Does the team think?

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
08/12/2008 20:39

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.



They therefore contested that the conviction for the possession of child pornography should be overturned.



Justice Michael Adams said the purpose of anti-child pornography legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of "real" children were depicted.



But in a landmark ruling he decided that did not mean that they could not be considered people.



Better stop the cartoons now then.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
08/12/2008 21:01

My point is... do you really think a Simpsons cartoon however rude it is should be categorised as child porn?



I just can't see what the prudish judge is trying to achieve other than drawing attention to what is probably pretty dumb crap at best....



It's like the BBC banning the Sex Pistols... best thing that ever happend to them and it made them very famous...

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
08/12/2008 21:06

Groucho, this is absurd. How can a cartoon character be depicted as child porn. Absolutely ridiculous. I think someone should investigate the Judge he clearly has a problem.

britvic



Joined: 05/09/2008
Posts: 3039

Message Posted:
08/12/2008 21:11

I could understand if they didn't want children to see it, therefore I take it, it carries an 18 cert?

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
08/12/2008 21:28

I don't think it's a real Simpsons cartoon but the doodling of a nerd who thought he'd make himself famous by taking the cartoon further than Matt Groening ever dreamt...



I think the judge has lost the plot... these things are best ignored... but then I guess the case was brought before him by zealous prosecutors and an appeal..

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
08/12/2008 21:37

.....and a big fat fee!

elenia


Joined: 24/01/2008
Posts: 28

Message Posted:
08/12/2008 21:38

A rather over-zealous decision in my opinion. Look out anyone with hentai on their pc's - those characters look like kids. And no I don't make a point of looking at hentai lol >.<

ozwozz86


Joined: 24/10/2008
Posts: 336

Message Posted:
08/12/2008 22:03

I think you all miss the point. In the program, Lisa, Bart and Maggie are deemed to be no older than ten, maggie is just a baby. To have these characters on your computer committing sexual acts is absolutely disgusting.



If this guy had pictures of say, Homer and Marge committing these acts, nothing would have been said.



Mr Groucho, if that is your real name...Maggie, Bart and Lisa are depicted as children in a cartoon show. Let me try and make my point. If there was a real life family made into a cartoon show, would it be acceptable to have images of the said cartoon baby('s) committing sexual acts, knowing full well they are based on a real FAMILY? The Simpsons is a humorous form of a real life family. Homer, the lazy dad, Bart the troublesome son, Lisa the school nerd. These characters are based on kids!!

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
08/12/2008 22:30

Yeah but you are not meant to take it seriously!



The fact is this type of litigation will nothing more than make a cult hero out of the man... which makes the use of the law as about as daft as it can get...



I'm not advocating the work be given airtime just the opposite...

elenia


Joined: 24/01/2008
Posts: 28

Message Posted:
08/12/2008 22:48

Yes it's tasteless and perhaps 'disgusting' but I really can't see how it can be classed as child pornography. They aren't real people they are fictitious. If Australia has the same laws as the UK about child pornography then this guy is now on a sex offenders register and will have to disclose this when he goes for job interviews etc. All for having a crappy simpsons spoof on his pc. It just seems OTT to me.

Peeky



Joined: 08/05/2008
Posts: 100

Message Posted:
08/12/2008 22:52

The Judge has missed the plot here. He has allowed his disgust as a parent to over-ride the purpose of the computer child pornography law. The purpose of the law is to protect the children. The topic of child pornography brings a natural revulsion reponse in normal people, who want it eradicated to protect the children. It is damaging to children on two counts. First to the children used to make it. This damages the child involved for life. Second it encourages paedophiles to network - wannabe paedophiles encouraged by the presence of others of their ilk are I believe more likely to bring their fantasies to reality.

Sure the people involved in making and viewing cartoon child pornography are sad sickos, but I don't believe they harm children. So his decision is wrong.

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
09/12/2008 13:13

i have always thought the simpsons are more of a teenager thing.

would love to put a quote but if i do i would be moderated,lol.