Cowabunga! Simpsons porn on the PC equals child pornography in Australia

Well its the government so you dont really know what exactly will they pop up with. I am guessing even that will be an excuse for them to force more crap down to the people.

 

I doesn't matter what age they're "suppose to be" if the character is portraying some one who is under age it's illegal.

 

actuly i have seen some on the images on tinta web ad bart and lisa look like 20 somthink well they did in the pick i have seen

 

Not in any non-thought-police states.

 

I think a lot of you guys here have some issues you all need looking at.

This is not about freedom or anything like it. On the basis of most of this threads argument for the ''Its only cartoons'' then I say to you it is not. It is a case about kiddie porn portrayed by cartoons to cover up the real intent of the cartoonist. What sick fuc* wants to watch cartoons who are supposed to be kids in harcore porn positions.

Any person here that is trying to say that this case is about civil liberties and that the judge is wrong should have the decency go and fall on a sword somewhere ,go join N.A.M.B.L.A or something.

With technology and graphics getting more lifelike these days and on the basis of many of the threads contributers here ,when a hardcore kiddy rape fest is released that is totally lifelike in its graphics it will be a matter of civil rights that you will be able to see it if one chooses.

I have 2 kids and mabe the sick ppl in this thread that cannot see past the ''its only a cartoon'' issue need to have children before they can see what the bigger picture is here.

Some Guru's need there head examined.

 

After you my friend.

I'm not saying I'd watch it, because I think it's sick myself, but since no PERSON is involved I fail to understand what is so bad about it. The reason kiddie porn is illegal is because there is an ACTUAL kid involved.

 

Because we know the law we are now criminals?

That's funny, freedom of speech is most certainly a right. The only times free speech isn't protected is speech that advocates violence or shouting "bomb" in a crowded theater. Just because it is disgusting doesn't make it not protected.

It is not real, did you read any of my explantion of law above, or did you just ignore the facts?

Intent is irrelvant, if there is no victim THERE IS NO CRIME.

Oh thats nice, anyone who disagrees with you is a child molester.

 

Yes we aussie suffer from all levels of government. From Fedral State to Council. The stat i live is in Victoria now known as the NANNY state.

 

On that basis you think then that the portray'l of kidi porn is fine ?.

Kiddie porn is an offence and against the law in the very large majority of country's on this planet. With the arguments you put forward you beleive that everyone should have the right to make and view images of whatever they want once there is no victim. What if there is a lifelike graphic cartoon wich looks real and it so happens that some of the characters look like real living ppl with or without the intent of the creator .The basis of your argument allows for this scenario.

Your explination of the law is not relevent as you do not live in Australia .

To say that intent is irrelavent because there is no victim is just so wrong .On that basis a person walking into a bank with a loaded gun to rob the bank who happens to be stopped outside the bank by the police cannot be charged because no crime has been commited . A police officer can stop and search a person and find a knife on the said person and cannot charge that person because no crime has been commited.

And to your final point.
This whole debate is not about civil liberties ,it is about a judge who deemed cartoons a person had dl'd wich the judge found offensive because they portray child sex. He judged them against the law in Australia. I totally agree with this point as Ive already said in an above post ''the line needs to be drawn somewhere'' . No one can defend the righs of any person to have any images portraying children in harcore porn (real,cartoon or computer generated) situations to me. Mabe when you have children you will understand.
Your arguments are wrong on so many levels.

 

Sounds like you're the only one with kiddie porn on the mind.

Two words... Minority Report.

How do you not understand that concept? Guilty before the crime is even commited. That is where this is headed.

 

I must agree with jonerkinsella here.

Whether Simpsons porn IS kiddie porn, or an equivalent at least in court, is not something I can authoritatively determine. However if it isn't, child pornographers can easily get away South Park style - claim that underage material (involving real people) is simply an inaccurate representation of 'legal' porn, and all proof of child pornography is only 'coincidental', 'unintentional'. While freedom is a beautiful thing, give it no boundary and there can only be anarchy.

To let justice be served, we must know whether McEwan is to become a pedophile in the future as a result of the Simpsons porn he has today. If he is, then considering possession of child pornography an offence today to prevent pedophilia tomorrow is just. If he isn't, then punishing him is unjust (unless legally arousal from an image is a criminal offence). Since we cannot read into the future, the legal system can only act as it sees most just given the scenario.

Real justice is hardly served nowadays...

OT: Despite my opinion on McEwan, I still find the Australian government somewhat oppressive with its plans to ration and filter the internets to the Australian peoples.

 

Let me refocus the argument . To quote the ot article ''Alan John McEwan found this out firsthand. McEwan had collected on his computer a set of cartoons featuring Simpsons characters in which "sexual acts are depicted as being performed, in particular, by the 'children' of the family," and depictions of genitalia are alarmingly frank. He was hauled into Parramatta Local Court for possessing child pornography and found guilty back in February 2008.''

the key issue here is the Simpson KIDS porn ,not cartoon porn.

Stukovs argument that there is no crime is not the point. As I have already stated above ''where do you draw the line'' .If a computer generated film can be generated to near lifelike quality and it is a film showing kids been raped etc ,What kind of ppl do you think will be watching this type of film ?. By supporting the rights of film makers to make such a film or pics puts the supporters on the same side of the fence in my book.

Freedom of speech my ar$e ,Its heading down a very slippery slope once you let crap like this go on without making the law clear.

 

How do you define KP? A image of any child that is naked? You do realize that billions of parents would be locked up simply for taking a picture of their kids in the bath tub? So, what is your 'realistic' defination of KP, what is the actual language you can turn into law?

Uh, thats exactly the point of free speech. Actually KP is abhorrant and while the actual images may be disguesting and immoral, banning cartoon images of it is the equivlent of censorship based on opinion. You are illegalizing thought. Any thoughts, images, sounds, etc that are not liked by those in control are banned and anyone opposed to it is a criminal. That is a police state or theocracy - slavery of the mind.

As a matter of criminal law it doesn't matter. It is art and protected under the first amendment of free speech. Someone could, however, attempt to sue in a civil courtroom.

The fundementals of law are the same in just about any place that has foundation of common law. Austrilia I believe is one of those places, I do not however know what rights the constitution of Australia provides, but my first post on legal precedent still holds water in whatever courtroom.

No it is not. If you do not have a victim you do NOT have a crime. If you do not have intent (except a few strict liability laws) you do NOT have a crime. Here, since you know nothing about law, about some education. Even as horrible as wikipedia may be, my law books are at home, and this should give you some idea on how to understanding law, more so than your ignorant state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(criminal)

Wrong, ever hear of attempted robbery? There can be a victim whether or not the crime was successful.

Correct, it is not illegal to carry a knife thus the person would not be charged. What point are you trying to make here?

So anything a judge finds offensive is illegal huh? Read my first post.

Actually, your argument fails on so many levels. You want to legislate opinion and taste. The 'line that has to be drawn' is a legal precedent that allows legislative bodies and judges to outlaw ANYTHING they want on the basis of the reasons he gave "that existence of such material may make someone go out and do illegal behavior". You do realize they could could make it illegal for you to speak out against the government, as that could lead to terrorism. Or illegal for you to watch anything other than faries dancing on bubbles, because watching violence could make you violent. It makes you a drone and it illegalizes thoughts NOT actions.

Whether I am a parent or not makes no difference, your argument holds no more water if you are a parent than if you are not. So what if you are a parent, making naked cartoon versions of kids illegal is that going to somehow protect your child? You think that by banning such material child molestors will be unable to harm your child? Are you mad?

 

We in australia do not have the same rights to free speech upon which your argument is based

 

I understand, however the legal precedent is set. They can make anything illegal that may lead to illegal activity. Regardless of free speech, that is not a good legal precedent. It also complete disregards the foundation of criminal law that exists in the modern world.

Btw, if you don't have a bill of rights, I suggest you get it ASAP.

 

Stukov ,your views of the law are not correct for most of the ppl on this planet.
Kiddie porn is not art . Carrying knives is an offence in most of Europe (unless it can be proven it is for hunting,work etc).

Thanks to high heavens the law you study is meaningless in the rest of the free world.

 

Well your views of law are not correct for most of the people on the planet, as most of the people live in China and India. And btw, the US has close to 300 million, Aussie has 20 million, so whose e-peen is bigger now?

So what is your point about carrying knives where it is supposedly illegal?

Thanks to high heavens your ignorance is meaningless in the whole world.

 

WTF? How come you guys are still going on about cartoon porn being equivalent to kiddie porn? Get some brains people.

Just BECAUSE YOU THINK IT"S SICK DOESN'T MAKE IT KIDDIE PORN OR WILL EVER MAKE IT KIDDIE PORN> BECAUSE NO CHILDREN OR HUMAN BEING FOR THAT MATTER WERE EVER USED IN THE CREATION OF SAID MATERIAL>

You can dig into the psyche of a person all you want but it doesn't make them guilty of a crime because YOU don't like what they are viewing (Especially since it's just drawings.).

 

we do have a bill of rights and you dont wont to see it in victoria. Bill of rights that put the minorities first and common sense out the window.

 

I do not really get your point .Are you trying to say because the US has 300m citizens your country is right because country's with a smaller population have less sovereignty or status and the country with the larger population is always right ?.
If you are indeed trying to study your law then I hope your not trying to be a defence lawyer.



@Biggerx . You should probably go back and read the 1st post of this topic because you obviosly have no idea what you are commenting on. It does not matter what I think .This topic is about what a judge thinks in a legal case in Australia that I totally agree with. A precedant had to be laid down to stop future implications like I have already argued.

Ohh Stukov ,you stated that it was legal to carry a knife and I pointed out that there are other places outside of the US (Look at a thing called an A-T-L-A-S) where it is not legal. Also iirc ,the bill of rights ( wich you seem to hold so dearly( The US version I take it unless its bought from ebay as you so ''suggest you get it ASAP'')) allows US citizens the right to own and bear firearms , This right is frowned upon by most countries (Ref: A-T-L-A-S) outside of the US borders.

You should probably put your Daddy's books away.