• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Simpsons are People - it's Official!

tkingdoll said:
I hope there are no Alan Moore fans in Australia, as possession of his book Lost Girls would render you a criminal.
Click to expand...


That raises another issue that I've always found utterly absurd. In New Zealand and Australia the legal age of consent is 16, yet pornography is only legal if everyone involved is over 18.

In Lost Girls two of the characters only have sexual encounters from the age of 16 onwards, which would make their activities legal, but depicting their activities would not (assuming actual depiction here, not drawings).

I have never been able to understand the notion that you can have sex at the age of 16, but it is illegal to watch video of a 16 year old having sex. In fact, if you are 16 and video yourself having sex, you are guilty of producing illegal pornography!

One last thing to point out, depicting an underage person having sex is not, in itself, pornography. The depiction must be explicit.
 
Obviously, the cure for all of this would be to make childhood illegal. We can't have creatures freely running about who can tempt adults into illicit activity, simply by existing.
 
slingblade said:
Obviously, the cure for all of this would be to make childhood illegal. We can't have creatures freely running about who can tempt adults into illicit activity, simply by existing.
Click to expand...

That made me laugh. :D
 
slingblade said:
Obviously, the cure for all of this would be to make childhood illegal. We can't have creatures freely running about who can tempt adults into illicit activity, simply by existing.
Click to expand...

I approve, if only to get rid of the annoying brats!
 
phantomb said:
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?
Click to expand...

I was thinkin' that last night. By my reckoning, The Simpsons has been on tv for over 20 years. How on earth are any of them underage?

gumboot said:
That raises another issue that I've always found utterly absurd. In New Zealand and Australia the legal age of consent is 16, yet pornography is only legal if everyone involved is over 18.
Click to expand...

Same for prostitution, which doesn't make sense to me either. How does charging for it make it any different? Not to mention prejudicing two of a girl's best-earning years. I wonder if we could take a case against the Prostitution Bill under human rights legislation for illegal retrainst of trade?
 
I think that law and order agencies should focus on combating real child porn.
 
The Atheist said:
I was thinkin' that last night. By my reckoning, The Simpsons has been on tv for over 20 years. How on earth are any of them underage?
Click to expand...

Sliding timescale is a widely accepted literaly device in long running series.
 
The Atheist said:
I was thinkin' that last night. By my reckoning, The Simpsons has been on tv for over 20 years. How on earth are any of them underage?
Click to expand...

Welcome to the wonderful world of "apparently".

Why, just last month, German law for the protection of minors (§184c) was amended to include "apparent age", i.e. explicit scenes where the actors are certifiably beyond the required age are also required to "not look as if they are below the required age to the average viewer", neither by the apparent look of the stage nor by the clothes nor by their physique.

That has got to be the mother of all "legal grey areas".

Best not to think about it. Your elected government knows best, citizen.
:hb:

You know, once upon a time, I thought the law was there to say in uncertain terms what's okay and what's not. Like, "legal contracts require both parties to be above 18." Or "Speed Limit 55." Not "what looks like 55, to the average viewer."

Yes, I actually was that naive...
 
Lisa Simpson was six when she was first drawn. That means she is legal now, even if she still looks young.
 
screensnot said:
Lisa Simpson was six when she was first drawn. That means she is legal now, even if she still looks young.
Click to expand...
I know you're not being serious, but if a porn photo was taken of me when I was six, then just because I'm legal now doesn't make that old photo legal.
Someone could draw a cartoon picture of me as a six-year-old, engaging in sexual activity (which I can say did actually take place!*), and according to this ruling that picture would be child porn.




*OK, it was "you show me yours, I'll show you mine"
 
It's legal in the U.S,:

Supreme Court strikes down ban on 'virtual child porn'

April 18, 2002 Posted: 1:13 PM EDT (1713 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday struck down a 6-year-old law that prohibits the distribution and possession of virtual child pornography that appears to -- but does not -- depict real children.

The law had banned a range of techniques -- including computer-generated images and the use of youthful-looking adults -- which were designed to convey the impression of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

The 6-3 ruling says the law violates the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech. The decision hands a major setback to the Justice Department and the majority of Congress in their legislative efforts to fight child pornography.
 
Last edited:
logical muse said:
I know you're not being serious...
Click to expand...


I wasn't really serious.

I find this whole idea laughable.

The argument that cartoon porn is a 'gateway' to real porn is ridiculous.

I haven't seen the porn in question, so I can't say whether I'd find it funny, sexy, offensive, whatever. But, I don't pretend to know what everyone else should find funny, sexy, offensive.

If someone wants to spend time making it, and another wants to watch it, it's all good with me. If you don't care to see it, it's pretty easy to avoid.
 
Last edited:
I wonder, does this ruling apply only to animation? Does a one-panel cartoon fall under it? How about 2 consecutive cells from a Simpsons porn flick? 10? 100?

Couldn't the guy say he didn't have a porn animation, he just had a collection of thousands of individual prints?
 
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...

At least you're not a welshie...


Oh wait...:D
 
theMark said:
Welcome to the wonderful world of "apparently".

Why, just last month, German law for the protection of minors (§184c) was amended to include "apparent age", i.e. explicit scenes where the actors are certifiably beyond the required age are also required to "not look as if they are below the required age to the average viewer", neither by the apparent look of the stage nor by the clothes nor by their physique.

That has got to be the mother of all "legal grey areas".

Best not to think about it. Your elected government knows best, citizen.
:hb:

You know, once upon a time, I thought the law was there to say in uncertain terms what's okay and what's not. Like, "legal contracts require both parties to be above 18." Or "Speed Limit 55." Not "what looks like 55, to the average viewer."

Yes, I actually was that naive...
Click to expand...



People need to just harden up, if you ask me. It shouldn't be illegal to depict illegal or immoral acts. It should only be illegal to perform illegal acts (immoral acts should be compulsory).

If you've got a video of a man having sex with an underage girl, the only one who should be prosecuted is the man in the video (okay maybe the camera man, ya know, accomplices).

If it's a cartoon of Lisa Simpson, the only one who should be prosecuted is Bart Simpson.
 
I always understood that the true test in a case like this is whether this is the kind of thing you would wish your wife or servants to see.
 
The Atheist said:
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...
Click to expand...
It's a lot older than that, and goes back at leasat as far as the venerable Tiajuana Bible. I wonder how many Aussie collectors of antique smut possess these examples of exactly why Daddy Warbucks adopted Little Orphan Annie, considering that many of them could now be considered "child porn" under this ruling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom