Poll: Are Cartoons Real? And what if they are...

[Fenixius]

Firstly, I would have anyone who comes to this thread read the following link to the Sydney Morning Herald:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...n-is-child-porn/2008/12/08/1228584707575.html

And for those who refuse to read it, I'll summarise.

A Supreme Court judge has ruled that an internet cartoon, in which child characters resembling those from The Simpsons engage in sexual acts, is child pornography.
...
Alan John McEwan had been convicted in the Parramatta Local Court of possessing child pornography and of using a carriage service to access child pornography material, the latter of which has a maximum penalty of 10 years' jail.
...
The magistrate said that, had the images involved real children, McEwan would have been jailed.

However, he was fined $3000 and required to enter into a two-year good behaviour bond in respect to each of the charges.

Does this not seem ludicrous to anyone else? The thought that a totally fictional depiction of something could be considered the same as a depiction of that something? Because that's what they've decided, and Alan John McEwan has been fined a lot of money for it.

Justice Adams said the purpose of the legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of "real" children are depicted.

However it was also to deter the production of other material, including cartoons, that could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children".

While the first line there seems pretty alright, the second one makes me think. It says to me: "We're charging him for a crime he might commit", or possibly, "We're charging him for a crime other people might commit." Both of these statements should be sending off alarm bells in everyone's heads.

I realise I'm probably overreacting, but to me, the very principle behind this ruling seems terribly flawed. Does anyone else think so, or am I just some crazed hysteric?

 

[jim_doki]

oh sweet jusus...

this is bad news. someone has actually rule 34'd The simpsons.

In all seriousness, i think that it's got to do with the popularity and concieved (or in this case confirmed) age of the cartoon character. if your watching a 10 yo fuck an 8 yo, its child porn

 

[bladester1]

that is dumb there are sites where you can find loli(yes i think its sick) but you dont hear about the artist getting fined

 

[Aardvark]

Chances are, he's just another 4channer. They found it in his funny pictures directory and overreacted in the way that law enforcement seems to need to do these days, in order to alarm the public into remembering that there are paedophiles under the beds and in the closets, just waiting to snatch away little Bethny-Jool or Tymmithy-Skot.

Though if he actually did get off on it, I'd be in favour of court-ordered MRIs, exploratory surgery and psych exams. I'd even go so far as to recommend some xenutherapy to ensure his body thetans are in order.

 

[Fenixius]

In all seriousness, i think that it's got to do with the popularity and concieved (or in this case confirmed) age of the cartoon character. if your watching a 10 yo fuck an 8 yo, its child porn

Jim, I can't say I agree. It's not child porn. There are no children there. All there is is lines on a screen, drawn by someone. If that someone, say, had a live model we'd be in a different place altogether.

But the purpose of those child pornography laws isn't to reign in freedoms, it's to protect children, and I don't see there being any evidence that this man had any intentions of doing anything to children. Nor do I see possession of animated fiction, or even written fiction (I remember hearing a guy be charged for that, but the link eludes me for now), as being a clear indicator that they're intending to abuse a child.

Though if he actually did get off on it, I'd be in favour of court-ordered MRIs, exploratory surgery and psych exams. I'd even go so far as to recommend some xenutherapy to ensure his body thetans are in order.

Hahaha, but what would you then have done if all those tests resulted in "This guy is normal"?

 

[broadband]

Well im not sure what to say except that the court that was in charge of this seems a bit paranoid if you ask to me.

 

[The Sorrow]

oh sweet jusus...

this is bad news. someone has actually rule 34'd The simpsons.

Dude, somebody Rule 34'd Rugrats.
The Simpsons is nothing.

 

[Rednog]

This is why every computer needs a "delete fcking everything" button for when the van pulls up.

 

[Rednog]

oh sweet jusus...

this is bad news. someone has actually rule 34'd The simpsons.

Dude, somebody Rule 34'd Rugrats.
The Simpsons is nothing.

Everything has been been Rule 34'd....even lunch....

 

[Fenixius]

This is why every computer needs a "delete fcking everything" button for when the van pulls up.

Just go buy an electromagnet, and run your Hard Drives over it... and your RAM to be safe.

it's disgusting, but it shouldnt be a punishable by law offense

That opinion is perfectly fine. I just wish other people held it.

 

[Raven28256]

While I think that such pornography is definitely disturbing and that the people who view it are very, VERY creepy, I can't help but say that this is a bit much. When you think about it, this logic is much like saying that ripping up a comic book amounts to murder, and that someone who did that might commit real murder.

Think about that for a moment, it really isn't all that different.

So, yes, I also think this is a bit ludicrous, but not nearly as much as if they sentenced him to the full charges that child pornography carries. THEN I would say that this is really insane. I mean, it was a cartoon...How does that carry the same weight as a real human?

Oh, and the hentai fans in Australia are officially screwed now. >_>

 

[LewsTherin]

This is why every computer needs a "delete fcking everything" button for when the van pulls up.

It's called a microwave. Or a sledgehammer.

Depends what one has on hand.

 

[Fenixius]

While I think that such pornography is definitely disturbing and that the people who view it are very, VERY creepy, I can't help but say that this is a bit much. When you think about it, this logic is much like saying that ripping up a comic book amounts to murder, and that someone who did that might commit real murder.

Think about that for a moment, it really isn't all that different.

So, yes, I also think this is a bit ludicrous, but not nearly as much as if they sentenced him to the full charges that child pornography carries. THEN I would say that this is really insane. I mean, it was a cartoon...How does that carry the same weight as a real human?

Oh, and the hentai fans in America are officially screwed now. >_>

Well, I had a bit of a rant sitting there before I revised it to be more sensible about what this could mean for videogames if they applied it to violence. So I'm glad someone else saw it.

Whether or not the guy was charged to the full extent the law allows isn't really my point; it's that he's been charged at all. Oh, and it was Australia, not America*

 

[WolfMage]

What the fuck?!
The Supreme Court ruled against a year ago, now this?
Really, what the fuck mothering hell, people?
This shit is sick, yeah, but come on, it's a fucking drawing, no pun intended.
I mean, everyone has a sick fetish, and if this guy likes drawing, then go for it, but once he starts messing with real children, he should have a few meetings with Bubba and the Assrape Gang.

 

[Silver Patriot]

I guess that cartoons could be real. If there are an infinite number of Universes than there would be a Universe that surrounds the cartoon.

On topic though I think it's stupid to say that those pictures are of real children I think it's fair to call it child porn. I think what it comes down to is is the law in place to protect real children from being abused or to tell people it's wrong to like children in that way.

 

[Raven28256]

While I think that such pornography is definitely disturbing and that the people who view it are very, VERY creepy, I can't help but say that this is a bit much. When you think about it, this logic is much like saying that ripping up a comic book amounts to murder, and that someone who did that might commit real murder.

Think about that for a moment, it really isn't all that different.

So, yes, I also think this is a bit ludicrous, but not nearly as much as if they sentenced him to the full charges that child pornography carries. THEN I would say that this is really insane. I mean, it was a cartoon...How does that carry the same weight as a real human?

Oh, and the hentai fans in America are officially screwed now. >_>

Well, I had a bit of a rant sitting there before I revised it to be more sensible about what this could mean for videogames if they applied it to violence. So I'm glad someone else saw it.

Whether or not the guy was charged to the full extent the law allows isn't really my point; it's that he's been charged at all. Oh, and it was Australia, not America*

Oops, I'll revise that part.

Anyway, yes, I did sorta consider how this could affect video games. Didn't Germany try to pass a law where someone killing human characters in a game could be charged with murder or something along those lines? Did that absurdity ever pass?

 

[Rankao]

Well... I don't know what to think. It seems to me that the AU appears to be much more heavier on content control then some other countries, so it isn't very surprising. It is disturbing, and it weird, and possibly that person needs a little bit help (don't we all need a little help though). However, I think the court reaction is also disturbing, weird and possibly needs to have some assistance too.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

Yes Pinky and the Brain is
Vote for Pinky.

Oh as far as the actual topic goes no it is not child porn but it is porn.