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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I can do no more than try to get you to understand the difference between the material world and the immaterial. If you can’t grasp that, I can’t help from here, but I’ll try one more time.
The immaterial world that exists in your brain cannot be compared to a pornographic drawing that is material by definition. You cannot be arrested or convicted for having thoughts known only to you, nor have I advocated this. However, bringing such thoughts into the material world could land you in trouble. I don’t think I need to list the many ways that thoughts turned into graphics can be criminal.
Remember, the word pornographic was coined long before the invention of the camera. The invention of the camera did not render all drawn or painted pornography as non-pronographic.
Also remember, no conservative would impute George Washington with the intention of protecting cartoons of child sex with the 1st Amendment.
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Like you even know me.
//eof
your_worst_enemy on December 8, 2008 at 11:07 AM
So anything that depersonifies another should be made illegal?
MarkTheGreat on December 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Again, doesn’t matter. It is not real. It is a depiction of something, for which there is no proof that the inspiration came from anywhere other than the artist’s mind.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 11:08 AM
If you really want to get stupid, The Simpsons first appeared on December 17, 1989 so all the characters were
legal (even Maggie) as of one year ago.
Case closed.
RobCon on December 8, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Yes, you do. There are portraits of guns pointed at Dubya’s head, porn movies that depict “schoolgirls” having sex, and films where people are brutally murdered in brutal, horrendous ways.
Please list me off the number of ways a “graphic” can be criminal that don’t infringe on freedom of expression. Please also explain texts such as The Turner Diaries, The Anarchist’s Cookbook, and Steal This Book.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 11:12 AM
and I can’t believe that there are people here trying to DEFEND making a DRAWING Illegal!
Good Lord, it’s not even a Still-life! it’s a freaking CARTOON for goodness’ sake!
Let’s be clear; Child pornography laws are in place to prevent REAL CHILDREN from being exploited and abused. If there is NO real child involved, no matter HOW distasteful the image is, there is NO crime.
Trying to criminalize cartoon porn is no different than trying to criminalize dirty thoughts.
wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 11:12 AM
I wasn’t aware that there was a discrepancy over whether or not cartoons can be porn. This is porn.
The debate is whether or not it should be illegal on the basis that it’s child porn.
Never said I knew you, as I’m sure I don’t. I’m just judging you based on what you’ve represented yourself as here in the comments at Hot Air.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Hang on. Now Azked has to ask you what you’re hiding because you dare defend free expression.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Hee hee!
Maybe I should take Akzed over to some of the *chans and show him some REAL nasty stuff?
:)
wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 11:17 AM
So some kid watch ‘Fritz the Cat’..
DaveC on December 8, 2008 at 11:18 AM
And what is that of? A middle-aged Lesbian that believes she ought to have the right to marry? I believe in that passionately and in the threads of comments on here that cover “all things gay”, I defend MY beliefs and MY sexuality as the opponents I see with as much vim and vigor as they do. Do you judge them by the same standard? Because I’ve read you as well and have seen you align yourself in comments that read far worse than anything I’ve ever written on here.
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’re right. Never in the history of jurisprudence has anything written ever been introduced into evidence. Actually, the Turner Diaries were used as evidence to convict a man who killed blacks. It went to background and motive.
You’re right. Due to the invention of the camera, the drawings on walls of ancient cities that were once deemed pornographic are now rendered non-pornographic, and not just in a retronymic sense but in an actual sense. You’re right.
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
So a guy was sent to prison for actually killing people. I’m still waiting for where a guy was sent to prison for writing a book or making a drawing.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 11:25 AM
The word “pornographic” appears nowhere in the Constitution. The actual legal demarcation relies on allegation of obscenity.
For example: Abridging the First Amendment is obscene.
The Race Card on December 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM
There were no automatic weapons in their day either. Nor were there .50 caliber weapons. Nor were there semi-automatic handguns. Does that mean they are not covered by the second amendment?
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM
If you’ve read what I’ve written, then you know my position on marriage even though your comments here seems to indicate that you don’t.
It’s comments like these that give me a specific impression of you. I’m sick of Christians being attacked by supposed “true” conservatives, whatever those are.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM
The Turner Diaries is far less offensive than your posturing herein. “Background and motive” have very little to do with the First Amendment. In fact you disprove your point.
If the Turner Diaries is so offensive…why is it in print? Dumbass.
The Race Card on December 8, 2008 at 11:29 AM
schach und matt
The Race Card on December 8, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Again, we’re accepting that this is pornography. I don’t know why you keep going back to that.
And really, what Washington specifically wanted or didn’t want is a little irrelevant. I don’t recall reading about him making any case on the specifics of the First Amendment.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 11:32 AM
So, in your mind, the only people who don’t think such drawings should be illegal, are those who have them.
Is it just me, or is this conversation taking the same turn, with pretty much the same actors, as Friday’s drug legalization thread?
MarkTheGreat on December 8, 2008 at 11:34 AM
People were prosecuted under the Comstock Law of 1873, and there were obscenity laws long before that.
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I’m not sure what 1st Amendment protections I’m “tossing out,” given that once again I’ll note that the Framers (the fellows who actually wrote and ratified the 1A) would likely have no issue in censoring what we’re talking about.
If anything, it’s the overbroad incorporation of the 1A from the past 40 years that is at issue, not the original meaning of the Amendment. Censorship was, after all, alive and well in late 18th Century America.
I’m wondering if it would be OK to show this new improved Simpsons cartoon on ABC at 9:00 am on a Saturday morning? Because if it wouldn’t be, well, it’s not censorship that’s the issue but the degree of it one is willing to tolerate…
JohnTant on December 8, 2008 at 11:43 AM
US lawmakers and courts have seen child porn as not protected by the 1st Amendment–at least to the extent that it is evidence of an underlying crime.
In 2003 congress passed and Bush signed the PROTECT Act that outlaws computer-generated virtual child porn. Part of the act was upheld in 2008 by SCOTUS in US v Williams. It isn’t clear from reading the decision whether SCOTUS would uphold the part of the law against virtual porn. In reading Scalia’s opinion there is reason to think the question might come down to whether those viewing the porn believed they were seeing a simulation or something that involved actual children.
dedalus on December 8, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Does the existence of adult porn cause the rape of adults?
MarkTheGreat on December 8, 2008 at 11:44 AM
No. As such, this would be no different than a movie being taken of a live rape. It is still the actual abuse of a real live child that makes the difference.
MarkTheGreat on December 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM
That’s a ridiculous standard. By that standard, no porn should ever be allowed, even the most mundane, a video of sex between a married man and woman, in their own home, using their own camera, would also be illegal.
In fact, by that standard, we can’t have anything with a rating over PG.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Dear…god.
You’re citing Comstock.
The guy who arrested a man for writing an open letter to Jesus Christ.
Hoo boy.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 11:48 AM
I’m still waiting for evidence that you understand the difference.
MarkTheGreat on December 8, 2008 at 11:50 AM
This one paragraph demonstrates everything that is wrong with so-called Christians. Intolerance, assumption and hypocrisy. That is the true holy trinity of religious zealots on all sides. Reading comments by so-called Christians in this thread reminds me of comments made by Muslims who wanted a certain Danish cartoonist beheaded. Birds of a feather….
grdred944 on December 8, 2008 at 11:51 AM
And how do we determine that? It’s a ludicrous premise to base law creation on what people think they see in an image that was based on the thought in someone’s head.
And again, we’re not arguing in favor of child porn, or arguing that a drawing of a child engaged in sex is not pornographic. We are arguing that a drawing has nothing to do with reality, unless you can provide video or photographic evidence that when the drawing was being made, there was actual child exploitation occurring. Once more, it’s like saying that if someone draws a murder scene, we are assuming that the person who made the drawing murdered someone.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Give ME a break Esthier. You call THAT an attack? Grow up. I dont LIKE Religious Nutcases because they want to tell me how to live and how to think. And they’re not even happy with that, they want to legislate it.
Are you one of THOSE Christians? Do you defend those Christians because you believe like them, or JUST because they are Christians?
your_worst_enemy on December 8, 2008 at 11:51 AM
What standard? I’m not building a standard.
The example is to show that, despite some representations, most all of us in this thread are actually in favor of censorship. If you want to carry it further than that, feel free, but don’t build a strawman out of it.
JohnTant on December 8, 2008 at 11:52 AM
your_worst_enemy – So which would I be then?
I oppose abortion and my single biggest issue in the presidential election was Obama’s defense of abortion practitioners, at the expense of live babies, in the Chicago legislature. I would have opposed him anyway, because he believes that social “problems” should be handled by government intervention, while I want to government to be as minimal as possible.
I’m still not sure where I stand on gay marriage, but not because God told me that gay people are evil. Marriage isn’t recognized by the state for the good of the couples that wish to marry. Take one look at the tax implications and that’s obvious, and marriage laws that were designed for heterosexual unions are more complicated than most people like to pretend they are. A woman that marries a man and has children with him, then gets a divorce, who subsequently marries another woman (that may or may not have children of her own), will find herself in a complicated morass of inheritance issues, child support issues, etc. Family law, of which marriage laws are only a small part, are written on the basic assumption that one party is clearly the husband and the other is clearly the wife. Trying to shove the square peg of same sex couples into the round hole of family law that’s based on thousands of years of assumptions and traditions – does that sound rational? Sometimes I think the main people pushing this agenda are divorce attorneys, as they stand to make a lot of money and have a lot of fun with the havoc that would be caused. Why would any gay couple want to be treated the same, legally, as a straight couple? Marriage is recognized legally because there is long term evidence that it is an institution that serves the common, public, good, particularly as it protects the rights of children. Should gay marriages have the same focus? Shouldn’t gay couples argue for an institution that favors their particular circumstances?
I’m Catholic, but almost never attend church. I didn’t get an annulment before I remarried, though I would be granted one without any trouble if/when I apply.
The idea that anyone could be charged with a crime for possessing cartoon porn is horrifying to me. In fact, I’m sort of partial to certain porn myself, though I believe that policing of that industry should be rigorous, as the opportunity for the abuse of individual rights is so high.
So there we are. Catholic, oppose abortion, mostly oppose gay marriage, fairly okay with porn, and conservative. Oooh, I oppose illegal immigration and support the right to keep any damn arms of my choice, too. Am I a social con? A religious nut? A backwoods xenophobic clinger?
Does anyone really fit in these cliched categories? They work fine for predicting how groups of people will tend to vote, but this mania for buttonholing, and denigrating, individuals, and for making broad assumptions about what informs their political decisions, is insulting and dishonest. It has gone on for so long that conservatives have started turning this crap on each other, branding whole swaths of the party as religious nuts if they oppose abortion or gay marriage. A religious nut can have the same concerns, and reach decisions by the same logic that’s available to a libertarian. I know quite a few people that call themselves libertarian, or fiscal conservatives, whose political beliefs are no more consistent or thoughtful than the stereotypical religious bitter clingers – they just think it sounds more intellectual. I don’t mind so much when the liberals come in here and toss that bigotry around, as they don’t seem to know any better, but I’m disappointed by the number of so-called conservatives that have jumped on this bandwagon lately.
If you’re joining them, then you’ve given up on beating them. That’s what will kill conservatism. Opposition to issues like gay marriage has a place in conservative thought, for conservative reasons. That doesn’t mean that we can’t have disagreement about it, or that it has to become the biggest plank in the platform, but why are we accepting the caricatures drawn by the opposition and using them against each other?
/er, soapbox off
ral514 on December 8, 2008 at 11:56 AM
The standard of, what’s good enough for 9am cartoon time.
No, that shows that people believe that there is a time and place for things that don’t meet accepted standards of decency. That doesn’t amount to censorship.
So, I’m sick of Christians being attacked and am therefore like those Muslims who want cartoonists beheaded.
I can’t argue with that logic.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Honestly, I’d say let the market decide. If we reach a level in society that accepts such luridness with our Cheerios…then we deserve it.
The market is the best censor going. Now get your laws out of my gutter.
The Race Card on December 8, 2008 at 11:58 AM
You really must never have read my comments or must have me confused with someone else. I’m the favorite target of our most insane Hot Air zealots. One won’t stop calling me a whore, and the other two are more content with just deciding that I’m not really a Christian.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 11:59 AM
On the contrary….
If something is prohibited from being shown because it’s not in the correct time and place based on what those people’s standard is…it’s the very essence of censorship.
JohnTant on December 8, 2008 at 12:03 PM
@ral514
>> That doesn’t mean that we can’t have disagreement about it, or that it has to become the biggest plank in the platform, but why are we accepting the caricatures drawn by the opposition and using them against each other?
Ask the people in your party that? I’m a Democrat, and painted with the same wide swath, merely for being a Democrat.
Were I to actually live up to everyone’s standards around here, I would need to be unemployed, on welfare, driving a moped since I wouldnt be able to afford the Prious without a job, and dope dealer that supports Muslim terrorists.
your_worst_enemy on December 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Good perspective, but why can’t the market speak through government? The pocketbook isn’t the only way markets speak, right?
I bet one could find a porno channel at 9am on Saturday morning, which is also a way of the market speaking. Right?
Backing up a little, my thought isn’t supposed to define indecency but rather to take an outrageous example and suggest that if you don’t want something shown on KidVid then you’re probably in favor of censorship. That’s about it.
JohnTant on December 8, 2008 at 12:06 PM
None of which I am.
your_worst_enemy on December 8, 2008 at 12:07 PM
That’s because that’s a business decision by a network. Criminal charges are censorship.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Actually, in the United States, this HAS been ruled as Child Pornography. This is because there WAS a real live child abused in order to get the source-material for the CG.
It’s the same for taking a child porn image, and running it through Photoshop using the Charcoal filter. While it is no longer the same image, the new file uses kiddie-porn as it’s source. So it counts.
Ultimately, in the US, all that matters is the source. If the source for the image is derived directly from the sexual exploitation and abuse of a child, then it is Kiddie porn, even if it LOOKS like CG.
However, if the source for the image is nothing more than the imagination of the artist, then it is NOT kiddie porn.
This is because in the US, Child Porn laws are there to protect REAL LIVE children, not to police dirty thoughts. If there is no real live child exploited or abused at any point in the production process, then it is NOT kiddie porn, and not criminal.
wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Just for a note, there is a place in Madison that, on Sunday mornings, serves “Smut ‘n Eggs”, where you apparently can get breakfast and watch porn simultaneously.
The idea sickens me.
The law protecting porn makes me proud.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 12:09 PM
It’s certainly not the definition of the word. To censor is to not allow objectionable material to be seen, not to allow it to be seen at a later time or on a different channel.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 12:10 PM
If I go home and write a book about a 240 year old alien vampire that was “turned” when she was 12, and write about her having sex with hundreds of men for money (because sex with minors is a lucrative business), that would be child pornography to you?
A. Its a fictional character.
B. Its a fictional being (vampire).
C. Its not a human (she’s an alien, although she looks human in every sense).
D. She appears to be 12. She’s really 240 and probably has a good deal more life experience than anyone else around here (author limitations not proceeding), but because she looks like a child, she’s a minor.
Really, you’re whole argument here appears to rest on one of two stances…
1. The artist committed a crime (child pornography) by drawing a cartoon with a representation of a child having sex. Therefore, the holder/purchaser/viewer of the cartoon committed a crime (possession of child pornography) by viewing or possessing the cartoon.
2. The act of viewing or creating *too* lifelike of drawings of children engaged in sex acts is actually equal to viewing or creating *real* child porn. You even say that if you want to get your jollies this way, draw an 18 year old that is under developed…In other words, we’re all walking a fine line if we do anything other than think about sex, because even writing about illicit sex acts can get us imprisoned…
For all of your well formed grammar, you really haven’t a clue, have you?
I don’t have to own a gun (I don’t), to fully support the 2nd Amendment. Similarly, I don’t have to own, enjoy, draw, or view cartoon porn in order to believe in the protection of the 1st Amendment.
To answer a previous poster; if someone were to create a CG representation of a child (even one based directly upon a real child model) engaged in sexual acts, it *WOULD NOT BE* child pornography. It would be pornography, but there was no crime committed.
Do you realize why we have laws against having sex with minors? Because they are minors. They are too young to give consent, are easily manipulated, can be hurt, etc. We are *protecting* them, do we need to protect cartoons? Have you never seen or read a graphic novel? Surely, you can tell the difference between reality and fiction?
One last analogy and then I give up. You know what sex dolls are, right? Well, if someone created a sex doll that looked like a 10 year old, and some person “used” it, would that be sex with a minor? Can you tell me the difference?
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 12:11 PM
So nanny state government moving towards socialism?
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 12:13 PM
A few years ago, a friend sent me some cartoons. X rated. It was the Flintstones and The Simpson’s. There was not children in them. They were not very graphic and I laughed. But, if someone is drawing the kids having sex. Well to each their own. I wouldn’t have been laughing. But with all that is happening in our Country. Why are the courts wasting time with this? Trials cost money. Child porn is serious issue though. Just depends on the person’s intent with this cartoon. Porn that is not to crazy can be therapeutic for some relationships. Can help bring err……You know. There is nothing wrong with it. It is just some of the disgusting things that some have in their movies. Kids shouldn’t be watching porn of people nor cartoons though. This is very controversy issue. Can’t wait to read the outcome of this. Keep us informed on what happens Ed.
sheebe on December 8, 2008 at 12:14 PM
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.
Duh! Didn’t see this! Sorry glasses weren’t on my eyes.
sheebe on December 8, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Then you take a more absolutist definition of the term, which is your perogative but not necessarily what’s at issue here.
I’m willing to bet that if you asked 100 people to describe a situation where a network wasn’t allowed to air something at a certain time of day, the significant majority would say censorship. Indeed, the 60’s censors were all about things which could be shown in a given place and time. After all, censorship isn’t the exclusive purview of a government.
JohnTant on December 8, 2008 at 12:17 PM
I agree that Congress passes a lot of bad laws, but from looking at the PROTECT Act of 2003 I think an eager prosecutor could bust a software company that created virtual child porn. Perhaps the conviction would be overturned if the appeal made it to the Supreme Court.
I agree that artistic expression should be given the broadest protection possible. However, what is in someone’s mind is material in determining whether a crime has been committed. Courts can convict if someone buys a bag of oregano from an undercover cop who says it is pot, or if someone conspires to have his wife killed with contract killers who use Photoshop to fake the murder scene.
If someone were to trade in child porn where the acts were simulated or the actors themselves were computer simulations, but the purchaser of the pornography believed that children were used I think that person would have a legal problem.
dedalus on December 8, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Not sure I understand what you’re trying to say.
I’m simply pointing out that markets speak with many voices through many channels. One of those channels is government, similar to how business often choose to speak (ever wonder about arcane licensing restrictions of, say, taxis or hairdressers? They are ways to restrict entry into a market). I’m not saying it’s for good or ill, merely that it is.
JohnTant on December 8, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I wouldn’t classify “Fritz the Cat” as porn just because it happens to have some sex scenes in it. Animated X-rated film, yes, but not necessarily porn (and very much relevant only to the time it was made).
As far as this case goes:
1) I remember when the Simpsons came out there was a picture that was going around my school that implied incest between Bart and Maggie. Since this is a family forum, I will not describe what it depicted and what the punchline was. So this isn’t the first time that The Simpsons have been depicted in porn.
2) Anyone who would want to see cartoon siblings “getting it on” is sick in the head.
3) The fact remains, though, that this isn’t real. It’s a drawing, a cartoon. No laws really broken.
ScoopPC11 on December 8, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I posted this story on my site earlier and the reaction has been a steady stream of outrage. definitely stupidity
Drunk Report on December 8, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Exactly!
Eating eggs is basically the act of eating an aborted chicken. What could be more offensive?
Wait…that’s not the point you were making is it?
I kid only because you’re making too much sense for me to try and pile any more logic atop your commendable rant.
The Race Card on December 8, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Incorrect.
At least, in the United States. Look up the CHILD PORNOGRAPHY PREVENTION ACT 1996, and the PROTECT Act of 2003, which modifies the CPPA. You will find my post to be legally correct. In the US, anyway.
wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Was more for the sake of anecdote. Madison has no logic, so extrapolating it from places in this city is an exercise in futility. Not long ago there was actually a restaurant called Che’s Lounge, with the psychopathic killer’s face painted on the walls.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 12:25 PM
There is a distinct difference between me preventing my kids from viewing porn and censorship. For adults, I don’t think it matters when you show porn, if they want to view it, let them, no matter the time or day. There are PPV channels available 24 hours a day, so someone can watch porn (showing 18+ actresses depicting underage schoolgirls, no doubt) right now if they want…wish granted.
You need to re-check that comment.
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Pornography is often found in possession of rapists, yes. Is this news to you?
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 12:27 PM
That’s fine. I am saying it’s for ill. I’d rather the market not be guided so directly.
I’m just going by the definition. I don’t see any reason to go by anything else.
It’s censorship when Comedy Central decides that South Park can’t show it’s scene depicting Mohamed, but it’s not censorship that South Park cannot be shown at 9am on ABC during Saturday morning cartoons.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Hmm. This is an interesting dilemna. I won’t argue about the legality of it, but I will object to your idea that Cartoon characters cannot represent real people Ed, and we don’t need to protect our children from them. Let me give you some things to think about. Have you seen some of the real life animations they are capable of making these days? They can make near life-like drawings of people, figures, and even animals. So cartooning can definitely be a threat to children – even adults. So I see no justification for X-Rated animations even if they are the Simpsons. I mean, in the case of the Simpsons, we don’t protect our children from basic pornographic cartoon characters? Only from life-like cartoons? That doesn’t make any sense to me. Our babies are in danger both ways and we need to build safeguards.
By the way, let me stop right here and kick this rabbit, uh, chase this rabbit as we walk bye. How do you become a “registered” sex offender? God’s law is broken every time we look at another person with lust. It’s called pornography of the mind. “Whoever looks on a woman to lust for her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). You are guilty of breaking God’s Law and your name is registered in Heaven as a sex offender. Fortunately, for us though, we have a thing called repentance and faith through Jesus and God can wipe your slate clean because of what He did on the cross.
apacalyps on December 8, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I think I’d be successful in beating that rap. In the case you stated, a child was actually “abused” (I believe that was your word), which is the crime. If a child was just a model and no law was broken in obtaining the representation of the model (no exploitation), I’d bet this case would never see court.
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 12:30 PM
The analogical lengths to which y’all must go proves the ridiculousness of wanting to protect drawings of children having sex. You should go pull your brains out.
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 12:31 PM
I think the difference is that Geministorm was talking about graphics that didn’t expose a child to something sexually explicit. From what I understand, your example did.
Likely, and I’m sure they all drink water too.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Guns are often found in the possession of murderers. Do guns cause murder?
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I protect my kids from pornography and other inappropriate (by my personal standards), not cartoons. I don’t let my kids watch Family Guy, for example. But, I do let them watch Airbender. I’m not protecting them from cartoons, but from material that is inappropriate.
The same is true in the Australian case. I’m not for protecting cartoons from “misuse”, just real humans. If the original artist wants to sue for copyright infringement, its alright by me.
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Excellent retort.
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Again, it comes down to the source.
If it was just a “modeling” situation where a child wore one of those black leotards with the white sensor dots on them and walked and jumped and ran and sat down and just generally did all sorts of NON SEXUAL movements, and then you used that data to create a “skeleton” model so you could recreate realistic CG motion, then no.
However, you are walking a fine line there, and I suspect you would have a long, ugly legal fight on your hands.
wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 12:38 PM
They’re all human too. Does that prove your point?
Are you now willing to claim that there is no cause and effect whatsoever between sexual deviance and preoccupation with pronography?
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Likely less causality than with liquor and DWI. Still liquor is legal and enjoyed in a healthy manner by people who will never wreck a car while drunk.
dedalus on December 8, 2008 at 12:43 PM
I don’t see how that’s necessary, as you’ve yet to prove your case that there is a direct link.
As I said earlier to Madison, I can see how some would feel that cartoonish porn would only fuel a perverts desire to actually have sex with a child, but even that doesn’t go towards explaining a direct link.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Actually, the lengths we go to are to explain to the dense that which we understood from the beginning.
Nothing I’ve seen from you can possibly associate cartoons “crimes” with real crimes. Why don’t you give it another shot?
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 12:45 PM
I think the problem we are having here is that you are talking about emotional, psychological and spiritual effects and causes of pedophilia, and we are talking about the actual LEGAL issues surrounding ruling cartoon porn involving pretend children as Child Porn.
They are two separate issues, even if they topically overlap.
I have already addressed the legal issues (in the US, anyway) just read through the CPPA and the Protect act of 2003 and you will have your legal/not legal answers.
All the other stuff is better left to a sociology or psychology class discussion.
wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM
That’s an old, old debate. As of yet, there have yet to be conclusive studies on the topic. So, until there is such evidence to support such a conclusion, the link does not exist.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Arguing morals with a moral imbecile is like trying to convince a blind man of the color green. The fault’s all mine. Sorry to have prodded you into wasting time you could have spent with your crayons drawing kiddie porn.
Akzed on December 8, 2008 at 12:51 PM
You are not a moral authority. Nor was your hero, Comstock. You both make the mistake to appoint yourselves as such.
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM
That’s actually the main problem here. You’re arguing morals, while the people you’re arguing with are arguing the law.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM
BINGO!
You see, I don’t think ANY of us think that Cartoon porn representing children is MORALLY correct, and CERTIANLY not tasteful. However, what is morally correct and what is LEGALLY correct are sometimes two different things.
You can desire that cartoon porn involving drawn children be illegal and regulated under child porn laws, but the US government has already found that it is not, as long as no real child was exploited or abused in the production process.
In other words, while you are MORALLY correct, you are LEGALLY wrong. No matter how eloquently you word it.
wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 12:57 PM
That’s great, Gemini. So many parents don’t do what you do. They allow their kids to watch anything they choose and it’s causing alot of problems in our youth today. Crime rates have skyrocketed and moral filth is on the rise. The only thing I would add is that instead of deciding what’s right or wrong according to our own “personal standards”, we need to base it on God’s personal standards. If you’re not a believer, don’t think I want to debate here. I am a believer and this is only a warning. The Bible says, “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death” (Proverbs 14:12). We make an awful mistake taking our moral guide of what feels good and seems natural. Thank you. Have a wonderful day.
apacalyps on December 8, 2008 at 1:09 PM
While reading CPPA, a look at Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition which overturned part of the law offers an interesting analysis of the contention between free speech and protecting children.
dedalus on December 8, 2008 at 1:13 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
Wow, this is a heated one!
Did anyone ever think (like I do) that this cartoon image has nothing to do with pornography (although could be labeled as such)? It is supposed to be funny – two CARTOON characters having sex – something that we would not normally see from the creators. People have done this for years. Ever see Fred and Wilma Flintstone? The Smirfs? The novelty is what makes it funny, then it gets old and we move on. I would bet that people getting sexual thoughts in their head by looking at these images is quite rare, if ever.
mdmarq on December 8, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Because govt is the anti-thesis of the market.
The market works by persusion. The govt works through force.
The market works by giving people what they want. The govt works by telling people what they can have.
If you think that the two are compatible then you have no real conception of how either govt or the market works.
MarkTheGreat on December 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Bingo. If a piece of art does not in any way involve real, breathing, actual children, it is 100% legal. Maybe tasteless and sick, but legal.
Being a kiddie-fiddler is bad, no doubt. But it is insanity to try to punish people for crimes of any kindthat never occur in the real world. Nobody should be charged for drawing ‘child porn’ that is completely fictitious.
Now of course you can refuse to allow such art on your website or in your home, even petition your ISP to refuse service to sites that do. Right to refuse service and all that. But ‘toons are ‘toons people! Drop your ‘for the children’ thinking and let them be!
Dark-Star on December 8, 2008 at 1:25 PM
That’s how they pretty much come off. They’ve been around many, many years, and I actually forget how I’ve stumbled across them; I was a big fan of the show, so it was probably inevitable that I would. Now I get to learn that seeing them means I would be legally responsible for child porn in Australia and a pervert needing help in the eyes of Ed. They did strike me as rather funny, and it’s hard to think of anything that’s a simple line drawing of Simpsons characters in compromising positions as “hard core.” Heck, I found actual episodes like Lisa’s Date with Density, The Sweetest Apu, and Natural Born Kissers far more provocative.
Then again, “toonophile” is a real word….
calbear on December 8, 2008 at 1:27 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
Milk, butter and eggs are also often found in the possesion of rapists.
MarkTheGreat on December 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Are you sure that Akzed beleives there is any difference?
MarkTheGreat on December 8, 2008 at 1:31 PM
Ted: Before we go any further, it is important to me that people believe what I’m saying. I’m not blaming pornography. I’m not saying it caused me to go out and do certain things. I take full responsibility for all the things that I’ve done. That’s not the question here. The issue is how this kind of literature contributed and helped mold and shape the kinds of violent behavior.
JCD: It fueled your fantasies.
Ted: In the beginning, it fuels this kind of thought process. Then, at a certain time, it is instrumental in crystallizing it, making it into something that is almost a separate entity inside.
JCD: You had gone about as far as you could go in your own fantasy life, with printed material, photos, videos, etc., and then there was the urge to take that step over to a physical event.
Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder and gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far.
Ted: Once you become addicted to it, and I look at this as a kind of addiction, you look for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material. Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder and gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far – that jumping off point where you begin to think maybe actually doing it will give you that which is just beyond reading about it and looking at it.
Dark-Star on December 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Right, and that’s a big problem for America today. Society is pushing us to be tolerant of all sorts of immoral behavior because it has become a crime to say certain types of behaviour is destructive. We are witnessing some of the most appalling examples of moral and spiritual chaos that one can encounter anytime in history, because everybody is doing things that which is right in his own eyes — all under the protection of the law of the land.
apacalyps on December 8, 2008 at 1:38 PM
…said Ted Bundy, a man who used his words to lure women to their deaths.
You can trust him!
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Oh, by the way.
Charles Manson blamed his killings on the Beatles.
You know what that means!
MadisonConservative on December 8, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Some of you guys are hopless dinosaurs!
Rule 34 is ALWAYS in effect!
pseudonominus on December 8, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Indeed. It seems to me that these monsters are just trying to excuse the evil in their hearts with liberal psychobabble pap. I don’t see any reason to believe them.
wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 2:03 PM
This is no different than blaming video games for violence.
Some people do feel this way and do react this way to pornography (as some do with video games), but the vast majority do not.
Esthier on December 8, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Ayup.
wearyman on December 8, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Interesting idea. I always tend to wonder if the cops knew something we don’t know. This could very well have been a sort of Al Capone situation (i.e., the only thing they could get the gangster on was mail fraud). Maybe this guy had loads of real kiddie porn that got thrown out on a technicality of some sort.
Or maybe not. If the guy was a real threat, and the judge was truly concerned about something undisclosed to the public, he would have handed down a stronger verdict that a $2000 fine. All speculation of course…
ramrocks on December 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I’m sorry Akzed, you seem to be unable to discern what we were talking about. Almost to a person, we were discussing the legality of cartoon porn/erotica. For the most part, we acknowledged that cartoon porn was distasteful or even immoral. However, you took it to the level that since it was “material” realized from a pedophilic (word?) imagination, that it was in fact child porn, that the imagery actually constituted a criminal act.
You have failed to distinguish between your morals and the law, don’t blame me/us for your misunderstanding. My morals would say; don’t draw this, don’t view this, don’t think about this, and don’t let your family be exposed to this. However, just because I don’t want to be exposed to it doesn’t make it “child pornography”. Numerous examples were given, just because some person fantasizes about killing their boss doesn’t mean that making a cartoon drawing of their boss’s head being cut off is “murder”. Do you even get that, or are you really that far gone?
Geministorm on December 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »