Tom Jones” on their shelves.

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Isn’t Ashcroft the case that led to the creation of the PROTECT Act? Basically, PA 2003 was created to cover the errors and inadequacies of CPPA as exposed by Ashcroft.

wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Yes, but only part of PROTECT has been upheld in court–with Scalia making fun of the name. In US v Williams the court upheld the conviction of a man trading actual kiddie porn, but made a point of saying in the decision that PROTECT’s laws against virtual porn wouldn’t be upheld–unless someone believed they were trading porn involving actual children.

dedalus on December 8, 2008 at 3:04 PM

…but made a point of saying in the decision that PROTECT’s laws against virtual porn wouldn’t be upheld–unless someone believed they were trading porn involving actual children.

dedalus on December 8, 2008 at 3:04 PM

Question:

So, could government agents produce some reality-quality child porn (so that they exploit no children in its making) and pass it off as real child pornography and thus arrest the individual buying the material? Isn’t this then a question of a person trying to obtain “real” child pornography and not a case of someone trying to obtain realistic quality cartoon porn? This would be similar to someone wanting to buy marijuana, not high quality basil for their pasta sauce…they thought they were buying illicit materials. In other words, a prostitution sting operation where you have a police officer/operative get a “John” to offer money for sexual services, but doesn’t actually give sexual services, is no different.

If so, I would contend that simple possession of cartoon porn (or snuff cartoons even), would *not* be illegal. Instead, it would be illegal to (attempt to?) purchase illegal materials which you thought were “real” children.

In the end, if someone believes that they are in possession of “real” child porn, but it is in fact CG, their possession of CG porn would not be illegal in my book. I could believe that I have marijuana in my cupboard all I want, but if the police assure me that its basil, should I be arrested anyway because I think its marijuana?

Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Possibly. They do the same thing with pervs on myspace. Get them to talk to a girl they believe is only 13 or 14, but she’s really mid 20s.

Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 3:29 PM

Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM

I would suspect that such a situation would fall under “Intent” law. IE: you INTENDED to purchase Child Porn, and believed that you WERE purchasing Child Porn. It’s just that the cops swapped your coffee for New Folder’s Crystals ™! Erm, I mean, really realistic CG CP.

But, IANAL, so I could be wrong on that one.

wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 3:30 PM

Don’t we also prosecute child pornography because it leads to child abuse later? I don’t remember a study to this effect, but I know it’s been shown that adult pornography leads to increases in sexual assault statistics (e.g. this is how “Take Back the Night” got started as an anti-porn feminist movement)

In which case, it doesn’t matter whether the subjects are real or fictional as long as it causes the same damage to the viewer.

Gaunilon on December 8, 2008 at 3:32 PM

Gaunilon on December 8, 2008 at 3:32 PM

No. We don’t prosecute people based on what they MIGHT do down the road. This isn’t the universe of “Minority Report”.

Besides, there is already PLENTY of crime to prosecute when dealing with Kiddie porn cases anyway. Why try prosecuting “futurecrimes”?

wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM

In the end, if someone believes that they are in possession of “real” child porn, but it is in fact CG, their possession of CG porn would not be illegal in my book. I could believe that I have marijuana in my cupboard all I want, but if the police assure me that its basil, should I be arrested anyway because I think its marijuana?

Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Agree mostly with your points. I think:
–Cops can lie to you with fake drugs, hookers or porn. If you have intention to commit a felony then you are.
–One is safe with basil in the cupboard, since it can be tested. One problem with virtual child porn is whether someone can prove it is virtual. If someone is busted with virtual kiddie porn, it would be in their best interest to prove it was fake and that they thought it was fake. If the cops had e-mail records of that person sharing the virtual porn as if it was real, my guess would be they’d need a really good lawyer or be facing some jail time.

dedalus on December 8, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Bart – Nekkid? Eeewwww.
Now Marge, that’s another story…

AmericanDad on December 8, 2008 at 3:43 PM

Don’t we also prosecute child pornography because it leads to child abuse later?

Agreeing with weary here, we prosecute people for the crimes they commit, not for the possible outcomes of their crimes. As an example, it is said that marijuana is a “gateway” drug, that it leads to other illicit drug use, that doesn’t mean that we prosecute people for heroin because they possessed mj. An even better analogy would be that police have to actually wait until a person starts their vehicle (in this state) before they can arrest them for DUI. If they got in their car and started the heater so they could sleep peacefully through the night, they’d only get busted for possibly being public intoxication…

Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 3:48 PM

If the cops had e-mail records of that person sharing the virtual porn as if it was real, my guess would be they’d need a really good lawyer or be facing some jail time.

dedalus on December 8, 2008 at 3:43 PM

I guess so. Still, the burden of proof (that the parties both believed that it was “real”) is still on the state, and that could be a tough case to prove. Most likely, it wouldn’t pass muster because you wouldn’t arrest someone for being “tricked” into having something they shouldn’t have. On the other hand, its highly unlikely that the CG porn would be an isolated case. The persons in question would most likely have other examples of real child pornography to give the prosecution something to work with and the CG stuff would be inconsequential.

Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 3:53 PM

I just went to lunch.

In the parking lot, someone had a decal of Bart Simpson mooning.

Was that kiddy porn?

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 3:57 PM

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 3:57 PM

In Australia? Maybe…

wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 3:59 PM

I just went to lunch.

In the parking lot, someone had a decal of Bart Simpson mooning.

Was that kiddy porn?

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 3:57 PM

Nope. I have pictures of my kids taking baths when they were young, and that’s not kiddy porn either. But, you probably weren’t directing that at me.

Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Many of our Founding Fathers had dogeared copies of “Fanny Hill” and “Tom Jones” on their shelves.
ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM

Huh. Which ones?

Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Pornography is often found in possession of rapists, yes. Is this news to you?-Akzed

Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 12:27 PM
You didn’t answer my question, though it doesn’t surprise me that you can’t tell the difference.

MarkTheGreat on December 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM

Relevance?

Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Huh. Which ones?

Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 4:11 PM

WATCH WHAT YOU THINK.

The SP are listening.

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 4:15 PM

I notice nobody has pointed out here that anybody that owns a copy of The Simpsons Movie has one of these naughty pictures of Bart and is therefore culpable under this law.

Skywise on December 8, 2008 at 4:17 PM

So which ones?

Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM

I want to address a three issues here.

First on the Simpson cartoon issue…Being that it happened in Austraila I am unsure of how their alws read but here in the US I would be calling for the judge to resign..possesion of the cartoons is not really possesion of child porn..the fact is the Simpsons are nnot real and no person believes they are…if you make possesing these a crime you must also make possesing any drawing, story or movie that depects illegal activity a crime…and for people like Akzed you might want to check in your bookshelfs and DVD racks very very carefully..if you have any teen T&A movies in your collection you are guilty (by your standard) of possesing child porn…there has to be a line between fantasy and reality when applying the law.

Now about the discussion of the Protect Act and how it is applied..if you Purchase CG child porn from a agent of the police or with the intent of purchasing authentic child porn you can and should be prosecuted to the extent the law allows…but if they just find you in possesion of CG child porn i am not sure you can be prosected nor should you be…to use your drug analogy…if you attempt to purchase drugs with the intention of purchasing an illegal product and are caught in the attempt you should and will in most likelihood be prosected, on the other hand if you are arrested with a bag of what appears to be pot and tests show it is not you should not be charged with possesion of drugs…with out the actuall prove of your intent no reasonable person should find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and no judge should allow you to be brought to trial with no clear intent to commit a crime.
I realize that some will disagree with both my premises but remember we are talking about legal and not moral issues here.
Finally on the issue of censorship..The government has a responsibility to set standards concerning public airwaves but this is censorship..they set standards as to what can be aired during certain periods of the day in most cases and what is unacceptable on public airwaves anytime…they censor that which is in the public trust..there is always a certain amount of censorship but this does not block access to any type of material but rather limits access in such away to protect those who do not wish to be exposed to the material. Even such materials as child porn (Wriiten or virtual) or racist content are available with enough effort and that is how it should be in our society..I do not wish to stop someone from enjoying whatever it is they enjoy as long as myself and my family are not forced to view it against our wills. The system has enough checks and balances that when allowed to operate correctly we all have the ability to persue health and happiness in our own unique way

Kidd on December 8, 2008 at 4:31 PM

Huh. Which ones?

Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 4:11 PM

We know that Benjamin Franklin, who himself wrote some fairly risque material, had a copy of “Fanny Hill”. “Tom Jones” was a favorite of almost everyone.

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 4:49 PM

Conservatives value free thought. Non-conservatives want to police thought, and they are trying to do so. Trying to impugn my values while advocating a police state and destruction of freedom of expression is ludicrous.

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 10:56 AM

I agree with pretty much all of what you have said on this thread, as I usually tend to agree with you on other threads like this. But I want to play devil’s advocate here and pose a question.

You’re totally against thought policing, as am I. But let’s say there is a young American Muslim who is watching videos constantly of images of jihad and abu ghraib and American bombs blowing up houses, etc. And he’s writing to his friends about how evil the U.S. and how it should be stopped, etc.

Would you have a problem with thought policing him? Tapping his phones? Arresting him? Or even purposely entrapping him by way of undercover agents so that we can lock him up?

I’m asking because it’s a question all lovers and upholders of the U.S. Constitution must ask themselves. It’s easy for us to get self righteous about defending Larry Flint’s right to be a disgusting pig, but what about the right of some keyboard jihadist?

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM

Would you have a problem with thought policing him? Tapping his phones? Arresting him? Or even purposely entrapping him by way of undercover agents so that we can lock him up?

I’m asking because it’s a question all lovers and upholders of the U.S. Constitution must ask themselves. It’s easy for us to get self righteous about defending Larry Flint’s right to be a disgusting pig, but what about the right of some keyboard jihadist?

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM

Fundamentally? Yes. I never spoke up that much about the wiretapping and monitoring, but I was still unsettled about it. Did I see a purpose to it? A need? Yes. Was I uncomfortable about the practice becoming standard policy? Yes.

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Fundamentally? Yes. I never spoke up that much about the wiretapping and monitoring, but I was still unsettled about it. Did I see a purpose to it? A need? Yes. Was I uncomfortable about the practice becoming standard policy? Yes.

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 5:05 PM

I agree. Good to know I’m not alone.

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 5:07 PM

If an animation of child pornography is not child pornography, please advise.
Whether or how you want to censor, are related questions.

Randy

williars on December 8, 2008 at 5:08 PM

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM

A follow-up: Just to be clear, there is a very large distinction between thought-policing for the sake of averting potential mass attacks that could results in thousands or millions of deaths of Americans, and thought-policing what people jerk off to. One is a threat to national security. The other is a problem that pales in comparison.

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 5:09 PM

TOTAL BULLSHIT.

When the Simpson’s first aired in 1987, Bart was 10 and Lisa was 8. That makes Bart 31 years old now and Lisa is now 29.

And trying to make these characters continue to act as children is abusive and probably what led them to engage in the socially-deviant acts depicted in the subject cartoons.

Kasper Hauser on December 8, 2008 at 5:09 PM

A follow-up: Just to be clear, there is a very large distinction between thought-policing for the sake of averting potential mass attacks that could results in thousands or millions of deaths of Americans, and thought-policing what people jerk off to. One is a threat to national security. The other is a problem that pales in comparison.

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 5:09 PM

True. But there have been cases that really border on entrapment, where undercover agents seek out the dumbest young guy in the mosque and practically turn him into a jihadi in order to arrest him. There was a case in NYC like that, and I found it just bizarre. It was as if these special NYPD “war on terror” units were trying to justify their existence in the same way that the ATF did in the 1990s by creating problems where none existed.

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 5:16 PM

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 5:16 PM

I haven been just as concerned about the fact that entrapment has gone from a crime to a normal procedure in recent decades. I understood when it was implemented to take down a crime lord or something, but now it seems like every level of law enforcement practices it on a regular basis, and judges ignore it as part of defense all the time. Scary precedent.

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 5:25 PM

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM

If a person is in contact with persons outside the US and with ties to terrorists, then yes we should monitor them. If a person is planning to kill someone and the FBI/CIA become aware of them through their associations or activities, then yes, we should monitor them. In context, if someone is visiting known pedo sites/chans, then it might be worth monitoring them as well.

In general though, if a young person has a problem with the US and its policies and wants to plan an attack on the US (bombs and what-not), then I don’t think that we shouldt be monitoring him unless he starts engaging in questionable activities. We (the US government) should have a very good reason for invading someone’s privacy/rights, and only for the protection of the other citizens. On one hand, this would be a serious crime, on the other, teenagers are often “all talk”. You can’t start monitoring citizens based purely upon what they might do.

So, for your example, I’d say, “no” we shouldn’t monitor him.

Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Would you have a problem with thought policing him? Tapping his phones? Arresting him? Or even purposely entrapping him by way of undercover agents so that we can lock him up?

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM

For me:

1. Yes
2. Depends on who his friends are.
3. Yes
4. Depends on what the entrapment is; if it’s along the lines of Dateline’s To Catch a Predator series, I’d be alright with that.

People have a right in this country to believe the US is wrong on any number of levels and even to go so far as to sympathize with terrorists; however, once they do anything that actually helps terrorists, by donating money or sending along information (more than the New York Times), they’ve abused that right.

Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 6:11 PM

If I catch a 19 year old fooling around with my 16 year old daughter he need not worry about the law. His mind will be on the shotgun that I’ve inserted where the sun don’t shine………

All I need is one dad with daughters on the jury……….. :)

Bubba Redneck on December 8, 2008 at 10:17 AM

That’s why she’ll keep him a secret from you Cavedude. And if your daughter is watching you shove something up another man’s sunless regions, aren’t you exposing her to precisely the type of stuff from which you seek to protect her?

I could never understand the violent and homoerotic impulses of some angry men.

The Race Card on December 8, 2008 at 10:40 AM

My job as a father is to protect her from 19 year olds who want to date 16 year olds in addition to other scoundrels, naredowells as well as the assorted scum and villainy.

Angry? Hardly.

Homoerotic? Please….

Knowing who my daughter dates. All the time.

I must point out that the picture for this post shows Bart’s and Lisa’s hands touching Maggie’s butt. Child porn!

James on December 8, 2008 at 10:37 AM

Good thing we are not in Australia!!

Bubba Redneck on December 8, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Just ship the stuff Gitmo. wrapped in bacon and make the jihadi nut jobs have to live with it 24/7.

Bubba Redneck on December 8, 2008 at 8:28 PM

Bubba Redneck on December 8, 2008 at 8:25 PM

A scoundrel dates a woman three years his junior?

Excuse me?

MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 8:28 PM

although it certainly is a copyright infringement of the most unsympathetic kind.

Nah. More like some form of kinky parody.

Guardian on December 8, 2008 at 8:56 PM

Ed.

Totally, 100% agreed.

But I think you need this Simpsons clip in this post to drive the point home:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

“Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?!?”

lansing quaker on December 8, 2008 at 10:15 PM

The point isn’t to prosecute people for sexual assault after they’ve viewed child pornography; the point is that child pornography leads to child abuse, and therefore it should be illegal. The drunk driving analogy is a good one: you don’t prosecute the drunk driver for causing an accident when he’s just been driving drunk and no accident has occurred, but you do prosecute him for the drunk driving because it leads to accidents.

Therefore if child pornography is illegal because it encourages child abuse, it follows that the man in this case should be prosecuted regardless of whether the video showed real or fictional children. Either way, he’s breaking the law, and endangering children in the process.

Gaunilon on December 9, 2008 at 12:08 AM

Good thing “Fritz the cat” hasn’t made it to the Cartoon Network……………………. yet.

Seven Percent Solution on December 9, 2008 at 1:35 AM

Therefore if child pornography is illegal because it encourages child abuse, it follows that the man in this case should be prosecuted regardless of whether the video showed real or fictional children.

I don’t believe CP is illegal because it encourages child abuse, it is illegal because it IS child abuse.

mdmarq on December 9, 2008 at 1:49 AM

Relevance?

Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 4:15 PM

Pointing out that you failed to answer the question is irrelevant?

Did you study logic in a mail order course?

MarkTheGreat on December 9, 2008 at 7:44 AM

Would you have a problem with thought policing him? Tapping his phones? Arresting him? Or even purposely entrapping him by way of undercover agents so that we can lock him up?

I’m asking because it’s a question all lovers and upholders of the U.S. Constitution must ask themselves. It’s easy for us to get self righteous about defending Larry Flint’s right to be a disgusting pig, but what about the right of some keyboard jihadist?

ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 4:59 PM

If someone shows jihadist tendencies, it is perfectly legitimate to investigate him further. If it can be found that he has engaged in either criminal acts or a conspiracy to commit criminal acts, then bust his butt on the spot. But no, merely looking at the material is not enough for an arrest.

Ditto, CG kiddy porn. It would be grounds for a more thorough investigation, but it would not be grounds for an arrest.

MarkTheGreat on December 9, 2008 at 7:47 AM

Gaunilon on December 9, 2008 at 12:08 AM

A proper analogy would be arresting people for possession of alcohol, because drunk driving kills people.

MarkTheGreat on December 9, 2008 at 7:52 AM

I don’t believe CP is illegal because it encourages child abuse, it is illegal because it IS child abuse.

mdmarq on December 9, 2008 at 1:49 AM

The discussion is primarily about whether computer generated images are child pornography.

MarkTheGreat on December 9, 2008 at 7:52 AM

the point is that child pornography leads to child abuse, and therefore it should be illegal.

Gaunilon on December 9, 2008 at 12:08 AM

No. It doesn’t matter what it may or may not lead to. As I said before, we do NOT prosecute “Future Crime”. We prosecute crimes already committed. Child Porn (CP) is ALREADY abusing a child. That’s enough for a conviction right there.

Now, if you meant “leads to” in the sense that it helps prop up the CP industry, then yes, I would agree with you. but only because that’s another current crime, abetting child abuse.

This is why Cartoon porn is NOT illegal in the US. Because there is no real live child that was abused, there is no crime at any stage. either creation, or viewing and collecting. Now, it may be vile, but it’s NOT a crime.

wearyman on December 9, 2008 at 7:56 AM

Seven Percent Solution on December 9, 2008 at 1:35 AM

I thought I was the only one who knew what that was!! :P

Ryan Gandy on December 9, 2008 at 10:29 AM

Good thing “Fritz the cat” hasn’t made it to the Cartoon Network……………………. yet.

Seven Percent Solution on December 9, 2008 at 1:35 AM

Off-topic rant: although it would be totally inappropriate to air Fritz on CN, it’d still actually be more fitting than the completely non-animated stuff they’ve been showing sometimes. It’s the Cartoon Network, not the ‘oh, let’s put anything on that kids might like’ network. If you’re going to name your network after cartoons, animation had better be involved somewhere in every one of your shows/movies. They don’t have wildlife shows on the Food Network, nor do they have home improvement shows on the History Channel.

James on December 9, 2008 at 10:40 AM

“it’s been shown that adult pornography leads to increases in sexual assault statistics”

No, it has not.

rightwingprof on December 9, 2008 at 4:19 PM

I don’t believe CP is illegal because it encourages child abuse, it is illegal because it IS child abuse.

mdmarq on December 9, 2008 at 1:49 AM
The discussion is primarily about whether computer generated images are child pornography.

MarkTheGreat on December 9, 2008 at 7:52 AM

I know what this discussion is about, I was responding to another post – did you not read the quoted item?

Besides, half the posts on this thread don’t even mentioned the CG aspect of this discussion.

Oh, and no, I don’t believe CG can be considered child pornography.

mdmarq on December 9, 2008 at 11:20 PM

Err…that is “mention” above, not mentioned.

mdmarq on December 9, 2008 at 11:21 PM

A court case is all ready happening here in the United States has well.

N15PCA on December 10, 2008 at 3:58 AM

Ridiculous!

I think cartoon pornography is meant to be amusing, not arousing, anyway.

Sign of the Dollar on December 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM

I’m not into Simpson-porn either, but does anyone know whether Australia has similar sexual predator laws and lists as we do here? It seems pretty scary that someone could go onto a lifelong sexual predator list for having animated Simpson-porn. Do they now have to report themselves to local authorities each year as predators do here? Do they now have to live specified distances from schools and other areas where children are present? Does this judge realize what a dangerous door he is opening with this decision? If Simpson-porn can be interpreted as kiddie-porn, what other fairly innocuous kinds of things will push this legal interpretation even further?

Mr A on December 10, 2008 at 12:08 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3