×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

612 comments

Simpsons Movie (5, Insightful)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033741)

During The Simpson's movie, it showed Bart's junk while he was skateboarding. Does this mean the movie depicts Child Porn?

Re:Simpsons Movie (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26033767)

go look at CNN china just got attacked by nukes

Re:Simpsons Movie (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26033857)

Not true

Re:Simpsons Movie (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033785)

No, but the teeming masses (of stupid) will label it as such.

Re:Simpsons Movie (5, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033939)

Fantastic!

Imaginary things are now real!
Imaginary people now have all the rights of real people!

Re:Simpsons Movie (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034081)

Does that mean imaginary numbers are now real too? Because I don't really want to have to learn physics from scratch again!!

Re:Simpsons Movie (1)

Pvt_Ryan (1102363) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034245)

Does that mean imaginary numbers are now real too? Because I don't really want to have to learn physics from scratch again!!

Ahh but have you heard of "nullity"?

Re:Simpsons Movie (2, Interesting)

Zackbass (457384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034405)

And suddenly the output of my filter stopped ringing! Now we just have to make positive reals into negatives and we'll really be set.

Re:Simpsons Movie (1)

Legion_SB (1300215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034437)

Fantastic!

Imaginary things are now real! Imaginary people now have all the rights of real people!

Another college freshman learns of the concept of "corporate personhood"...

Re:Simpsons Movie (-1, Offtopic)

paulhar (652995) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033803)

Bart's junk? ... Bart is junk ...?

or maybe Bart was carrying handfuls of his junk in the film?

Err... confused.

Re:Simpsons Movie (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033949)

In case you really are confused... to clarify -

You know, your bobby dangler, giggle stick, your general-two-colonels, master of ceremonies...

- Nigel Powers in Goldmember

Re:Simpsons Movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26033957)

Bart's junk? ... Bart is junk ...?

or maybe Bart was carrying handfuls of his junk in the film?

Err... confused.

Penis.

Re:Simpsons Movie (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034023)

Bart's junk? ... Bart is junk ...? or maybe Bart was carrying handfuls of his junk in the film? Err... confused.
Look here [wikipedia.org] and all will be revealed.

Re:Simpsons Movie (4, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033889)

It doesn't mean that the movie depicts Child Porn... it means that the movie IS child porn.

Actually, let me make it simpler for the Western judicial system - everyone is guilty of child pornography... There, now they can wiretap our phones and internet, and jail us at will. I just feel that this was much more efficient than going through the motions for the next 10 years just to arrive at the same point.

Re:Simpsons Movie (5, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034123)

During The Simpson's movie, it showed Bart's junk while he was skateboarding. Does this mean the movie depicts Child Porn?

No, that's art.

Like a statue of Cupid or paintings of cherubs and stuff.

Re:Simpsons Movie (4, Funny)

zmooc (33175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034223)

You've definately come to the right place here at slashdot, given that you do not seem to understand the difference between nudity and sex;-)

Re:Simpsons Movie (4, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034479)

No, because it doesn't do so in a way that might result result in the viewer possibly experiencing the Thoughtcrime of being sexually attracted to children which could result in them performing, commissioning or rewarding an act that may involve an actual child.

The only people who need to worry are those evil monsters who sexualise children, and portray them as precociously pubescent and sexually available.

So, that'll be... hmmm... the RIAA, MPAA, makeup companies, childrens' clothing manufacturers, and every parent that ever let their pre-consent daughter dress like that Hannah Montana tramp.

And why stop there? If you're under the age of consent but above the age of criminal responsibility, then surely you're responsible for your own actions? Arrest hot horny teenage girls for putting Thoughtcrime into the heads of poor innocent God-fearing men, is my new motto. We have a lot to learn from our friends and allies in Saudi Arabia.

So long rule 34 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26033743)

That's why we can't have nice things!!!

Niggers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26033819)

Niggers, everyone's favorite pet.

What's Next? (3, Interesting)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033843)

I guess under this precedent they'll have to indict and convict Groenig himself and everyone who worked on the recent "The Simpsons" movie for his depiction of Bart skateboarding naked through town?

This sure sounds like one really steep and slippery slope.

Re:What's Next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034505)

According to the BBC article here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7770781.stm [bbc.co.uk]...

He ruled that the animated cartoon could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children," and therefore upheld the conviction for child pornography.

we're now going to be held responsible for the potential of inanimate objects in our possession. I hope they don't go in my closet and arrest me for terrorism because my bow and arrow could "fuel demand for stronger weapons including explosives".

Insane (3, Insightful)

PincusJr (1310977) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033865)

This is totally insane. There is a thread over at Whirlpool about this: http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=1101155 [whirlpool.net.au] A child has not been abused. The rational behind the child porno laws is to prevent children from being abused... Or so I thought.

Re:Insane (2, Informative)

mujadaddy (1238164) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034019)

In the US, that is the current case law. There have been at least 2 US Supreme Court decisions striking down CPPA & COPA, stating explicitly that
A) CP laws are designed to protect REAL children, and
B) Drawings are not real children. Don't know about Oz; your link says I'm not authorized.

Re:Insane (2, Insightful)

tripdizzle (1386273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034055)

A child has not been abused. The rational behind the child porno laws is to prevent children from being abused... Or so I thought.

It has moved away from this to attempting to prevent thoughts of people who are into this sort of thing (not the cartoons, the real disgusting kid stuff)because if they are able to see it, they begin to imagine it, and if they imagine it, they want to go do it. Its still looked at as prevention, but instead of preventing the actual abuse, they want to prevent the thoughts that may lead to the abuse.

I agree with everyone here that this is ridiculous, I saw the Simpson's Movie in the theater, and now I am waiting for a FBI agent to bust down my door and arrest me for seeing Bart's junk.

Re:Insane (4, Insightful)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034287)

Its still looked at as prevention, but instead of preventing the actual abuse, they want to prevent the thoughts that may lead to the abuse.

Now they need to ban violent films to prevent the thoughts that lead to murder. Then ban mention of the banning of violent films to prevent the thoughts that lead to thoughts that lead to murder. Then create the system from Minority Report where they catch criminals before the crime is committed. Then borrow from 1984 and arrest based on thought crimes.

Oh, hang on, that last one is what they're already doing!

Prevention, YEAH!!! (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034359)

the real disgusting kid stuff)because if they are able to see it, they begin to imagine it, and if they imagine it, they want to go do it

That's why sites like this one [tiffany.com] should be illegal, because when people see it they begin to imagine it and they want to commit theft. Also, sites like this one [bankofamerica.com] give away information that may be used by criminals, so they should be illegal too.

Re:Insane (3, Interesting)

Zironic (1112127) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034417)

I thought it was generally proven that porn lowers the overall rape rate which should in theory mean that child porn(without real children) should lower the child rape rate.

Re:Insane (1)

tripdizzle (1386273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034593)

I thought it was generally proven that porn lowers the overall rape rate which should in theory mean that child porn(without real children) should lower the child rape rate.

Might be, and probably is true, and I would have to agree with your point. I was providing the logic that I think see them following, which is good to try and understand if you want to give a counterpoint, which you have done effectively.

Personally, I would have to say that porn stops rape all the time. Every time I am pre-rape attacked, I just pull a picture of a sexier, younger boy out of my pocket. /sarcasm

Not Fair (5, Funny)

TheRealZero (907390) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033875)

This just isn't fair. Lisa never ages...after 20 seasons at 8 years old she has to be fair game by now...who hasn't fantasized about Maggie flying in through your bedroom window naked?

Re:Not Fair (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034537)

...who hasn't fantasized about Maggie flying in through your bedroom window naked?

Waylon Smithers

Technically (4, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033877)

Technically, all the characters are over 18 by now, whether or not they're drawn that way.

Re:Technically (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034007)

You're right. It's just further proof of how much BS this ruling is. He acknowledges that the legislation's purpose is to protect "real" children, and then completely ignores that in his ruling. Judges are supposed to decipher the law, not create them.

Re:Technically (0, Redundant)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034439)

Technically, we only see about 20 minutes of their lives every week.

For the sake of the argument, let's round to 52 episodes per year and 30 minutes episodes (even though there's only around 20~25 episodes of 20~22 minutes every year). Let's also forget the occasional "one week/month/etc later" bits.

This means that, after 20 years, the characters have only "aged" 20 years x 52 weeks x 30 minutes = 520 hours, i.e. not even 22 days have passed.

while I deplore child pornography-- (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033885)

rah rah freaking rah...

I really feel that 'if a child wasn't involved' then it is not child porn/something that needs to be stopped.

I further think-- anyone with a contrasting viewpoint leads necassarily to admitting all those against vanilla porn as 'demeaning to women' etc are right.

Now- for those 100% against both types of porn, I'm willing to conceed the possibility-- but I don't think one is permissible (vanilla) where the other is not (cartoonish children) and I also think CGI feature films should be legal as well---

if Playboy and Hustler & Manga & everything else in the XXX world that is legal does not impose on the freedom & impact of others
then owning a depiction of the purple twins blowing bart (I've see this very file briefly from usenet) is not something that endangers children.

Re:while I deplore child pornography-- (3, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034159)

You bring up a good point, Bart and Lisa are clearly depicted as children, in spite of being decades "old". But what about all those Manga girls? Are they 18 (or whatever is legal where you are at)?

Stupid ruling, and one that easily can infect other nations for no reason other than it sounds like it "protects the children".

USA? (1)

LilGuy (150110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033891)

So what is the status of such cartoons in the USA? I've seen plenty of cartoon knock-offs just browsing dirty sites, does that make me a pedophile?

Re:USA? (2, Informative)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033959)

Used to be illegal, Supreme Court threw out the law.

Re:USA? (2, Insightful)

Coraon (1080675) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034111)

no it doesn't make you a pedophile for seeing something online, if however you liked it and wanted to try something similar with a under age boy or girl, then that would make you a pedophile.

Character ages? (5, Insightful)

Mononoke (88668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033897)

Without certified birth certificates, I wonder how they determine the legal ages of the "children" in those images?

If "She looked old enough." isn't a valid defense, then "They don't look old enough." cannot be a legally valid position either.

Re:Character ages? (1)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034067)

That's the first thing I thought of when I read this. Isn't there supposed to be a victim somewhere in order to convict someone of this type of crime?

Re:Character ages? (5, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034281)

Once you criminalise Thoughtcrime, victims are just icing.

This judgement is particularly interesting in that it prohibits material that could produce "demand", i.e. it possibly encourages something that might potentially be Thoughtcrime. Gosh.

Re:Character ages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034115)

Are you sure you're not a lawyer? Brilliant!

Re:Character ages? (5, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034181)

By a suitably vague piece of terminology "a depiction of a person who is or appears to be under 18".

Based on a "reasonable man" test. So even if you have a pornographic image of an 18 year old who simply looks a little younger than she is, and she's in court to testify as to her age, and the fact that it was consensual, you could still be convicted because she still appears to be under 18.

And with a strict enough interpretation of the law, she too could be convicted.

Re:Character ages? (2, Interesting)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034231)

Actually, I wonder what they'll do when they get to furry cartoon porn. I'd probably pay to sit in the court session with judge deliberating on whether a fic with, say, Webby, would be considered child porn. And I'd pay even more if that was a jury trial.

Re:Character ages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034481)

If it was required to know actual age, then it would be impossible to prosecute for child porn found on someone's computer if you don't know the victims name. Therefore the laws usually refer to apparent age or physical maturity when the real age is unknown.

The real problem here is that drawn porn does not have a victim.

Does that mean.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26033903)

That the new London 2012 Olympic logo [london2012.com] will be banned; it does like like Lisa Simpson doing something rather rude.

Re:Does that mean.... (3, Funny)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034109)

The logo looks more like a Swastika and thus will be banned in most of Europe under anti-speech hate laws.

Escape Valve (2, Insightful)

Extremus (1043274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033919)

However it was also to deter the production of other material, including cartoons, that could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children".

This is the same question you can find in discussion about violence in games: will it fuel a natural tendency or will it serve as an escape valve?

Time for Australia to Fall Off (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033929)

Is it time for Australia to just fall off this planet entirely? You can say that it's just the government and the judges, but who elected that government who put in those judges in the first place?

Re:Time for Australia to Fall Off (3, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034513)

I really am scratching my head over England and Australia. It almost seems like they see the US going down a path and are racing each other to beat us to the end.

Re:Time for Australia to Fall Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034527)

but who elected that government who put in those judges in the first place?

Hey, now that's not fair...
Its not like any of the other jokers were better choices.

Still, its getting pretty depressing, reading about all these things. I never thought I'd want to leave oz, but I'm getting there now.

So, who is the victim of this 'crime'? (4, Insightful)

Hodar (105577) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033953)

So, if I don't clearly make my stick-figure adult sized, is this kiddie porn?

When a goverment makes laws that can not be enforced, people lose respect for not only the law, but the goverment itself.

This means that any figure, that some judge deems is drawn to represent a person under the age of 21, must be considered juvinile. Therefore, if this drawing is doing something that may be construed as 'adult' in nature, the drawing is now up to the judge's intrepretation as to the age and content of the drawing.

And people are supposed to sagely nod their heads and say "ye wise man, thou knowest my inner-most thoughts and thy punishment is just".

As a note to myself, henceforth all my stick figures will sport mustaches (yes, both male and female stick figures). The beard on the females will indicate that they are post-menopause - just to be safe.

Re:So, who is the victim of this 'crime'? (1)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034035)

Hmm... Xkcd (the sexuality-refencing strips) are child porn? Cute.

Re:So, who is the victim of this 'crime'? (1, Insightful)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034153)

The victims are supposedly the real children who get exploited in making real child porn. The theory is that these pornographic drawings contribute to an illicit market in child pornography and thereby encourage the creation of the real thing.

If you ask me it's utterly bogus reasoning. If anything these sorts of drawings are a good thing, as they will act as a substitute for borderline cases who are attracted to children but don't want to act on that. But in any case, that's the "reasoning" behind it.

Re:So, who is the victim of this 'crime'? (1)

Briareos (21163) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034391)

The victims are supposedly the real children who get exploited in making real child porn. The theory is that these pornographic drawings contribute to an illicit market in child pornography and thereby encourage the creation of the real thing.

Why not chop down the Amazonian rain forests next? I'm pretty sure the oxygen produced there also contributes a tiny little bit to the same illicit market...

np: Boy Robot - The Last Dance (Glamorizing Corporate Lifestyle)

Re:So, who is the victim of this 'crime'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034485)

This is really the point. Who is the victim? Child pornography laws are designed to protect children from exploitation. Nobody is being exploited by a cartoon. In fact, you could argue that a cartoon would provide a pedophile with an outlet for his/her problem that could be akin to the nicotine patch for smokers. This is not justice, it's legislating morality.

Re:So, who is the victim of this 'crime'? (4, Funny)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034601)

This means that any figure, that some judge deems is drawn to represent a person under the age of 21, must be considered juvinile. Therefore, if this drawing is doing something that may be construed as 'adult' in nature, the drawing is now up to the judge's intrepretation as to the age and content of the drawing.

You are quite right.

As a brief example, this is child porn:

() C===8

But this is not (pubic hair implies adulthood):

@@
() C===8

Ouch (4, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26033983)

So how long before Anime is child porn down there? Oversexed adolescents are the typical fare so it probably is fodder for these guys. It really sounds similar to the case involving the suicide we had recently, the law just HAD to do something because it was "OBVIOUSLY" wrong to begin with. In other words, law based on the whim of a government employee.

It is a cartoon, no one real was harmed, so now inanimate objects have rights or is that entirely dependent on what they represent? I mean, can you get busted for making a parody where the statue shits on the bird? After all its "naughty bits" might be showing.

Who would have thought the real prudes wouldn't be over zealous religious players and instead dowdy old government goons

Re:Ouch (-1, Troll)

ultranova (717540) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034495)

So how long before Anime is child porn down there? Oversexed adolescents are the typical fare so it probably is fodder for these guys.

Undersexed. Those teenagers talk a lot but never seem to get down to action, despite constantly running into each other naked. That's not very believable, IMHO.

You might avoid reading Negima there openly, thought.

It is a cartoon, no one real was harmed, so now inanimate objects have rights

Which is more than what us animated ones can say, apparently.

or is that entirely dependent on what they represent?

No, it's dependent on whether a judge happens to find it offensive or not.

But really, what did you expect, in a penal colony run by the exiled prisoners ? Especially when you remember that these were the people even Great "'voluntary' censorship of Wikipedia pages" Britain wanted to get rid of.

Yay for freedom! (1)

lixee (863589) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034005)

So, first the UK's ISPs censor the wiki's artwork (and accompanying text!) of that album by Scorpion. Then this? Next thing you know, people wearing t-shirts of Nirvana's Nevermind will be arrested.

Free country my knee!

And..? (2, Funny)

bhunachchicken (834243) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034017)

Bart: Hey guys, just so you don't hear any wild rumors, an Australian judge has ruled that some drawings of us are considered to be child porn.

Homer: Pfff. That's no reason to block the TV.

this isn't a court case it's an experiment (1)

steak (145650) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034027)

if australia can make the internet work without rule 34, then we may all be spared the horror of having to see two at-at's making sweet sweet love. also free speech and where the line is and what resides on which side of said line.

This is a major breakthrough (4, Insightful)

discord5 (798235) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034089)

I'm sure that the children who are actually being abused around the world are enormously happy that at least their favourite cartoon characters are safe.

I'm sorry if that's a little too cynical, but don't these people have important things to do?

I feel a great disturbance in the Force (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034113)

as if millions of hentai viewers suddenly cried out in terror

Are people who see child porn in everything... (5, Interesting)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034131)

... possibly paedophiles themselves but don't want to admit it and so make a big deal out of everything that could possibly turn them on? I'm not trying to be frivolous , but it days past (and probably still) you'd often get violently anti gay men who in the end turned out to be gay themselves but couldn't accept it - that anger was actually self hate. I do wonder these days with a lot of people seeing child porn everywhere whether these people themselves are paedos and are getting turned on by pictures of peoples kids on the beach or whatever and so to try to prove to themselves that they're not perverts they do a 180 and try to ban everything.

Where does it stop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034141)

Between this and the recent internet filtering trainwreck, not to mention a bunch of other insane government measures that stifle civil rights and censor media, Australia is starting to out-pace the US with government funded oppression of various sorts. At least that is something I can say for the US, we at least still somewhat have a free media, if only just(though that is quickly changing). I really hope you Aussies get those morons out of office before it's too late.

The Simpsons Movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034155)

Bart is not depicted in a sexual manner and therefore is not child pornography.

Isn't this insulting to abused children? (1)

WarwickRyan (780794) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034175)

The time, effort and money spent prosecuting someone for what, to any sane person is clearly not a crime would be better spent doing stuff like, you know, protecting actual children from being, you know, actually abused?

As it is, all this does is insult those who've suffered abuse. It makes what has happend to them seem like a joke.

Bloody kangaroo court in a country full of crims.

Re:Isn't this insulting to abused children? (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034261)

I agree. Honestly, with this kind of situation, the victim isn't "the children", it is people with delicate moral values. Those people can go to hell. There's enough issues in this world that needs working on, we don't need to spend time worrying over fragile emotional losers.

Re:Isn't this insulting to abused children? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034575)

Bloody kangaroo court in a country full of crims.

Well, it used to be their main imports, you know. /duck

If they are going against that... (1)

Keyper7 (1160079) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034221)

...I wonder what they'll have to say about Lolicon [wikipedia.org].

Re:If they are going against that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034305)

Any representation of a child in a sexual manner is considered child pornography in Australia. The wiki article you link to even mentions Australia (last I checked).

Re:If they are going against that... (1)

Keyper7 (1160079) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034399)

Any representation of a child in a sexual manner is considered child pornography in Australia. The wiki article you link to even mentions Australia (last I checked).

Mentions Australia and the Simpsons rule. Damn, wikipedians are fast. My bad.

Holy precedent, Bat...guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034265)

So, now that cartoon people are real (in Australia), where does this end? Can artists be arrested for pictures of toture? How about movies? If an actor kills someone in a film, can they be arrested for murder?

Totally illogical reasoning (4, Funny)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034325)

"the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people", said Justice Michael Adams.

The jury of peers, consisting of Popeye, TinTin, Andy Pandy, Bob the Builder, Elmer Fudd and Captain Caveman all agreed. Popeye was heard to say, "I yam what I yam, and if I yain't a person then what yam I? Just a cartoon figure? I thinks not yukyukyukyukyuk".

So, how bad does a drawing have to be before Adams considers that it is not a person? And isn't there something just a little worrying about the sanity of a Justice who believes that a drawing has the same rights as a person?

The Judge needs to explain his reasoning (5, Insightful)

Brian Ribbon (986353) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034379)

"Justice Adams said the purpose of the legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images are depicted of "real" children.

However it was also to deter the production of other material, including cartoons, that could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children"."

Firstly, child pornography is generally produced by people who wish to profit from such material or trade it with others. The belief that non-commercial demand encourages production is based on the assumption that child pornographers produce such images to distribute freely, which clearly contradicts claims that child pornography is a multi-billion dollar industry.

The idea that viewing child sex cartoons encourages child pornographers to abuse actual children takes this argument to an even more ridiculous level. If someone can download child sex cartoons in order to get their fix, they are less likely to download real pictures of children. If commercial child pornographers make an increasing amount of money from child sex cartoons, they're more likely to draw cartoons than use real children. If there is an increasing demand for cartoons amongst people who trade child pornography, those who produce images for trading will be more likely to draw cartoons than use real children

There is no mechanism by which viewing child sex cartoons can lead to real children being used for child pornography; this is yet another example of blind moralism being placed above the welfare of children.

Latvia (2, Informative)

tacet (1142479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034387)

In Latvia, where I live, you can get 3 years in jail for creating, sharing or downloading such thing. Creating includes writing too.

Oh, it's on... as dependents on my tax return. (5, Funny)

jbezorg (1263978) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034401)

"...the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people."

Those cardboard cutouts of Homer & Marge in the passenger seats? Restricted commuter lanes, here I come.

Oh and the cardboard cutouts of Bart, Lisa and Maggie? Dependents when I file taxes.

The tape that holds them together? That's a medical expense.

Hopefully this will happen soon in the US... (1)

MunchMunch (670504) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034413)

...so the Supreme Court can get around to declaring 18 USC 2252A's ban on "virtual" child porn unconstitutional, like they did for the "simulated child porn" provision of the CPPA.
.
Their reasoning in striking down the CPPA from Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (here [wikipedia.org])is clearly applicable; the policy rationales (there was no harm to an actual minor, no crime that took place in the creation, etc...) almost entirely support striking down a ban on virtual child porn.

Justice Adams is Eddie Valiant (1)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034429)

The new hero of ToonTown!

He stands for the rights of toons everywhere!

"These Toons are just as human as you and me", he decried, before dropping a 1 tonne anvil on his own head.

Re:Justice Adams is Eddie Valiant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034547)

If only..

In other news... (1)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034457)

""If the persons were real, such depictions could never be permitted,"Justice Adams said in his judgement."
"the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people."

In other news, the director of 300 has been found guilty of mass murder, and sentenced to execution. ...and the world's gone mad.

I would rather pedophiles looked at this... (1)

QJimbo (779370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26034507)

Sure, being sexually attracted to children isn't normal, the thoughts themselves are not a crime. While it certainly isn't the most appealing thing to talk about, a way they can get a release is from drawings of pedophilia. Actual child pornography is wrong because children are harmed in the making of it, but with a drawing, nobody is harmed.

Do we really want the possibility of MORE sexually frustrated pedophiles?

Vampires! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26034567)

So, what about vampires? Let's say the Simpsons were all bit, and they are ageless blood-suckers?
That means they are timeless, eternal.

Does that mean they are still children? Vampires can be centuries old!
So that 11 year old may look 11, but could be 311, 411, or older!

Looks can be deceiving. Vampires are in our midst! :p

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...