• 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!

The Atheist

The Grammar Tyrant
The Atheist
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
36,354
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom