Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Did you hear about this? A dude in australia got charged with child pornography for images of simpsons characters because the judge ruled they were "people".
So D'n'D parties the country over will be pulled in for breaking and entering, theft and murder?
Will wargamers be put on trial for war crimes for using Twin Lash?
Does beating a dark eldar player count as minority discrimination?
Are scriptwriters liable for crimes that happen to characters in their shows?
Can I marry a Moomin?

Oh dear.

Thats right, jump off the deep end without knowing the ins and outs of the case.

From what I hear(my best friend's a porn addict, he's got more portable HDs of porn than most servers contain), a lot of Hentai sites have been pulling their Loli/underage character porn in the past year for fear of being shut down for kiddy porn. As well, a lot of faker sites/forums are requiring the posting of what head shots(ie. pictures have to be after they turn 18) are being used for faking recently 18 year old actresses before the fakes can be added.

I think I will actually. This is too much fun altogether.

But really, whatever way you look at it, this is stupid. A picture Edit: sorry, I should have said drawing of a person is not a person, plain and simple. No kids were involved, so where exactly is the harm? Sure, it's distasteful, but lots of things are and they're allowed. Would this have been any better or worse if the cartoons had been of animals with child like attributes?

Thing is, it's no different to writing fictional naughty stories, and you can be prosecuted for that, and understandably so.

Sure, the guy might have done them perfectly innocently as a bit of a laugh, but it is important to set a prosecution precedent with this sort of thing. I mean, if you let someone off with this when they were mucking about, it makes the acquital of someone with more sinister intentions more likely, as their lawyer could use the case as an example.

What about the simpsons movie? It has bart Naked, can you Ausies get fined for that?

link to article

I'm really torn as i'm a big fan of free speech, but as one of my best friend in a Underage Hentai lover. I can see where they are coming from. He can only get his jollies from under 10 year old girls in Hentai with high sqeaky voices, and fully grown women do nothing for him. The runny joke is I'll be on that show "To catch a predator." soon.

I've seen some dark things at Some anime conventions.
I'm not sure what side i lean on yet.

sexiest_hero wrote: one of my best friend in a Underage Hentai lover. I can see where they are coming from. quote]

Bad choice of words of the week award right there !

Has your friend actually tried getting his jollies from an actual woman ? Like in person, no over a webcam or on a monitor ?

.... actually, let's not get into this on second thoughts.

Much as I despise sounding like a Tabloid, the kids have to be protected as much as possible, so if some liberties have to be surrendered, as longs as it's for good reason, then so be it.

After all, what starts at looking at Cartoons *can* lead to a deeper, umm...fascination, with children...

No, I'm not with you at all MDG.
At all.
I think it's all pretty ludicrous actually.
Edit: I mean, where in all of this are the kids being harmed? Where is the harm at all, except possibly to the guy that whacks off to this stuff?

Da Boss wrote:No, I'm not with you at all MDG.
At all.
I think it's all pretty ludicrous actually.
Edit: I mean, where in all of this are the kids being harmed? Where is the harm at all, except possibly to the guy that whacks off to this stuff?

The harm is that that same guy whacking off to it may actually have a predilection for occasionally viewing children as sexual objects, which grows into full pedophilia(the inability or severely reduced ability to see anything BUT children as sexual objects), which may lead to acting upon the mental and physical impulses that pedophilia causes to a person. Of course, this could happen without the porn, but most abusers/rapists have a history with pornography before they attempt it with a living victim.

It's not a certainty, just a possibility, but that possibility is what MDG is saying children need to be protected from.

It does say some pretty disturbing things about someone if that's how they get their kicks though, they are sexualising children, they might not be real children (yet), but it's still effing wierd, and not something that the world needs. Free speech is a whole lot easier to defend in cases where the thing defended has any artistic merit, and isn't, as in this case, gratuitous and morally shady.

I understand the idea, I just don't believe it's nessicary to legislate to protect kids from it. Child abuse was happening long before there was internet cartoon pornography. It's roots and the ways to protect from it are seperate to this issue.
What this looks like to me is an abuse of existing laws to persecute someone we all find distasteful.

Da Boss wrote:No, I'm not with you at all MDG.
At all.
I think it's all pretty ludicrous actually.
Edit: I mean, where in all of this are the kids being harmed? Where is the harm at all, except possibly to the guy that whacks off to this stuff?

Wells thats the reason, there have been a few studies now that link the viewing of child porn via the internet leading to actual taking that next step. It dehumanizes your ability to see it as wrong, I mean if you are willing to jack off to that rubbish, what is the next step?

For a long time now I have been a critic of Loli porn and its ilk, and to me this kind of judgement is good news. I mean seriously with no joke intended, wtf kind of person gets his jollies from seeing Maggie in porn pics?

Freedom of speech is one thing, but this in my view is just freedom to dodge laws that are in place for a good reason, and its about time this backdoor was closed.

I'm still annoyed that they chickened out on the .xxx for the net, would have made it so much easier to track sick stuff like this down.

But regardless just because it was drawn doesn't mean no one gets hurt, if just one guy goes on to abuse children after looking at this kinda stuff (and folks looking into the issue says that happens,) then thats one guy too many.

Just my view on the matter.


edit - PC was lagging like no ones business earlier so it showed my post directly after Da Boss, obviously after coming back a few mins ago I can see how bad that lagging actually was, so I've just added the quote so it makes more sense.

Even though I don't agree with that argument, I'm willing to admit it has merits. But declaring the simpsons people so they could do it is lazy and slapdash.

I’m reminded of that old chestnut, if you aren’t willing to defend free speech you don’t agree with, you aren’t really willing to defend free speech at all.

Yeah, cartoon porn featuring underage characters is quite sick, but a lot of porn is pretty sick, unless it’s your thing. The point is that no-one was harmed is producing the porn, and no-one was harmed by this guy viewing it. While it may be indicative of a disturbed mind, you don’t go about prosecuting people for indicating they might have a disturbed mind. You prosecute people when they harm others.

This guy harmed no-one, and contorting the law to allow for a prosecution is a dangerous precedent.

sebster wrote:I’m reminded of that old chestnut, if you aren’t willing to defend free speech you don’t agree with, you aren’t really willing to defend free speech at all.

Except Free Speech isn't actually unlimited Free Speech. There are words and images that are not protected even by Free Speech, like Child Pornography, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, or books detailing how to commit murders. The line is hard to see admittedly and it is tricky, but I think we would be hard pressed to get people to ban photo's of child sex but not hand drawn versions of the same. Trying to convince people (especially parents) that someone jerking off to drawing of a kid is ok but that it isn't for a photo probably won't fly to far.

Ahtman wrote:Except Free Speech isn't actually unlimited Free Speech. There are words and images that are not protected even by Free Speech, like Child Pornography, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, or books detailing how to commit murders. The line is hard to see admittedly and it is tricky, but I think we would be hard pressed to get people to ban photo's of child sex but not hand drawn versions of the same. Trying to convince people (especially parents) that someone jerking off to drawing of a kid is ok but that it isn't for a photo probably won't fly to far.

Absolutely, there are limits to free speech, like there are limits to all rights. But I’m not sure the line is that tricky, as long as you keep to a key principle, if the speech causes direct harm to others it is fair to ban or restrict it. Yelling fire in crowded theatre causes harm to others due to the panic, therefore it should be punished.

Similarly, a photo of a child required an actual child to be abused, and so it should be illegal. Copying and disseminating that photo continues demand for similar work, and makes it more likely more children will be abused similarly, and so should also be illegal. But drawing a cartoon doesn’t harm anyone.

Of course, this could happen without the porn, but most abusers/rapists have a history with pornography before they attempt it with a living victim.

Compared against how many normal adults that have a history with porno before they don´t attempt anything at all? This, unfortunely very common, argument against porn it´s a personal peeve of me, unless we compare the percentage of abusers using porn against the total porn using population before reaching this conclusion we are guilty of falsifying the parameters to obtain the desired result porn users = abusers.

Ahtman wrote:

sebster wrote:I’m reminded of that old chestnut, if you aren’t willing to defend free speech you don’t agree with, you aren’t really willing to defend free speech at all.

Except Free Speech isn't actually unlimited Free Speech. There are words and images that are not protected even by Free Speech, like Child Pornography, yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, or books detailing how to commit murders. The line is hard to see admittedly and it is tricky, but I think we would be hard pressed to get people to ban photo's of child sex but not hand drawn versions of the same. Trying to convince people (especially parents) that someone jerking off to drawing of a kid is ok but that it isn't for a photo probably won't fly to far.

I´m with sebster here, remeber the mess with the Danish cartoons? Either you support free speech, with the given limit of no direct harm as stated, or not. And if you don´t support the free speech of a KKK member to hate blacks, gays or Mickey Mouse (no matter how distateful as long as they are not acting on that hate) you can´t expect others to support yours. And in this case we are talking about drawings where no real person was harmed.

BTW if we are going to start banning distateful drawings, and other fictional characters because "In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word 'person' included fictional or imaginary characters ...," the judge said. I want the possesion of certain books that talk about child brides and incest banned too Quoram and the Old Testament anyone?

M.

PD: Yes, I´m a bigot so I want to make use of my Free Speech I HATE jedis. I wish I could send them all on a one way trip to the sun, look what they did with their dirty mind trick to my beloved Imperial Navy.

When it comes to porn, whatever floats your boat man. The more illegal it is the more valuable it becomes. The more taboo it becomes the harder it is to tell if someone has a mental problem or a fleeting fascination.

Good luck really. I don't care how many of these 'liberties' I have to give up. You made them up and gave them to me in the first place to make it seem like I have a lot of something that doesn't really exist.

Miguelsan wrote:I´m with sebster here

I am as well, but if we put it to a vote most people are not going to vote ideology, they are going to vote against what is percieved as kiddie porn.

Sebster, I agree with you in principle, but it seems your only definition of 'direct harm' is different to mine. Would you not say verbal racist abuse constitutes direct harm?

Again, in the case of the Danish cartoons they would have been a lot easier to defend if they weren't so gak.

Da Boss wrote:So D'n'D parties the country over will be pulled in for breaking and entering, theft and murder?
Will wargamers be put on trial for war crimes for using Twin Lash?
Does beating a dark eldar player count as minority discrimination?
Are scriptwriters liable for crimes that happen to characters in their shows?
Can I marry a Moomin?

Yay for slipery slope arguments! WOO!

BYE

Do the people who think this needs to be illegal also think that games like Grand Theft Auto should be illegal, due to the way they portray murder?
You can make all the same connections there.
Simpsons child porn is... disturbing, but that isn't relevant to something's legality.

Greebynog wrote:Would you not say verbal racist abuse constitutes direct harm?

I certainly wouldn't. Direct harm is material.
If you ban speech because it's decreed immoral or it makes people unhappy, free speech is worthless.

Greebynog wrote:Sebster, I agree with you in principle, but it seems your only definition of 'direct harm' is different to mine. Would you not say verbal racist abuse constitutes direct harm?

Again, in the case of the Danish cartoons they would have been a lot easier to defend if they weren't so gak.

Honestly, I think people have a right to spew their direct, racist verbal abuse. No-one has the right to walk up to a stranger and start calling him rude names, but no-one has the right to go up to a stranger and start abusing him in general. If antagonistic speech is tolerated in a certain environment, that can include racist speech.

If we start banning speech because we extend harm to include things like offence, then we open the door to things like blasphemy becoming an offence.


I agree that the Danish cartoons are a tricky one. I think there was a genuine desire to make a political point, but the method was offensive and not necessary. I wish they hadn’t drawn those cartoons, but don’t think we should ban them doing so.

It’s more complicated again because the Muslim reaction was so over the top. It’s hard to say ‘well they do have a point’ when people were being killed in protest marches. Yes, they had a point, but it was minor compared to their reaction.

With the danish cartoons there was so much idiocy from both sides my brain nearly melted just hearing about it. I fully accept your point on abusive language, I think I'm in just about the same camp, I actually lobbied for the BNP (nasty racist twatbags) to speak at my student union as every other candidate, including far-left ones, were on the grounds of free speech. Personal direct abuse is another matter.

@HBMC: On one side you have a slippery slope argument that cartoon porn leads to real porn/abuses, and on the other that banning this leads to the banning of other less wierd stuff...great fun!

Banning pictures of kiddie pr0n will just make them use Etch-a-scetch drawings.

*Shake*

"Where's your evidence now copper? Muahahahahahahaha!"

Greebynog wrote:With the danish cartoons there was so much idiocy from both sides my brain nearly melted just hearing about it. I fully accept your point on abusive language, I think I'm in just about the same camp, I actually lobbied for the BNP (nasty racist twatbags) to speak at my student union as every other candidate, including far-left ones, were on the grounds of free speech. Personal direct abuse is another matter.

@HBMC: On one side you have a slippery slope argument that cartoon porn leads to real porn/abuses, and on the other that banning this leads to the banning of other less wierd stuff...great fun!

The trouble is, there is a definite slippery slope evidenced in child sexual abuse cases. The persons performing the abuse, almost universally, began with looking at the pictures first, and the sought out harder and harder stuff. The de-sensitisation is the problem. HBMC correctly point out that pornography causes the viewer to see things purely as sexual objects, and so on. And if you are disturbed enough to fancy children (and I'm not talking Lolita's here...I'm talking as young as a *newborn*) then access to this sort of thing is not a good thing.

Free Speech is one thing, but the protection of innocents has to take precedence, surely?

Platuan4th wrote:

Da Boss wrote:No, I'm not with you at all MDG.
At all.
I think it's all pretty ludicrous actually.
Edit: I mean, where in all of this are the kids being harmed? Where is the harm at all, except possibly to the guy that whacks off to this stuff?

The harm is that that same guy whacking off to it may actually have a predilection for occasionally viewing children as sexual objects, which grows into full pedophilia(the inability or severely reduced ability to see anything BUT children as sexual objects), which may lead to acting upon the mental and physical impulses that pedophilia causes to a person. Of course, this could happen without the porn, but most abusers/rapists have a history with pornography before they attempt it with a living victim.

It's not a certainty, just a possibility, but that possibility is what MDG is saying children need to be protected from.

Exterminate him and be done with it to protect society. He's going to be a predator if he isn't already. They basically have a 100% recidivism rate if caught.