The Simpsons are People - it's Official!

The Atheist

The Grammar Tyrant
The Atheist
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
36,219
That would be ok, so long as it wasn't Fritz the kitten.
 
The Atheist, what are your thoughts on this ruling?

Personally, my understanding is that child pornography is illegal because it depicts a child engaged in sex acts. Obviously a pornographic tape does not, in any size shape or form, actually contain a human being in it, performing sexual acts. It is a magnetic piece of information that generates a 2D image which depicts the likeness a a child engaged in sex acts.

Thus any other depiction of that likeness is also child pornography.

The only instance in which an actual child is involved in sex acts is in the original creation of the video, and my understanding is this is an entirely separate and far more serious crime.

Your "Fritz the Cat" (kitten?) scenario would be an interesting test. A cartoon of a cat obviously depicts an animal, not a human, however you may be able to argue that the personification of the animal in the cartoon is sufficient that you are actually depicting the likeness of a person.
 
gumboot said:
A cartoon of a cat obviously depicts an animal, not a human, however you may be able to argue that the personification of the animal in the cartoon is sufficient that you are actually depicting the likeness of a person.
Click to expand...

Anthropomorphism strikes again!
 
Is there any interpretation that doesn't make this the stupidest court decision in recent memory?

Will the NZ courts issue a warrant for the arrest of the writer who killed Maude Flanders?
 
gumboot said:
The Atheist, what are your thoughts on this ruling?

Personally, my understanding is that child pornography is illegal because it depicts a child engaged in sex acts.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it is (or should be) illegal if it is a video or film recording of an actual child engaged in sex acts.

Animations are not actual children. They don't get traumatized or have their privacy invaded or rights violated. They are just so much ink on cellophane or whatever it is.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Is there any interpretation that doesn't make this the stupidest court decision in recent memory?
Click to expand...

The argument is that by viewing images of underage cartoon characters it will act as a gateway to viewing images of underage real children.

Now to an extent there may be a case. Anyone thinking about bart and lisia engageing in ah stuff is thinking about underage characters engageing in ah stuff. On the other hand there is no evidence of a shift from viewing cartoon porn with underage characters to viewing child pornography.
 
geni said:
The argument is that by viewing images of underage cartoon characters it will act as a gateway to viewing images of underage real children.
Click to expand...

Yah, I guess that would be the interpretation as to why cartoon porn is bad, but what's the interpretation of cartoons being persons?
 
The most amazing thing about the decision is that the judge was reported to have said that if the "persons were real, such depictions would never be permitted". So the Simpsons are persons according to the law, but unreal persons.

Not often I am embarrassed to be an aussie, but this is one time I am.
 
I find this somewhat disturbing. It's my understanding that child porn is illegal because children are abused in order to produce it. With cartoon characters, this is obviously not the case.

My brother has a large collection of humerous cartoons he's downloaded, just about any cartoon series you can think of, including the Simpsons characters having sex, the cast of the Peanuts having an orgy, the powder-puff girls wetting themselves in fear... ect. It's stupid, but harmless. Now I wonder if the police will be knocking on his door sometime soon.


Should a truly victimless crime even be considered a crime at all?
 
I think think of two rationales for prohibition of "child porn" involving animations. The first is that by playing into the deviant desires of pedophiles it encourages them to utilize real child porn or molest real children. This would justify even the absurd situation in the OP.

The second is that as computer animation improves it may become increasingly difficult to differentiate real child porn from computer graphics. This would force prosecutors to prove the images in a particular video were of actual children, which might be difficult. The fact that no one would confuse Simpsons characters with real children is just the consequence of an overly broad rule: like executing a starving man for stealing a loaf of bread.

I say fine the guy for copyright infringement. Unless this falls under the "fair use" guidelines as parody.
 
quixotecoyote said:
Yah, I guess that would be the interpretation as to why cartoon porn is bad, but what's the interpretation of cartoons being persons?
Click to expand...

It didn't say that. It said that they were dipections of persons. That cartoons can be considered dipictions of persons under Australian law is alreadly established in a case relatateing to Manga. That wasn't the question. The question was if the more stylised depictions counted as well. The argument is that while the dipection was not realistic the simpsons are still dipictions of humans for the purpose of the law.

Which is not unreasonable. For the most part the show portrays them as acting like humans in a human setting. They are no more stylised than some of the old egyption dipictions of humans.
 
Brian-M said:
I find this somewhat disturbing. It's my understanding that child porn is illegal because children are abused in order to produce it. With cartoon characters, this is obviously not the case.

My brother has a large collection of humerous cartoons he's downloaded, just about any cartoon series you can think of, including the Simpsons characters having sex, the cast of the Peanuts having an orgy, the powder-puff girls wetting themselves in fear... ect. It's stupid, but harmless. Now I wonder if the police will be knocking on his door sometime soon.


Should a truly victimless crime even be considered a crime at all?
Click to expand...

I seem to recall a depiction of Snow White with the seven dwarfs, as well as one where Prince Charming woke sleeping beauty with something more than a kiss...
 
gdnp said:
The second is that as computer animation improves it may become increasingly difficult to differentiate real child porn from computer graphics. This would force prosecutors to prove the images in a particular video were of actual children, which might be difficult.
Click to expand...

No that one is delt with by expanding the law to include aparently real dipictions. If people can't tell if it is real or not it is presumed real. Seperate issue with it's own arguments.


For clearly cartoon porn the argument goes that people will take real images than put them through any number of photoshop filters to make them appear fake. Why anyone would risk starting with highly illegal material when they could legal create the stuff from scratch has never been made clear.


I say fine the guy for copyright infringement. Unless this falls under the "fair use" guidelines as parody.
Click to expand...

Copyright is a civil matter not criminal. The issue has arrisen from time to time. DC commics went after someone produceing sexualised art of batman and robin and a published magazine of simpsons porn aparently got into trouble.
 
KingMerv00 said:
So one could own "gateway snuff material then?


This is an open question. Not directed at you, geni.
Click to expand...
This question would be lost on Supreme Court judges here. They are so far removed from reality it's not funny. I would not be surprised if the Simpsons had to be explained to the judge in question. This is not hyperbole - I sat through part of a Supreme Court hearing where the solicitor had to explain what a "Seven Eleven" was.

Sorry, a bit off topic, but sometimes I think the US system of elected judges has something going for it.
 
KingMerv00 said:
So one could own "gateway snuff films" then?


This is an open question. Not directed at you, geni.
Click to expand...

Given the australian film rateing system I would expect things like the Guinea Pig series to be slightly illegal. On the other hand I don't think the many many action films dipicting murder are universaly banned.
 
lionking said:
This question would be lost on Supreme Court judges here. They are so far removed from reality it's not funny. I would not be surprised if the Simpsons had to be explained to the judge in question. This is not hyperbole - I sat through part of a Supreme Court hearing where the solicitor had to explain what a "Seven Eleven" was.

Sorry, a bit off topic, but sometimes I think the US system of elected judges has something going for it.
Click to expand...

Actually a minority of the US has elected judges. In fact, my state just expanded the appointment system to circuit and associate circuit judges.

http://www.ky3.com/news/political/localissues/33876479.html
 
KingMerv00 said:
So one could own "gateway snuff films" then?


This is an open question. Not directed at you, geni.
Click to expand...

I think the argument is that there is evidence to link 'gateway kiddie fiddler cartoons' to the consumption of actual depictions of kiddie fiddling or, worse, to actual fiddling with kiddies. I don't know how solid that actual evidence is, however, I don't think there is evidence to link watching Itchy & Scratchy cartoons with violence.
 
gtc said:
I think the argument is that there is evidence to link 'gateway kiddie fiddler cartoons' to the consumption of actual depictions of kiddie fiddling or, worse, to actual fiddling with kiddies. I don't know how solid that actual evidence is, however, I don't think there is evidence to link watching Itchy & Scratchy cartoons with violence.
Click to expand...

I think Itchy & Scratchy is a bad example. I have not seen any, but I am 100% sure that realistic cartoon snuff films are out there.

As for the gateway argument, how does one show causation rather than just correlation?
 
KingMerv00 said:
I think Itchy & Scratchy is a bad example. I have not seen any, but I am 100% sure that realistic cartoon snuff films are out there.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that it is such a bad example given the videos that the court were looking at. But I take your point about the realistic ones.

KingMerv00 said:
As for the gateway argument, how does one show causation rather than just correlation?
Click to expand...

No idea. Presumably (hopefully) the courts or the government who drafted the law were satisfied.
 
gtc said:
That would be ok, so long as it wasn't Fritz the kitten.
Click to expand...

Actually, given that Fritz doesn't ask for ID on some very young-looking pussy, it probably is anyway.

gumboot said:
The Atheist, what are your thoughts on this ruling?
Click to expand...

Truly bizarre.

gumboot said:
Thus any other depiction of that likeness is also child pornography.
Click to expand...

Which starts to get a little crazy when the Simpsons are considered like enough to fall into that.

gumboot said:
Your "Fritz the Cat" (kitten?) scenario would be an interesting test. A cartoon of a cat obviously depicts an animal, not a human, however you may be able to argue that the personification of the animal in the cartoon is sufficient that you are actually depicting the likeness of a person.
Click to expand...

Lying on his bed wanking? I'd go for Fritz being more human than the Simpsons.

JoeyDonuts said:
Anthropomorphism strikes again!
Click to expand...

Have you seen Fritz the Cat?

He's a bloke.

:bgrin:

quixotecoyote said:
Is there any interpretation that doesn't make this the stupidest court decision in recent memory?
Click to expand...

Not that I can think of.

quixotecoyote said:
Will the NZ courts issue a warrant for the arrest of the writer who killed Maude Flanders?
Click to expand...

Dunno about NZ, but Aussie might.

lionking said:
The most amazing thing about the decision is that the judge was reported to have said that if the "persons were real, such depictions would never be permitted". So the Simpsons are persons according to the law, but unreal persons.

Not often I am embarrassed to be an aussie, but this is one time I am.
Click to expand...

Although I admit a similar ruling here is likely, so we're in the same canoe. (again)

Brian-M said:
My brother has a large collection of humerous cartoons he's downloaded, just about any cartoon series you can think of, including the Simpsons characters having sex, the cast of the Peanuts having an orgy, the powder-puff girls wetting themselves in fear... ect. It's stupid, but harmless. Now I wonder if the police will be knocking on his door sometime soon.
Click to expand...

It goes back many years, too. I can recall a photocopied Flintstone comic doing the rounds 30 years ago.

No doubt that's where all the child molesters came from...

But make sure your bro doesn't take any of it to NSW.

Brian-M said:
Should a truly victimless crime even be considered a crime at all?
Click to expand...

I don't think so, no.

gdnp said:
I seem to recall a depiction of Snow White with the seven dwarfs, as well as one where Prince Charming woke sleeping beauty with something more than a kiss...
Click to expand...

Yep, that's another old one.
 
"The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons," the judge said.

The cartoons showed characters such as Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex.

McEwan was convicted and fined $3000 and placed on a good behaviour bond.
Click to expand...

Good grief. What kind of world is it when R. Kelly is acquitted, but this guy is convicted?
This is lunacy! I blame Lisa!
 
gdnp said:
I think think of two rationales for prohibition of "child porn" involving animations. The first is that by playing into the deviant desires of pedophiles it encourages them to utilize real child porn or molest real children. This would justify even the absurd situation in the OP.

The second is that as computer animation improves it may become increasingly difficult to differentiate real child porn from computer graphics. This would force prosecutors to prove the images in a particular video were of actual children, which might be difficult. The fact that no one would confuse Simpsons characters with real children is just the consequence of an overly broad rule: like executing a starving man for stealing a loaf of bread.

I say fine the guy for copyright infringement. Unless this falls under the "fair use" guidelines as parody.
Click to expand...

Neither of those rationales is sufficient IMO.
 
I can understand people who think of the hand drawing nature of simpson characters and think of it being classified under child porn laws as silly but think of this...

How about a photo realistic computer graphics generated child porn orgy. Would that be ok to be freely distributed because its not child porn? If not then you have an issue where the "realism" factor is the determining measurement of legality. This is a very difficult thing to put into law.....Thats why we have Judiciary. They are members of our society that we entrust with these sort of decisions and the only way for them to make these sort of decisions without fear or favor is when they are an independant body....seriously, I would take up arms to resist elected judiciary. Politicians running our courts is not a good Idea.

Before we Judge this I would suggest waiting to see what happens to the person caught with the material. People caught with significant child porn collections In Australia do prison time, as they should. My bet is this guy will get a fine and a good behavior bond......as he should.
 
geni said:
The argument is that by viewing images of underage cartoon characters it will act as a gateway to viewing images of underage real children.
Click to expand...
I know you aren't making the argument above, but if we were to keep following that line of thought, we must also ban store catalogues showing children in underwear and swimwear because they are also appealing to paedophiles. We must stop kids from swimming at the beach and a whole host of other things, because anything that could be a gateway to child sexual abuse must be made illegal.

I'd really like to ask the judge a few questions. What if "Bart" was 16 and "Lisa" 17? Would he still have ruled the same way? How can you tell if a cartoon character is 5, 10, 16 or 18 just by looking? Without the context of the show to guide you on their ages, how would you know?

Since I'm in Australia, I can't risk taking a look to form a more informed opinion, but no one was harmed in the production and I can't see any reason to believe someone would be harmed by the viewing.

Sigh...
 
The Fool said:
Before we Judge this I would suggest waiting to see what happens to the person caught with the material. People caught with significant child porn collections In Australia do prison time, as they should. My bet is this guy will get a fine and a good behavior bond......as he should.
Click to expand...
But your argument just replaces the subjective "realism" for the subjective determination about what is a "child" If there is no real person involved, how do we know if they are "underage" or not.

Aren't these laws supposed to be about protecting children from harm? How does this decision do that? If I drew a picture of two stick figure "children" having sex am I now in posession of child porn? I can't wait to hear the arguments over that.

He was fined $3000 and put on a 2 year good behaviour bond, but I could not disgree more with your statement that it is "as he should". There is no mention of whether he's on a child sex offender registry, but I would not be surprised.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
I'm with LW and Hatchet.

The burden of proof is on the state. If it can show that a questionable photo is real, put the scumbag away. If there is reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed, no harm no foul.

"Realistic" is not the same as "real".
 
Last edited:
It should be pointed out that realistic computer-generated child pornography is illegal in the United States and the European Union, so there is already a well established precedent that child pornography does not have to involve actual children in sexual actions. Likewise, modifying non-sexual images/videos of actual children in order to make them appear sexual is usually considered child pornography.

I'd tend to agree that this ruling is a bit excessive, but I think some people are reacting as if this is some bizarre off-the-wall ruling with absolutely no precedent at all. That's simply not the case.
 
This court ruling is disturbing. It's akin to Orwell's thoughtcrime.

If someone was a reasonably talented artist she could draw these drawings herself. What happens then? A child porn conviction?

What about this painting, taken from the wikipedia page linked to below:
http://dir.salon.com/story/sex/feature/2001/11/30/balthus/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balthus

If someone has a reasonable imagination, they can close their eyes and imagine scenes with Bart and Lisa like the ones in this case. Are these thoughts to be outlawed?

What about written depictions of sexual activity involving minors? Lolita is the classic example. Is that to be outlawed?
 
Hatchet said:
How can you tell if a cartoon character is 5, 10, 16 or 18 just by looking?
Click to expand...

This has always struck me as the part that is the most nonsensical. If I was to sit down and paint a sexually explicit painting, who gets to decide what age the characters are? Me? Some judge?
 
I'd love to see any evidence that cartoon child porn leads to real child porn, the manipulation of real porn to look fake, or the abuse of children. I suspect there is no such evidence.

I hope there are no Alan Moore fans in Australia, as possession of his book Lost Girls would render you a criminal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom