Aussie convicted over Simpsons sex pics An Australian man has lost his appeal against child pornography charges for possessing images of the Simpsons characters having sex. The Supreme Court of New South Wales upheld a lower court's decision which found him guilty of possessing child pornography. Alan John McEwan was convicted in February of possessing child …
Between this and the Scoripons Album cover it seems like weas a race need to make a decision between protecting children and just plain stupidity. Perhaps if people spent more time looking out for our children and less time trying to find a way of prosecuting others for having pictures of fictional cartoon characters having sex then maybe there would be less abused children in the world..
Oh, but I forgot it'sa lot easier to block a website and waste time in court than to go out and visit at risk families and protect children from being abused or killed.
This is Bob ! he is 10 years old.
This is Sarah () she is 8 years old.
And this (!) has just landed you in deep trouble for downloading kiddie porn.
Or is that just silly?
Does this also mean that all those Halloween specials count as snuff movies because someone always dies - and usually in a very nasty way!
/me grabs coat and starts looking for a lift off this stupid planet!
Ok this is getting ludicrous, this NANNY state world we now live in has been designed to protect PEOPLE, most children.
Yes ok whilst I agree that having a cartoon of two children having sex is disgustic, the fact is, THEY ARE NOT REAL!!! No one is actually being harmed here and therefore no one is being protected by this conviction.
This does not even mean he gets aroused by this material as a quick search for simpsons porn (which I'm sure many people have done in the past) in google images with safe search off will yeld at least one or two images of the kids screwing around, whats more due to the nature of the internet, if you have done that search on your current computer and have seen those thumbnails. YOU TOO have 'child porn' on your PC as it will remain in your cache for a considerable amount of time.
think about it as Labour soon will get in mind reading machines and even reading this
article will render you guilty of having it in your brain, albeit for informational purposes.
Yes siree we live in a weird ,and not very nice,world after 11 years of Labour . If
only could go back to 70's or 80's when things were great.
So, by the judges logic, I'm guilty of mass murder if I detonate the bomb in Megaton in Fallout 3, or kill any of the named characters in GTA IV, because they are depictions of fictional people. I just don't get it.
I feel as dumb as Paris now.
As Yeardley Smith and Nancy Cartwright, the actresses that play Lisa and Bart respectively, are both well over the age of consent, shouldn't this be treated in the same way as "schoolgirl porn", where the actresses portraying schoolgirls are clearly over the legal age?
It's only kiddie porn if kids are involved, surely.
After looking at the works of Damian Hirst, how many people go out and pickle a bisected cow?
http://www.af-moma.no/images/D_hirst_mother_and_child_divided(0).jpg
Looking at about 250 pictures a day for ten years did not cause this man to molest a child.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/04/third_former_ames_worker_jailed_for_child_p/
Hordes of child molesters have not turned up in Springfield. Homer and Marge have not had to take any special precautions to protect Lisa as a result of these pictures.
Perhaps the money would be better spent educating parents about how child molesters earn trust, and catching the few complete sickos who are a real threat to children.
Does this mean all the "spunking cock and balls" drawings I did as a minor (this kind of thing, though strangely sans love-p1iss: http://blogs.creative-jar.com/image.axd?picture=DSC_0782.JPG ) are now illegal in my posession, given they were based largely (or smalley) on my own sub-18 year old dangly bits?
Perhaps we need an opinion and ruling from somebody whose opinion on legal matters we can all respect unquestioningly - Wacki Smith?
There are plans afoot in consultations and committees within Parliament to introduce similar laws of 'obscenity' and 'indecency' here in the UK (originally to have been included in the new 'extreme laws already on the books) with regards to comics, cartoons, drawings, paintings and wholly CG imagery. CEOP are foremost at the vanguard calling for the Government in the UK to outlaw completely fictional (i.e. no photographic - or pseudo-photo - content at all) images of children as 'child pornography'. This will include Hentai/Manga comics.
This is all being done to 'prevent' the 'production of child pornography', with many 'experts' citing in testimony to Parliamentary consultations that in their view even completely fictional depictions of CP, such as in cartoons or 3D CG imagery, fuel paedophiles to commit crimes against real children. The evidence for these claims has, so far been, noticeably absent.
Possession would result in lengthy prison sentences and entry onto the Sex Offenders Register, despite the fact the evidence that finds you guilty neither contained pictures of real children, nor any evidence of an actual crime.
Room 101 because my head hurts.
<article>Rude versions of Simpsons cartoons were a leading meme of the internet in the late 90s, second only to Star Trek jokes</article>
As I recall -in the early ninties- it was Simpsons jokes [as in blackboard quotes] and rude depictions of Star Trek characters.
Plus ca change.
["i] cloaking device duly engaged (off to delete the clip with Six of One, just in case)
How dare this man exploit innocent, disabled (three fingers) disfigured (look at their heads) and jaundiced children for his own amusement. It is bad enough exploiting healthy, normal and attractive children, but to abuse the disadvantaged in such a way is morally reprehensible. He should have the book or at least the DVD thrown at him for possessing such schoolboy humour. oops sorry, child porn.
I suspect there are children, yes real children worldwide viewing and giggling at these and similar cartoons. They should all be rounded up and placed in correctional facilities before it is too late.
How about forming child protection laws around the input from and consultancy with actual victims of child abuse, instead of paranoid knee jerk reactionaries.
i played a game of civilisation 3 over the weekend, during which i conducted bombing raids in which civilians were killed. i also invaded greek territory without a formal declaration of war. under the new 'global stupidity' regime controlling the planet i am therefore guilty of heinous war crimes.
sorry!
[can we have a spaceship leaving the earth smiley please? - as in "stop the world i want to get off!"]
With all those cupids flying around?
A lot of victorian era art contains cupids, think naked babies / children with bows, harps and wings, so is this all going to be illegal?
And if so does this mean that we need to arrest everyone who owns it, think stately homes, musems, town hallls, houses of parliment (not sure but bound to have some), or does it mean they will have to destroy it all, causing great damage to our history and culture? Or is this fine because its old and is therefore "art"?
... thinking Australia was one of the last bastions of common sense in a world of moronity. This article has just proved me wrong.
I think that judge and whoever decided to bring the whole criminal proceedings in the first place are clearly in desperate need of a life.
... or maybe a shag. :P
Time to get rid of your Simpsons, Southpark and Family Guy DVD collections before the dawn chorus includes the sounds of large policemen battering in your front door.
I am certain that once we have similar cartoon/drawing laws in place then all of these programs will contain material that could land you in court.
Looks like America will soon be the only place that gets to watch all of their home grown TV.
This entire subject makes me angry, you can just about convince me on the CP rap for only one reason really and that's that you are watching an actual child actually get abused. Their's an actual crime being commited, and all in all it's bad.
Now with pictures and writing there is no victim, no crime, no nothing, fap to it as much as you like.
Ahhh f--- it. I hate the whole debate and it makes me angry beyond comprehension.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
