El Freako
LIFT OR DIE
VIP
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,138
- Points
- 38
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767202-2,00.html
WTF? They're cartoons... I'm pretty sure I know the pics he's talking about as they have been circulating the web for a decade now. I know my mates and I sent them to each other for shock value when we were in highschool but it was because they were figures from popular culture. Can cartoon porn depicting children be considered real child porn?
Sure if somebody's actually getting off on it then there is something very wrong with them but they're not actually contributing or supporting the abuse of real children in any way that I can think of. I wish to clarify that I am against real child porn in every way but to compare cartoon porn to the real thing seems a step too far. I must admit that if I saw a realistic drawing of sexual abuse of a child then I would possibly be less inclined to defend this guy but these were depictions of The Simpsons, little yellow skinned, 4 fingered cartoon characters who are far from realistic depictions of people.
Where do other people stand on this?
CARTOON characters are people too, a judge has ruled in the case of a man convicted over cartoons based on The Simpsons, in which children are shown having sex.
In the New South Wales Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a "person" within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.
Alan John McEwan was appealing his February conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.
"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.
"In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word 'person' included fictional or imaginary characters ...," the judge said.
"... The mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a 'person'."
In dismissing the appeal, the judge ordered each party to pay its own legal costs in the first case dealing with the "difficult" issue.
WTF? They're cartoons... I'm pretty sure I know the pics he's talking about as they have been circulating the web for a decade now. I know my mates and I sent them to each other for shock value when we were in highschool but it was because they were figures from popular culture. Can cartoon porn depicting children be considered real child porn?
Sure if somebody's actually getting off on it then there is something very wrong with them but they're not actually contributing or supporting the abuse of real children in any way that I can think of. I wish to clarify that I am against real child porn in every way but to compare cartoon porn to the real thing seems a step too far. I must admit that if I saw a realistic drawing of sexual abuse of a child then I would possibly be less inclined to defend this guy but these were depictions of The Simpsons, little yellow skinned, 4 fingered cartoon characters who are far from realistic depictions of people.
Where do other people stand on this?