• 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!

That raises an interesting question in my mind, so, just to play devil's advocate, let me ask it:

If someone films an actual child being in an actual sexual situtation, then someone else, who has nothing to do with the production, downloads the video (let's say for free), that person who did the downloading would be breaking the law.

Now let's say that somoene kills a person and records the murder for whatever reason. The killer then posts it to a website where people can download it for free. So let's say that for some reason someone, who has nothing to do with the murder, downloads it. That downloader is NOT guilty of breaking the law.

If a person has nothing to do with the original crime, yet s/he possesses of a recording of a crime, that person is not breaking the law except if the recording is of child in a sexual situtation. (And in the US, where I am, a child is anyone under the age of 18).

Why?
 
Last edited:
JFrankA said:
That raises an interesting question in my mind, so, just to play devil's advocate, let me ask it:

If someone films an actual child being in an actual sexual situtation, then someone else, who has nothing to do with the production, downloads the video (let's say for free), that person who did the downloading would be breaking the law.

Now let's say that somoene kills a person and records the murder for whatever reason. The killer then posts it to a website where people can download it for free. So let's say that for some reason someone, who has nothing to do with the murder, downloads it. That downloader is NOT guilty of breaking the law.

If a person has nothing to do with the original crime, yet s/he possesses of a recording of a crime, that person is not breaking the law except if the recording is of child in a sexual situtation. (And in the US, where I am, a child is anyone under the age of 18).

Why?
Click to expand...
Good question. I think the reply might have to do with the filming of a murder not being the kind of crime filming kids in sexual actions is. Does that help?

DR
 
My gift to pedophiles into erotic asphyxiation (safe for work):

homer2.jpg
 
Darth Rotor said:
Where did I say it did? :confused:

Should I now ask

"Why do you hate reading for content?"
Click to expand...



You attacked me for criticising an aspect of the law, arguing that since I value the Rule of Law, I should not be questioning any specific laws.

That is, obviously, nonsense.
 
I wonder how long it's going to take before people start being prosecuted for owning a copy of Lost Girls.

And on that note should we assume that if Alan Moore were to step foot on Australian soil he'd be arrested for creating child porn?
 
gumboot said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

The problem is that child porn has devoped a barter system. If people can keep the stuff they can use it to barter for more which creates an insentive for some people to create more.
 
Kthulhut Fhtagn said:
I wonder how long it's going to take before people start being prosecuted for owning a copy of Lost Girls.
Click to expand...

Depends on how long it takes the police to find someone in posestion of a copy and being guility of comeing to the attention of the police while not being a millionaire.

And on that note should we assume that if Alan Moore were to step foot on Australian soil he'd be arrested for creating child porn?
Click to expand...

No even the police are terrifed of Alan Moore.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Good question. I think the reply might have to do with the filming of a murder not being the kind of crime filming kids in sexual actions is. Does that help?
Click to expand...
Actually, that's not the case, at least not under US law. Filming or otherwise recording a murder, with the knowledge that it's a murder, is a crime under US law. Accessory, or some such. Knowingly aquiring/possessing a recording of a real murder is also a crime, unless the recording is obtained solely for the purpose of alerting the appropriate law-enforcement agency.

Now, the problem with downloading and viewing such a recording is fraught with ambiguities due to the difficulty of differentiating between a true depiction of an actual murder, and a simulation of a murder using theatrical special effects. A classic example of this difficulty is the controversy over the Japanese Gini Piggu movie series, in particular Flowers of Flesh and Blood (Za ginipiggu 2: Chiniku no hana). Similar controversy surrounded the Italian director Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust.

By contrast, child pornography is notably less ambiguous. It's very clear whether or not children are involved, and whether they're being sexually abused. It's not possible to possess depictures of child sexual abuse without being fully aware that it's a documentation of an actual event. Computer and animation technology simply is not yet capable of producing material indistinguishable from a real recording. When said technology is available, laws will likely change to reflect that. (Note: I'm referring here strictly to child pornography, not to the more ambiguous late-teens "underage" pornography, which typically involves a purely arbitrary age of consent legal distinction; and generally involves models who have a youthful appearance and can be depicted as or implied to be younger than they actually are.)
 
luchog said:
Actually, that's not the case, at least not under US law. Filming or otherwise recording a murder, with the knowledge that it's a murder, is a crime under US law. Accessory, or some such. Knowingly aquiring/possessing a recording of a real murder is also a crime, unless the recording is obtained solely for the purpose of alerting the appropriate law-enforcement agency.

Now, the problem with downloading and viewing such a recording is fraught with ambiguities due to the difficulty of differentiating between a true depiction of an actual murder, and a simulation of a murder using theatrical special effects. A classic example of this difficulty is the controversy over the Japanese Gini Piggu movie series, in particular Flowers of Flesh and Blood (Za ginipiggu 2: Chiniku no hana). Similar controversy surrounded the Italian director Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust.

By contrast, child pornography is notably less ambiguous. It's very clear whether or not children are involved, and whether they're being sexually abused. It's not possible to possess depictures of child sexual abuse without being fully aware that it's a documentation of an actual event. Computer and animation technology simply is not yet capable of producing material indistinguishable from a real recording. When said technology is available, laws will likely change to reflect that. (Note: I'm referring here strictly to child pornography, not to the more ambiguous late-teens "underage" pornography, which typically involves a purely arbitrary age of consent legal distinction; and generally involves models who have a youthful appearance and can be depicted as or implied to be younger than they actually are.)
Click to expand...

I didn't even know that obtaining a film of a real crime, even though the obtainee isn't connected to the crime at all, for the sheer purpose of watching it or having it, is illegal. This gives the anti-porn people a weapon if porn were illegal, huh?
 
Does this mean they'll have to ban the London 2012 Olympics logo? (Sorry, I'm a noob so I can't post a link)


Edit: Hmm, not sure why it's highlighting the word 'ban' there...
Double Edit: Now it's not highlighting it, so that last edit doesn't make sense. Grrr...
 
Last edited:
Tony Inchpractice said:
Does this mean they'll have to ban the London 2012 Olympics logo? (Sorry, I'm a noob so I can't post a link)
Click to expand...

:dl:

Hadn't seen that. Brilliant design. Doubtless designed by some public schoolboy.

Tony Inchpractice said:
Edit: Hmm, not sure why it's highlighting the word 'ban' there...
Double Edit: Now it's not highlighting it, so that last edit doesn't make sense. Grrr...
Click to expand...

Idiot new system, ignore it.
 
I should mention that about 8 years ago, an email was circulating that had pics of Simpsons porn. If I remember rightly it had those weird twins doing something I won't describe to Bart. It was meant to be funny, it was received and passed on as funny. It was everywhere, just another viral email before viral was trendy.

Anyway, no-one batted an eyelash. No idea if this guy has fallen foul to the same pictures but at one point, tens of thousands of people had Simpsons kiddy porn on their computers. I'd be tempted to say I probably still have it in a 'funny images' folder on an old machine but of course I don't because I'm a law-abiding citizen who doesn't want to be arrested and beaten with a stick.
 
tkingdoll said:
I should mention that about 8 years ago, an email was circulating that had pics of Simpsons porn. If I remember rightly it had those weird twins doing something I won't describe to Bart. It was meant to be funny, it was received and passed on as funny. It was everywhere, just another viral email before viral was trendy.

Anyway, no-one batted an eyelash. No idea if this guy has fallen foul to the same pictures but at one point, tens of thousands of people had Simpsons kiddy porn on their computers. I'd be tempted to say I probably still have it in a 'funny images' folder on an old machine but of course I don't because I'm a law-abiding citizen who doesn't want to be arrested and beaten with a stick.
Click to expand...

Such images are still legal in the UK although there are proposals to change that.
 
JFrankA said:
Now let's say that somoene kills a person and records the murder for whatever reason. The killer then posts it to a website where people can download it for free. So let's say that for some reason someone, who has nothing to do with the murder, downloads it. That downloader is NOT guilty of breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Are you really sure about that:


Queensland Police say it is a crime for anyone to even watch a viral video of a man swinging a baby around a room.
Click to expand...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/home/...ng-video-charge/2008/12/11/1228584982919.html
 
Hmm... if merely viewing an illegal activity on tape is a crime, how does COPS stay on the air? Those World's Stupidest Criminals shows would make criminals out of their entire audience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom