Sponsored Links

[moif]

An Australian court has decided that fictious cartoons of children being sexually abused, in this case Bart and Lisa Simpson is akin to child pornography and thus illegal.

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 the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.

Link.

I have seen these images online, here and there. I've never liked them (or The Simpsons in general) but I never thought of them as child pornography before. This case makes me wonder about the future of Manga and the ramifications for artists.

I also wonder, if a person draws an illegal sexual act using wholly fictious characters, who exactly is being hurt? In other words, does this ruling punish paedophiles simply for being paedophiles as opposed to having committed an actual crime against a real person?

Questions for debate:

Do you agree with the judges decision that cartoons = child abuse?
Feel free to explain any thoughts you might have

Do you disagree?

Could this ruling come to apply in your country?

[Iona]

An Australian court has decided that fictious cartoons of children being sexually abused, in this case Bart and Lisa Simpson is akin to child pornography and thus illegal.

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 the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.

Link.

I have seen these images online, here and there. I've never liked them (or The Simpsons in general) but I never thought of them as child pornography before. This case makes me wonder about the future of Manga and the ramifications for artists.

I also wonder, if a person draws an illegal sexual act using wholly fictious characters, who exactly is being hurt? In other words, does this ruling punish paedophiles simply for being paedophiles as opposed to having committed an actual crime against a real person?

Questions for debate:

Do you agree with the judges decision that cartoons = child abuse?
Feel free to explain any thoughts you might have

Do you disagree?

Could this ruling come to apply in your country?

Dude!!!
I do not know what to say. Cheezes Christ.
No, I do not agree with the Judge. I could, depending on situation agree with the general idea, but not this example, to go so far calling cartoon animated 'fun clips' child pornography is insulting to the ones that are really affected by it. No, this is ridiculous and scary.

[entspeak]

Do you agree with the judges decision that cartoons = child abuse?
Feel free to explain any thoughts you might have

This is a huge victory for toon rights. Animated children have been exploited for centuries... even decades. It's about time some guy recognized that we're people, too. It's true, after this landmark ruling I can finally come out of the animated closet - that I shared with animated Tom Cruise, animated John Travolta and animated R. Kelly on South Park. I AM A CARTOON! There I said it! And now we've got official recognition, _{in australia}, that we're people, too. Calloo Callay, I chortle in my joy! Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy!

But, seriously, this ruling is ridiculous... just because they aren't realistic representations of human beings does not mean they could not be considered people?

Would it be illegal to print out a picture of Lisa Simpson and have sex with it because she's underage?

[Wertz]

Do you agree with the judges decision that cartoons = child abuse?

No. The idea is patently absurd. As suggested by Iona, the ruling punishes pedophiles simply for being pedophiles rather than having committed an actual crime against a real person - if, in this case, pedophiles were even involved in creating the "Simpsons porn".

Could this ruling come to apply in your country?

It already does. The PROTECT Act was signed into law by President Bush on April 30, 2003. "PROTECT" stands for "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today" - anything for an acronym.

SEC. 504. OBSCENE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 71 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1466 the following:

Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children

(a) IN GENERAL- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--

(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

(B) is obscene; or

(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and

(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

(b) ADDITIONAL OFFENSES- Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--

(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

(B) is obscene; or

(2)(A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and

(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value;

or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2), including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.
(c) NONREQUIRED ELEMENT OF OFFENSE- It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

[emphasis mine]

Oh, those backward Aussie judges!


This post has been edited by Wertz: Dec 11 2008, 06:52 AM

[Iona]

This entire thing makes no sense to me, nor anyone else here I gather.
According to this ruling, that means anything can be deemed to be 'child abuse', 'pedophilia', or whatever name you prefer to use. The actual crimes become irrelevant, and people who happen to have a liking of, lets say, cartoon sex, which is no different from anyone liking 'regular' pornography, or a bit of a spank or toys. It makes no sense. What if they go further? Are we going to include thought crimes maybe?

Bare with me here. If drawing (which is a very good skill) animated cartoons in sexual acts is a crime, then obviously the thought of doing so must be as well (they are both equally innocent). Maybe highly sophisticated psychological tests should be included in work places to find anyone having thoughts or inclines that does not fit? When we find these people we arrest them, put them in jail together with other scumbags like murderous, rapist and of course, pedophiles, they are the same after all.

Actually, I think sodomy should be included as a wrong as well, that way we can get all the homosexuals. SIEG HEIL.... oh, sorry, I got carried away there. I apologize.

[DaffyGrl]

Do you agree with the judges decision that cartoons = child abuse?
Feel free to explain any thoughts you might have

Do you disagree?

And here I thought Aussies weren’t as goofy as Americans. This is absurd. I remember a poster back when I was in high school of Disney characters doing unspeakable things to and with each other. Then there was Fritz the Cat (first X-rated cartoon, as I recall). I recall all the hoopla over “puppet sex” in that movie “Team America” (not sure if that’s the title). I think this is a case of not being able to define child pornography, but a particular person “knowing it when they see it”. I find it ridiculous (and sad) that a man now has been pegged a child pornographer for a cartoon. Heck, if making a racy Simpsons cartoon is child porn, we will soon see rulings about murder or pet abuse charges for Itchy and Scratchy or South Park cartoons. Come to think of it, wasn’t there a South Park storyline with one of the characters having sex with an adult?

Ironically, from what I gather, the convicted man’s cartoon was merely “in his possession”. How, then was it available to the public? Did he post it online?

Could this ruling come to apply in your country?

It’s only a matter of time, I suppose. As Wertz points out, there’s already a law on the books about drawings. I notice that it specifies“intent to distribute”.

[JohnfrmCleveland]

....It already does. The PROTECT Act was signed into law by President Bush on April 30, 2003. "PROTECT" stands for "Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today" - anything for an acronym.

SEC. 504. OBSCENE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY.

(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 71 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1466 the following:

Sec. 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children.......

(c) NONREQUIRED ELEMENT OF OFFENSE- It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

This law smells like another one of those "Who in their right (political) mind would oppose this (in an election year)? law." Protecting kids is an easy sell, and it's easy for casual readers to get behind. Protecting artistic expression (or any expression), on the other hand, is not considered by the masses to be as important - especially when that particular example of artistic expression is not their cup of tea.

Child abuse, logically, should refer to the abuse of an actual child, not children as a whole. Real children are what the laws were meant to protect - a similar cartoon meant to realistically depict a certain, real child would probably cross the line, since it could do some actual damage to the kid. But a dirty Bart Simpson cartoon? Child abuse is in the actions involving the child - having sex, taking pictures, forcing the kid to watch porn, etc., and possibly the side effects (on the child) of such media (starring the child) being out there in circulation. But this cartoon, in and of itself, is only damaging to children in the same way that Grand Theft Auto, or a violent movie, or regular, consenting-adult porn would be damaging, in that the media might have some bad effect on the kid if they see it - and they shouldn't have access to it without parental permission anyway. You don't outlaw everything that could possibly be damaging in the hands of a child - it would be too limiting for adults. That is well established.

The other arguments against child porn - that (adults) watching it may incite further child abuse, and simply possessing it creates a demand - is harder to discount. If cartoons can have this effect (and I don't know why they couldn't - it would depend on the perv), it can certainly be argued that this sort of cartoon should be treated the same way as child porn. Certainly there are examples of child pornography that do not harm the child - consider some photographs of a naked child, taken surreptitiously, from a distance, with the head cut off and the body unidentifiable. The child is completely unaware that any pictures even exist, and there is no way to identify the child from the pictures. No harm has been done to the child, but the pictures are still clearly illegal.

Could this ruling come to apply in your country?

It could, I think. Our line for good ol' adult pornography is some redeeming value (speech, art), which has been found in pretty much anything you can think of. The same kind of words are in this law: "...serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." That is impossible to objectively define, really, which is what led to the famous "I know it when I see it" quote. But you can be sure that the results will be very different when the same standards are applied to adult subjects and underage subjects in similar depictions. And that makes for convaluted law and confused application of the law.

The line for child pornography is supposed to be much brighter - if it's a kid, and the kid is naked, it's illegal. Applied to depictions of actual children, it can be a bright line, easy to distinguish between legal and illegal. Applying the law to cartoons, etc., completely screws up the standard.

What would you now do with a Robert Mapplethorpe photo of a naked kid? He's obviously an artist, and his photos have artistic value, no doubt. The underage subject of the photo is not legally able to decide for himself or herself what is in their own best interests - be the subject of the photo and advance your modeling career? Is it worth the negatives of having a nude photo of yourself in circulation? Kids are not able to make those kinds of decisions, so the subject is, in effect, being taken advantage of by either the photographer or the parent who gave permission. It is a tough question, but it doesn't have to be tough to determine the legality of the decision.

I think that everybody's best interests are served by using the identifiable, underage subject standard. It eliminates some artistic expression - you are always going to lose something - but it preserves much more (this cartoon, for example), and being much easier to understand, it wouldn't stifle as much expression for fear of running afoul of the law.

[Wertz]

As Wertz points out, there’s already a law on the books about drawings. I notice that it specifies "intent to distribute".

That's just the first section. The second section (ADDITIONAL OFFENSES) makes it a criminal act to "knowingly possess" or even to attempt or conspire to possess such cartoons, drawings, etc - with no "intent to distribute" clause. In short, if I sent you a topless picture of Lisa Simpson by email and you looked at, but did not permanently delete, the attachment, you could go to prison for not less than 15 years nor more than 40 years and be branded a child sex offender for life. If it were your second offense, life imprisonment would be mandatory. Cool, huh?

[Dayna_SaGR]

Questions for debate:

Do you agree with the judges decision that cartoons = child abuse?
Feel free to explain any thoughts you might have

Do you disagree?

Could this ruling come to apply in your country?

Some might argue that allowing cartoon child-porn is encouraging the pedophiles to molest children, because it feeds their urges. Sounds feasible on the surface, but when one applies some critical thought, one realizes that pedophiles will molest children with or without the aid of porn to first excite them. It's what they do. While porn involving actual children is an obvious wrong, cartoon porn actually seems like it might be a good way to "feed the alligators". In lieu of an obviously (and necessarily) illegal act (i.e. watching child porn or molesting an actual child), a pervert can satisfy his demented urges with something that isn't hurting anyone.

Furthermore, I find it ridiculous that a DRAWING, of all things, could be illegal. If I draw two diminutive stick figures doing the nasty, can a judge say that those are CHILD stick figures and that I am doing something highly illegal? As someone said earlier in the thread, why do we not prosecute for depictions of murder and rape and burglary and everything else illegal in the movies? Gee, I don't know, maybe because everybody would laugh their butts off if we tried.

Just as a side note, I had always heard that the Australians could be ridiculously prudish, though. And judging by some of the things Wertz posted about the laws we have against child porn drawings, I now know that Americans are ridiculous as well. Oh, wait. I already knew that.

[Iona]

Hi Dayna_SaGR!

Some might argue that allowing cartoon child-porn is encouraging the pedophiles to molest children, because it feeds their urges. Sounds feasible on the surface, but when one applies some critical thought, one realizes that pedophiles will molest children with or without the aid of porn to first excite them. It's what they do. While porn involving actual children is an obvious wrong, cartoon porn actually seems like it might be a good way to "feed the alligators". In lieu of an obviously (and necessarily) illegal act (i.e. watching child porn or molesting an actual child), a pervert can satisfy his demented urges with something that isn't hurting anyone.

This is not a valid point as then All movies, books and other fiction and none-fictional publications need to be banned. Violence would encouraging people to be violent. Movies with killings would encouraging people to kill, ad infinitum. It certainly do not sound feasible as we have plenty of research showing this is not the case. As you know, Violent videogames makes violent children, right?

Just as a side note, I had always heard that the Australians could be ridiculously prudish, though. And judging by some of the things Wertz posted about the laws we have against child porn drawings, I now know that Americans are ridiculous as well. Oh, wait. I already knew that.

I lived in Australia and would say that is a ridiculous notion. They are far more open minded and acceptant then we are regarding most things, and funny enough, I lived in very religious circles, but they did, seemingly like the Europeans do, not let it interfere with practical life.


I just assume this is a specific Judge whom is a loon. Lets hope that his colleagues find out about this crazy decision and reverse it.

This post has been edited by Iona: Dec 11 2008, 11:46 PM

[gordo]

I don't know about the ruling. I would surely agree that such material is surely gross beyond all words, but is it worthy of a sentence, or label similar to someone that actually physically abuses? I don't know if the cartoons are worth the lifetime of such punishment in that. For instance I know theft is not the same crime, but should stealing say a bicycle result in the same sentence that stealing a jumbo jet would yield? I could agree on a sentence in some way with this, as a means of combating such material, but I don't know how you would charge the person.

I could very easily see this being a law in America if its already not one. Don't they even have laws about family members taking pictures of say children even in the bathtub in some states? I know its a hypersensitive issue is all, in more ways then I think even John Walsh would realize.

[Ted]

Questions for debate:

Do you agree with the judges decision that cartoons = child abuse?
Feel free to explain any thoughts you might have

No. Cartoons are cartoons and are typically not taken to represent people acting in the “real” world.
That said the technology exists to create computer generated “people” that look as real as any actor. Should their actions on the screen be exempt as well?

[Mrs. Pigpen]

Hm. I don't know. Has anyone seen the upcoming UK olympics logo?. Looks kind of suggestive to me. About as suggestive as Lisa Simpson's "naked" starfish profile.

Do you agree with the judges decision that cartoons = child abuse?
Feel free to explain any thoughts you might have

In order for child abuse to occur, I do believe that a child must have been abused in the first place.

Do you disagree? Yes.

Could this ruling come to apply in your country?

In spite of what Wertz referenced above, I do find it difficult to believe any jury would not acquit said "pedophile" in the US. I have to believe that there is some entirely rationale explanation for this verdict and we aren't familiar with all of the facts. Australia isn't exactly a backwards country...if this were Saudi and the religious police were throwing Lisa Simpson's scantily clad image back into the fire (along with the schoolboy who wielded it) of the school house I might easily believe it...

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Dec 12 2008, 12:29 AM

[JohnfrmCleveland]

Hi Dayna_SaGR!

Some might argue that allowing cartoon child-porn is encouraging the pedophiles to molest children, because it feeds their urges. Sounds feasible on the surface, but when one applies some critical thought, one realizes that pedophiles will molest children with or without the aid of porn to first excite them. It's what they do. While porn involving actual children is an obvious wrong, cartoon porn actually seems like it might be a good way to "feed the alligators". In lieu of an obviously (and necessarily) illegal act (i.e. watching child porn or molesting an actual child), a pervert can satisfy his demented urges with something that isn't hurting anyone.

This is not a valid point as then All movies, books and other fiction and none-fictional publications need to be banned. Violence would encouraging people to be violent. Movies with killings would encouraging people to kill, ad infinitum. It certainly do not sound feasible as we have plenty of research showing this is not the case. As you know, Violent videogames makes violent children, right?

There is some reason to believe that it does. Studies have been done on both sides, and the answers are not clear yet, so it's not fair to make light of the effects of violent or sexual media on people. It is becoming clear that, if nothing else, violent video games desensitize players to violence. We already restrict kids from accessing much of this media (directly) by the ratings system, and I don't hear too many parents arguing that their kids should be able to get into "R" movies without their permission.

So if the effects of cartoon porn are found to lead to more abuse, not less, you have some balancing to do. (And you can't just apply critical thought to determine how a pervert might respond to cartoon porn, because there is obviously some difference between the way they are wired and the way we are wired.)

I personally am not one to believe that there is much, if anything, to be gained by banning goofy stuff like these cartoons. But over time I have softened my positions on most things, and I am more willing to listen to contrary evidence if it seems credible. I don't like the idea of judges being arbiters of taste, but if unfettered "freedom" somehow raises the risk of harm coming to my children, I am willing to at least listen to proposals to balance those freedoms against their safety.

[Julian]

Do you agree with the judges decision that cartoons = child abuse?
Feel free to explain any thoughts you might have

No, I don't agree. What next - Tom and Jerry get banned as animal cruelty?

However, in all of this coverage, I haven't seen any of the images that the Aussie judge made his ruling on. I doubt very much whether they are unmanipulated production stills from The Simpsons. As I understand it they were sexually provocative parodies of The Simpsons. For all they know, cartoon or not, they could have been quite stomach churning, though frankly any stomach-churning images of child abuse that have been generated with a pen and an imagination are - while still not something to be actively celebrated - preferably to even the mildest images of child abuse generated with a camera and a child.

NewsCorp being what it is, I doubt very much that their lawyers would have held off from suing the infringement of their copyright had the judge not ruled the images themselves illegal anyway. The guy being sentenced is probably better off with the label of paedophile than he would be after years of pursuit by Murdoch's minions.

Could this ruling come to apply in your country?

There's no legal barrier to idiot judges being so dramatically far out of touch with popular culture that they completely misintepret manifestations of it. So I suppose it could happen.

It's much more likely, though, that our right-wing press will use the notion that such things might be possible to whip up their usual "political correctness gone mad" paranoia (e.g. "Winterval", Christmas being banned by such-and-such town council as potentially offensive to ethnic minorities, the EU banning curved bananas, etc.), most of which is entirely finctional, but it doesn't stop them printing it as news.