X-rated cartoons child pornography?
posted at 8:28 am on December 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 Next »
Got any juicy cases? Murder-suicide? Armed robbery?
lodge on December 8, 2008 at 8:32 AM
I’ve actually seen those images a couple times in my travels around the internet.
SpencerFan on December 8, 2008 at 8:33 AM
Ed, I think the rationale for proscribing child pornography goes beyond the sexual exploitation of children. There’s a simple decency principle there as well.
And to address the inevitable 1st Amendment comments, I’d just suggest that the Framers probably wouldn’t have a problem with censoring child pornography, “fictional” or otherwise.
JohnTant on December 8, 2008 at 8:34 AM
Ed “Hang-em High” Morrissey! I’d hate to be the criminal to cross your path today.
NotCoach on December 8, 2008 at 8:34 AM
If we take the position that anything “indecent” should result in jail time, how are we different from say, liberals.
MarkTheGreat on December 8, 2008 at 8:38 AM
Before people get into a long drawn out discussion of what is and what is not free speech, wouldn’t everyone just simply consider such garbage as copyright infringements?
NotCoach on December 8, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Child pornography is way too serious a charge for having lewd cartoons. I don’t want to see SpencerFan thrown if jail for having viewed them on his/her computer either.
This is another example of what’s wrong with the life-long branding of “sex criminals”. We need to be very careful with those laws. People who get caught with lewd cartoons, or a 19 year old fooling around with a 16 year old should not be lumped in and punished for life along with aggravated rapists, child pornographers and child molesters.
forest on December 8, 2008 at 8:43 AM
There’s no First Amendment in Australia ;)
I’d not go so far as to defend pornographic cartoons, but are they criminal? Who is the victim? How were they harmed. They criminal justice system should not be the arbiter of taste, or we go down the slippery slope into criminalizing droopy pants.
mr.blacksheep on December 8, 2008 at 8:44 AM
Very true.
But the judge is wacky. It aint kiddie porn.
jgapinoy on December 8, 2008 at 8:45 AM
Where would you get that idea?
And since when is “decency” a matter of law inside a private residence?
Lehosh on December 8, 2008 at 8:46 AM
I haven’t seen the cartoons, but I’m guessing they are more of a distasteful effort at humor rather than child porn that is designed to appeal to “prurient interests”. Don’t know how Australin law treat all this, but the fact that the intent was probably humor rather than some kind of preversion and the fact that no real children were involved should rule the cartoon out as child porn.
forest on December 8, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Since a certain religious loonie got himself elected into a position as power broker in the Senate.
OldEnglish on December 8, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Seems that even if you wrote a book describing child molestation and someone owned that book, then that too would be child pornography by that judge’s standards.
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 8:53 AM
For Simpsons of the non-pornographic kind, you can go here. (It’s quite slow and sometimes needs to be refreshed once or twice to get it to work, but eventually it will.)
Tzetzes on December 8, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Slippery slope, meet Teflon precipice.
Obama and his liberal goonbats in Congress think owning guns is an indecent act. When the party in power gets to be the de facto arbiter of decency, we all lose.
Bruce in NH on December 8, 2008 at 8:55 AM
I mean, that’s the whole point, isn’t it? There’s no law against dirty thoughts.
Tzetzes on December 8, 2008 at 8:57 AM
There have been pornographic cartoons for quite awhile now in Japan (Hentai, a form of x-rated Manga). Personally, if some artist wants to spend their time drawing this stuff for someone else to…fantasize about (?)… then I’m fine with that. Its no different than Penthouse Forum, or any other form of fantasy fiction that is sexually explicit, even if it does depict juvenile and/or non-human characters.
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Stop and think for a second here. Aren’t people under-reacting a bit to all this?
Of course jailtime for imaginary statutory rape is perfectly reasonable. But how do we know that’s ALL he saw. For all we know, this psycho may have even seen a picture of someone KILLING an underage cartoon character!
Obviously, that would be a lot worse. It’s great to know that there are laws on the books for the lesser fantasies, but (assuming imaginary aggravating circumstances of course) there also needs to be a death penalty for imaginary murderers.
We all know about the dirty little “squick books” out there. Creeps like Agatha Christy and Stephen King, along with all of their psychopathic readers, are just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to murdering imaginary people. The founding fathers were blindsided, so “freedom of the PRESS has us hogtied. (Which, before anyone asks, is why the last sentence does not technically constitute an actionable offence of imaginary kidnapping.)
But we have to draw the line somewhere. And it’s obvious that place should be cartoons.
logis on December 8, 2008 at 8:59 AM
You may not be able to define pornography, but you know it when you see it.
On that one, I would like to say that I have been horrified by what is passing for legitimate cartoons these days.
“Family Guy” is a mainstream, half hour, situation comedy cartoon. This cartoon is so “mainstream that Subway restaurants uses Family Guy in their advertising and promotions.
I find it amazingly offensive that most of their episodes contain explicit references to at least one of the following sexual topics: homosexuality, bestiality, pedaphillia, pornography, and infidelity.
How is it possible that these abnormal, offensive and pornagraphic topics are the mainstay of a children’s cartoon?
garyganu on December 8, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Not to belabor the obvious, but just in case, you left off your /sarc tag.
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 9:02 AM
This is Australia, not the US, and they do have a censorship board down under.
Child pornography = pornography involving children. Real human children, not fictional cartoons. This is a bad case.
rbj on December 8, 2008 at 9:04 AM
There is a warning at the beginning of FG, I think its MA-14 if I’m not mistaken. It is *not* a childrens’ cartoon. There is also the constant matricidal theme from Stuey, and the majority of the social and cultural references would only appeal to persons that are 30+. There are dozens of adult themed cartoons that are popular now, if parents let their kids watch them, that is their problem.
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 9:08 AM
So a drawing of children fornicating is A) not pornography or B) doesn’t involve children?
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Right, its neither.
As an analogy mentioned above, a drawing of a murder is also not a crime nor does it involve endangering anyone’s life. In this country, I’d demand to see my accuser (11th amendment). If the state was the accuser, I’d demand that the judge determine that the “individual” involved was (a) under age (The Simpsons have been on for 20 years) and (b) “real”. I don’t think you can commit a crime against fictional characters, but I could be wrong.
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 9:22 AM
BTW, does this mean that the artist that drew the said cartoon would be tried for both copyright infringement AND child pornography? I mean, its going to be some pretty serious jail time for the actual pornographer, isn’t it?
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Sorry but showing Minnie and Mickey doing it, is child porn…it entices children to view, some things are sacred, and a childs innocence it that.
right2bright on December 8, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Because it isn’t a children’s cartoon.
Sure it is, or rather can be, pornography, but cartoons don’t involve the use of children.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 9:25 AM
That’s assuming they have access to these cartoons, and if a child has access to Minnie and Mickey going at it, then that child’s parent has some explaining to do.
This isn’t porn for children.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 9:27 AM
garyganu on December 8, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Ah, the slippery slope.
And what do we find on “these sick bastards” computers, and in their closets, and under their beds?
Porno cartoons of children help the depersonification process along nicely. Oh, it’s child pornography all right.
Randy
williars on December 8, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Jose & those Pussy Cats.
TheSitRep on December 8, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Are you saying that the parent’s of a child watching these cartoons should face criminal charges?
I think that they should. We finally agree!
Sorry, I didn’t do the block quote thing right the first time.
Gary
garyganu on December 8, 2008 at 9:36 AM
Cromwell would have been proud to have you stand at his side.
OldEnglish on December 8, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Just because it’s a cartoon, does not make it children’s entertainment. The Looney Toons and The Flintstones started out as adult entertainment, but the adult themes were subtle enough to make the transition to children’s entertainment. Family Guy is anything but subtle.
Back in the 70’s, there was a porno called Fritz The Cat and I remember the controversy at the time that it was a cartoon.
Kafir on December 8, 2008 at 9:42 AM
Hah, jury duty! Yet another benefit of being in the military! Home commonwealth sends me a summons, I just tell them I’m in Afghanistan, and the problem’s over….the only downside is having to actually be in Afghanistan.
No such thing as a free lunch, I guess.
Spc Steve on December 8, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Does this apply only to obvious cartoon type drawings but not super-realistic paintings?
Since they are not pernographic by your calculus, would it be appropriate to hang such drawings of either kind in a store window where such drawings were for sale? If not, why not?
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Once again our criminal justice system and popular culture gets the pedophilia/child porn thing 100% wrong. We do not need to be asking who has lewd drawings on their computer. We need to be making sure our kids are prepared to report on sexual abuse. Why? Because sexual abuse overwhelmingly occurs either within the home or within the home of a trusted friend/loved one. That’s how abusers get access to children. The more we pretend that child sexual abusers are these outcasts and misfits we think we can easily identify them and thus, keep our children safe. That is WRONG. As the relative of someone who was abused by her own grandfather, these kinds of issues are NOT the fight when it comes to child sexual abuse.
DeathToMediaHacks on December 8, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Perhaps you did not notice a few years ago when we created the Thought Police on our university campuses. Since it is now illegal to think evil thoughts, it must be illegal to draw those thoughts out on paper, right? /sarc
Kafir on December 8, 2008 at 9:45 AM
When I was on the ship as a Legal Officer, I would write excuse letters all the time, just the mere posibility of deployment is enough under the federal code, you should talk to your legal weenie when you get back to the states.
Squid Shark on December 8, 2008 at 9:45 AM
So, let me get this straight.
Lines on paper adjusted in juuuuust such a way will land you in prison, raped by inmates, and branded a pedophile for the rest of your life?
I know that’s not what happened here, but all it takes is a seriously self-righteous judge, of which there are many.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 9:49 AM
By this logic, we need to lock up parents that buy Bratz dolls for their kids (nice time to pull that one out), and ban any ads that depict women as sex objects (news flash, that’s nearly all of them).
You can’t outlaw immoral thoughts, and until there is a crime committed, you can’t try someone. It sounds like you’re advocating “thought police” tactics. If someone wanted to wax their candle fantasizing about kids, that’s their business, you can’t arrest them for that.
The reason that there are child pornography laws is because purchasing the material drives the production of an illegal (and heinous) act, you don’t get arrested for committing child molestation due to owning child pornography.
Owning material of famous fictional characters (that pretend to be both young and human) engaged in sexual acts is only driving the production of copyright infringement, similar to downloading mp3s from sites without paying the artist. Are the police going to arrest Bart or Homer Simpson for engaging in these acts? If a crime is being committed, than surely its being committed by one of the parties in the cartoon, right?
There is no ground to stand on here. It may be pornographic, but its not child pornography because the subject is not a child, even if it depicts a “child”. If this were the case, then every porno ever made that shows some porno actress dressed up like a school girl would apply.
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 9:55 AM
First of all, this isn’t kiddie porn. Kiddie porn requires an actual “kiddie”. OTOH, I understand what the judge was trying to do. I don’t want a guy who whacks off to pictures of Bart Simpson around my son. If (and it’s a big IF, I don’t know much about the context here) that’s what he was doing, I think the judge needed to do something. I’m just not sure what.
Are laws against kiddie porn designed just to protect the child being photographed, or because we think that using children for sexual gratification is something that we as a society will not condone?
Bobbertsan on December 8, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Exit question: can one marry an underage cartoon character in San Francisco, granted the character is the same sex as yours?
Aristotle on December 8, 2008 at 9:59 AM
I have no problem with animated pornography. It’s not real, it’s drawn. Half the stuff that’s ever been animated can never, ever be real – it involves animals or extreme violence (where in the next scene, the victim is perfectly fine). I personally wouldn’t watch something graphic involving the Simpson children, but I’m not really a fan of the Simpsons anymore.
Now, I do think there is something wrong with parents that allow their children to watch animation that is not meant for young eyes (FG, American Dad, anything on Adult Swim, etc), thinking that if it’s a cartoon, it must be for kids. Do I support throwing those parents in jail? No. I might think it’s in bad taste to let kids view sexually explicit animation, but law should not be based on bad taste.
Anna on December 8, 2008 at 10:00 AM
You’re right. Oh, and drawings of rape or violence are rape and murder all right. Oh, and stories depicting fantasies of the above are also crimes. As are movies where the situation is played out on screen by actors. And plays. And televisions shows. Plus, let’s get rid of video games and rock music.
Since obviously nobody in America can separate reality from fantasy, it’s time we outlaw fantasy altogether. YOU SO SMART.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Wait a minute.
The Simpsons have been around since 1990 or so.
That means that ALL the characters are at least 18 years old.
This guy seriously needed a better lawyer.
blink on December 8, 2008 at 10:01 AM
You got me, I’ll back off the non-pornographic stance and state that it is pornography. However, I still see no crime here (unless the laws in Australia are such that owning pornography is illegal).
BTW, numerous stores (Wal-mart for example) sell posters of bikini models, but that doesn’t make it appropriate to show that on their front windows. Some content is for “adults” and not appropriate for children, which is why we don’t show our kids X or R rated movies. Blockbuster may have Saw IV available, but they aren’t going to put it on the TVs in the store because that sort of content shouldn’t be exposed to those unwilling to see it, its bad for business.
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 10:03 AM
One other point: If something like this allows some pedophile to satisfy their fantasy without a child being hurt in the process, isn’t this actually a good thing? Isn’t it a potential buffer?
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 10:04 AM
I think children can be over-protected. Now, before anybody goes off the deep end, I don’t mean that they should be molested. But my wife and I always had frank, matter-of-fact discussions about any and all topics about which our daughter showed curiosity or interest. We discussed why it was improper for adults to interfere with children, and why we thought it was that some adults felt sexually interested in children. We also had straightforward, unemotional discussions about drugs (”You can take them if you want: we can’t stop you and chances of long-term harm from trying them are pretty small, but you’d want to ask yourself why you thought that was necessary”.) She’s never tried drugs (resists even taking aspirin), and feels sorry for people who think they need them.
We were far from “destroying her innocence”: She had a normal childhood full of fun and adventure and friends, loved puppy dogs and guinea pigs and horses, and now is a successful businesswoman and a straight-A college student.
I don’t mean to lecture, and I’m sorry to have wandered off-topic a bit here, but in retrospect, our approach seems to have worked so much better than that of many parents we know who kept their children ignorant in the name of “protecting their innocence”. Your mileage of course may vary.
mr.blacksheep on December 8, 2008 at 10:05 AM
+1
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 10:05 AM
No, I know. I’ve actually been called for jury duty twice since I joined the Army, both times while deployed. My mother takes the summons and a copy of my deployment orders to the courthouse. Easy as that.
Spc Steve on December 8, 2008 at 10:13 AM
You are changing the subject. Thoughts are immaterial, depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit behavior are material. I would suggest however, that immaterial thoughts lead to material evils, so you should really watch what you think. The police will watch what materializes in your possession, and rightly so.
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 10:14 AM
They’re getting there. Just give them a bit more time.
OldEnglish on December 8, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Hey, if the social mores against pedophilia lead the pedophile into sticking to his computer (no pun intended) instead of manifesting themselves IRL, I think its a win-win. A certain psychologist I know that has dealt with a number of pedophiles told me that many pedophiles become murderers because the social mores against pedophilia are stronger than the ones about killing someone. The fear of the social rejection from being branded a pedophile is greater than the threats and rejection of committing any other crime. And, we’ve all heard the stories about how prison inmates will eventually kill child rapists anyway (even murderers reject pedophiles as socially unacceptable), so they’re dead anyway. Their best course is to prevent their victim from ever exposing them.
Thus, if some pedo finds it safer and easier to fantasize to cartoon porn, then I’m all for it. If their problem can’t be “cured” (so claims the psychologist) then this answer works for me.
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 10:15 AM
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
Rule 34
The chans had better watch out for the IRL party van
pseudonominus on December 8, 2008 at 10:21 AM
You’re speaking of actual minors, otherwise an adult porn actress depicting a school girl would fit your description. Likewise, there is *no* minor in this case. A cartoon is not a minor, because it isn’t real. If I changed Lisa Simpson’s face slightly by making her look like Marge, does that suddenly make it OK? It isn’t any more real than a movie depicting a murder or a book describing a rape.
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 10:23 AM
They were on The Tracey Ullman Show in 1987. So even Maggie is at least 21.
eeyore on December 8, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Can I just weigh in as a Democrat and say that the folks commenting that think cartoon porn with fictional kids in it falls under the legal definition of child porn need to get a grip.
Distasteful? Yes. Criminal? No.
–
Eventually, the real Conservatives around here will realize that I am more like them than most of the Religious nutcases that comment on here.
your_worst_enemy on December 8, 2008 at 10:30 AM
…was that sarcasm? If not, I hope you don’t vote.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 10:30 AM
I wonder what the Judge was privy to the back ground of the person ect…that the average person reading about the case doesn’t know and couldn’t be admitted into evidence?
Dr Evil on December 8, 2008 at 10:30 AM
We can’t really point fingers at Australia with impunity on this one. Until the Supreme Court struck it down, we had our own federal law criminalizing cartoon child pornography, put in place by “conservatives”. I always felt the law went too far into the realm of thoughtcrime. Yeah, some people’s minds are perverted in ways I wish they weren’t, especially when it comes to sex. But I’m a long way from being prepared to throw them in prison for it when all they’ve done is made or looked at fantasy-based doodles. And I’m not prepared for all the implications of giving that kind of power to our government. It’s an issue for society to deal with, not the courts. We all know what we thought of those islamists who incited for riots and criminal punishment over a few offensive cartoons of Mohamed.
Socratease on December 8, 2008 at 10:34 AM
There’s nothing decent about freedom. It’s an ugly reality. That’s the beauty of it.
If you’re so willing to just toss out the First Amendment what others do you think we should start ignoring?
There are five rights granted by the First Amendment. Those primary freedoms represent the baseline level of personal sovereignty to be experienced by citizens in the freest nation on Earth.
You can’t go tossing out clause after clause because of some imaginary “principle.” Indecent speech is the most vulnerable and therefore the most important to protect.
These cartoons will probably start ending up in lots of peoples’ email inboxes. There have been various versions of Simpsons porn floating around online for more than a decade.
One of the first e-rumors I heard was from a guy who did tech work for Matt Groening. He claimed that Groening himself was the source of a lot of this. Despite the first hand account of this juicy story…I just couldn’t believe him. OK…that’s useless information.
civil v criminal
The Race Card on December 8, 2008 at 10:35 AM
No.
Let’s be clear here, this is Australia, not America.
Possibly, though, I’m sure those who think these should be grounds for imprisonment are more concerned that it will only make those fantasies stronger and encourage a pedophile to act out on his/her perversions.
Honestly, I have no idea which one is more likely, if they’d just stay home or become emboldened.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 10:37 AM
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
Child pornography is in a category all its own. No one is suggesting here that you can’t sraw all the pictures you want of dismemberments, beheadings, or even blow jobs involving adults. We would just prefer to draw the line at children.
My suggestion: draw pictures of under-developed eighteen year-olds sexing it up. It should be sufficiently purient to meet your needs, and has the added advantage of satisfying your fantasy of young people having sex before your eyes. Just try and forget that they are eighteen, and focus on their immaturity.
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Bart Simpson…another child actor gone bad.
I saw that one coming.
Goodeye_Closed on December 8, 2008 at 10:40 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
I hope not.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Do you want your child porn collection protected by the 1st Amendment?
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 10:42 AM
And what’s considered a “sex crime”. A few years ago a teacher in the area ended up resigning because it was found that he had committed a “sex crime” against a minor. As a college student, he and a couple of his buddies drove by a sorority and mooned the co-eds standing out front. They got busted, and found out one of the coeds had a little (16 year old) sister visiting who witnessed their escapade. End result -the guy’s on the sex offender registry for committing a sex crime against a minor.
taznar on December 8, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Who is this “we”?
Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? If you’re drawing the picture, aren’t you the one who decides how old the people are? And if you draw them under-developed, aren’t you then saying the drawings are of underage kids?
By this last comment, you’re admitting that they’re just drawings that can represent whatever you want them to represent. By that logic, I can draw a picture of a 10-year-old and just claim it’s actually an under-developed 18-year-old.
Because in the end, it’s not real, and that’s the entire point here.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM
I’d really like to see the results of a study about that. As it stands, I see it more as a potential outlet that could possibly make them reconsider dropping by the local elementary school.
What difference does it make? It’s still a drawing of something that isn’t real, isn’t happening, isn’t occurring, and the person looking at the picture is still fantasizing about the same thing.
Also, why are you saying that “EVEN” drawings of blow jobs are fine? Drawings of ANYTHING are fine because they are DRAWINGS. We seem to be missing that somewhere.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Completely unnecessary slander.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 10:44 AM
You just said I should watch what I think. Don’t even try to dodge your own words. You are promoting thoughtcrimes. I don’t care who you are, that is fascism of the worst kind.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM
That’s the point. Draw them to look like children and they are children.
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I see. So the fact that there are clear headed Democrats bothers you? Democrats that you cannot just cast aside as nutroots?
your_worst_enemy on December 8, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I’m sure MadCon doesn’t need or want my defense. But you ruin your credibility by suggesting the man has prurient needs because he speaks up in defense of our First Amendment.
Being anti-war is not un-American; it’s short-sighted. Being anti First Amendment is un-American.
Diddling the First Amendment bespeaks your prurient interests.
The Race Card on December 8, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Why? He seems to want someone’s child porn drawings protected by the 1st Amendment. How is it slander to wonder whose?
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 10:48 AM
No, they’re drawings. If I draw myself a child, am I now a parent? If I draw myself murdering someone, am I a murderer? If I draw a million-dollar bill, am I now a millionaire?
The funny thing is, you’re making your argument based on the principle that others can’t distinguish drawings from reality, when so far you’ve proven you yourself cannot.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 10:48 AM
I said explicitly that there’s a difference between the immaterial and the material (as if this needs pointing out). Please quote me where I said that the immaterial should be criminalized.
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Ah, so now everyone’s guilty, and by your own words, the police should watch what materializes in everyone possession, and rightly so.
So, you want a police state that does random warrantless searches through people’s houses for drawings of things you don’t like.
Very nice.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Slander is a greater affront to personal freedom than these cartoons; watch yourself.
The Race Card on December 8, 2008 at 10:51 AM
He isn’t defending the 1st Amendment, he’s defending depictions of children having sex. This totally strips any legitimacy from his association with the word “conservative” in his moniker.
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Yet
MarkTheGreat on December 8, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Thoughts are not to be policed. If you believe they are, you are a fascist, and probably a liberal, given that they are responsible for hate crimes legislation, the most successful version of thought policing in this nation.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Yeah genius, random home searches without warrants is a necessary and logical conclusion to draw from my remarks.
Sorry, I thought you were a grown up. Maybe pictures drawn of you naked would qualify as child porn.
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 10:54 AM
A priapic Bart Simpson is probably not going to cause the end of civilization as we know it.
But CG animation can deliver results very close to photo-realistic. So “cartoon” characters need not look like the obviously-unreal Simspons – they may be very nearly indistinguishable from “genuine” (i.e. human-acted) porn, kiddie varient included, and the image quality is constantly being improved. Dissemination of images that are indistinguishable-from-real will fuel the kiddie-porn freak machine just as well as “genuine” ones. Does that change your level of comfort with this?
Also, the wire-frames and skeletons used as data in producing CG animation are often created by digitizing actual models of the character. Suppose a CG porno-child is based on digitization of an actual child’s body. Does that change your attitude?
Just sayin…
bofh on December 8, 2008 at 10:55 AM
That phrase sums up your whole argument Akzed. Your preferences not being met makes you mad. You’re egocentric and have no defense other than to “prefer” things be a certain way.
Listen to Bartelby.
The Race Card on December 8, 2008 at 10:56 AM
A) Yes
B) No. It involves a drawing of a child. (Therein lies the difference.)
MarkTheGreat on December 8, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Wrong. I’m defending drawings of any kind, as evidenced by my offering of numerous other examples of drawings of things that, were they real, would be criminal. I’m defending the right of the citizen to think whatever they want and not be persecuted for it, which you have clearly implied you would rather have happen.
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
Case in point, the silly things you have recently thought took material form once you wrote them down. Hence, had you paid more attention to what you were thinking, you wouldn’t have written such stupid things.
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 10:57 AM
This.
Asher on December 8, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Here’s a cartoon I find a little more offensive…but I am very glad I live in a country that could run in its major newspapers.
One day you’re going to wake up and realize you ascribed civil rights to Bart Simpson.
The Race Card on December 8, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Prove that I was there when it was drawn. Prove that it was something other than someone sitting in a room, by themselves, drawing what they saw in their mind. Prove any drawing of a child naked actually involved having a child in the room.
Burden of proof stings, don’t it?
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Then why would you suggest that people should draw children? If they’re under-developed, how can you tell they’re not children?
If I considered you clear-headed, I’d feel differently.
Don’t be disingenuous. Own it, or drop it.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 11:02 AM
…incredible.
End: You are a fascist, as you condone the policing and criminalization of thought, and the elimination of free speech and free expression. If you consider yourself conservative, you are sorely mistaken.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 11:03 AM
No and no, so long as no children are actually in any way involved in anything sexually explicit.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 11:05 AM
Wow. Old Simpsons porn is now Illegal in Austraila? Wow. Just, wow. Who is this moronic judge anyway?
Maybe the defense should have shown the guy some “loli” hentai. Nah, then they would have been guilty of murder, because this crazy Judge’s head would have exploded.
:)
wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Ooh,I saw them down in Mexico!
gzelmiami on December 8, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »