Export thread

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7770781.stm

And once again I am thankful I am not an Aussie.

In that case they should really send a general warning out to Japan to be aware of this when visiting Australia.

I'm thankful that I'm not a pedophile.

well.. that means rule 34 site (and other cartoon site) are going to be in big problem.

Also lots of animation does this

Cat said:

I'm thankful that I'm not a pedophile.

Click to expand...

JONJONAUG said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7770781.stm

And once again I am thankful I am not an Aussie.

Click to expand...

EsteBeatDown said:

JONJONAUG said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7770781.stm

And once again I am thankful I am not an Aussie.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yeah, you caught that to?
My eyebrow doesn't go high enough.

JONJONAUG said:

And once again I am thankful I am not an Aussie.

Click to expand...

Cool post. Couldn't help but notice your YouTube profile is full of anime. You are probably a pedophile. Cheers.

Australia: once known for surfing, the Great Barrier Reef and the Outback... now known for prosecuting people who get off on cartoon characters.

I'm in favor of that ruling. While normal cartoons don't have nudity (The Simpsons movie being the exception) they are not presented as having genitalia and using it in sexual ways. Obviously this was in reference to pornography.

JONJONAUG said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7770781.stm

And once again I am thankful I am not an Aussie.

Click to expand...

You can't can't cartoon kiddie porn in Australia? Oh darn. What an injustice! :eyeroll:

Espy said:

EsteBeatDown said:

JONJONAUG said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7770781.stm

And once again I am thankful I am not an Aussie.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yeah, you caught that to?
My eyebrow doesn't go high enough.

Click to expand...

The amount of "Whaaaa???" that Mr. JONJONAUG's comment provided far surpassed what any smiley on this board could have done justice for. And even this one I found still doesn't make the cut...

:?

:batman:

Did I read the article correctly, though? My understanding was that this schmuck already had kiddie porn on his computer besides the animated stuff. Or was all his stuff animated?

Because seriously, the latter case is not only sick. But also slightly pathetic...

Half-hearted devil's advocate - might not animation and drawings be the least harmful way for paedophiles to... relieve some pressure? Compared to any of the alternatives in that direction, it's a victimless crime, and the difficulties we've had with curing paedophilia implies that it's a predisposition rather than a choice.

Don't get me wrong - child porn = way squicky. Just presenting the counterarguments.

if I read it correctly, he did also have regular child porn.

I'd really hate to have to see anyone try to defend child pornography in any form.

This conversation again? Fuck.


Do you know how many times this argument takes place across the internet? I know it's happened at least twice before on the Halfpixel boards and Image boards.

It really wouldn't be that bad, except that anyone who disagrees will get labeled a pedophile, because people are too lazy to come up with a better argument.

I'm out. This conversation is pointless. I'm sad to see it crop up again.

North_Ranger said:

Did I read the article correctly, though? My understanding was that this schmuck already had kiddie porn on his computer besides the animated stuff. Or was all his stuff animated?

Because seriously, the latter case is not only sick. But also slightly pathetic...

Click to expand...

The internet cartoon featured characters from the Simpsons TV series.

The central issue in the case was whether a cartoon character could depict a real person.

Judge Michael Adams decided that it could, and found a man from Sydney guilty of possessing child pornography on his computer.

Well, from what I read, the judge determined that the fictional characters could be considered child porn because it could fuel a desire to obtain the real thing. Thus, he charged the man with having child porngraphy, even though it was not of "real" children.

In either case though.....

is very appropriate for this.

Ravenpoe said:

This conversation again? Fuck.


Do you know how many times this argument takes place across the internet? I know it's happened at least twice before on the Halfpixel boards and Image boards.

It really wouldn't be that bad, except that anyone who disagrees will get labeled a pedophile, because people are too lazy to come up with a better argument.

I'm out. This conversation is pointless. I'm sad to see it crop up again.

Click to expand...

So... you are a pedophile then? :aaahhh:

The Neon Grue said:

if I read it correctly, he did also have regular child porn.

I'd really hate to have to see anyone try to defend child pornography in any form.

Click to expand...

I don't think anybody wants to go down that road...

This thread could use a poll.

...so the judge ruled that it was child pornography because it might-somehow-maybe-could lead to real child pornography?

And the sum total of his debt to society is $2,000?

:?

So, put another way, the Judge really isn't worried about that...

this thread is just icky.

The Neon Grue said:

this thread is just icky.

Click to expand...

Finally a chance to use that...

Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your asshole. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.

TeKeo said:

...so the judge ruled that it was child pornography because it might-somehow-maybe-could lead to real child pornography?

And the sum total of his debt to society is $2,000?

:?

So, put another way, the Judge really isn't worried about that...

Click to expand...

Well....

To sum it up, he did not have actual "real" child pornography on his PC. He had pictures of the Simpson children having sex. The issue was whether or not this could be viewed as actual CP since the characters were fictional. The judge found that it could be, even though it was not of real children, and thus charged him with possesion.

Ravenpoe said:

This conversation again? Fuck.


Do you know how many times this argument takes place across the internet? I know it's happened at least twice before on the Halfpixel boards and Image boards.

It really wouldn't be that bad, except that anyone who disagrees will get labeled a pedophile, because people are too lazy to come up with a better argument.

I'm out. This conversation is pointless. I'm sad to see it crop up again.

Click to expand...

Indeed, this conversation is pointless. I'm sorry that we aren't as open to animated pornography as you, especially ones involving children. It's our fault.

Cat said:

Do you like Phil Collins? I've been a big Genesis fan ever since the release of their 1980 album, Duke. Before that, I really didn't understand any of their work. Too artsy, too intellectual. It was on Duke where Phil Collins' presence became more apparent. I think Invisible Touch was the group's undisputed masterpiece. It's an epic meditation on intangibility. At the same time, it deepens and enriches the meaning of the preceding three albums. Christy, take off your robe. Listen to the brilliant ensemble playing of Banks, Collins and Rutherford. You can practically hear every nuance of every instrument. Sabrina, remove your dress. In terms of lyrical craftsmanship, the sheer songwriting, this album hits a new peak of professionalism. Sabrina, why don't you, uh, dance a little. Take the lyrics to Land of Confusion. In this song, Phil Collins addresses the problems of abusive political authority. In Too Deep is the most moving pop song of the 1980s, about monogamy and commitment. The song is extremely uplifting. Their lyrics are as positive and affirmative as anything I've heard in rock. Christy, get down on your knees so Sabrina can see your asshole. Phil Collins' solo career seems to be more commercial and therefore more satisfying, in a narrower way. Especially songs like In the Air Tonight and Against All Odds. Sabrina, don't just stare at it, eat it. But I also think Phil Collins works best within the confines of the group, than as a solo artist, and I stress the word artist. This is Sussudio, a great, great song, a personal favorite.

Click to expand...

Iaculus said:

Half-hearted devil's advocate - might not animation and drawings be the least harmful way for paedophiles to... relieve some pressure?

Click to expand...

I wouldnt think so.
I'm pretty sure that with a paedophile it wouldnt serve to release pressure at all.
I think it would just go hand in hand with the real thing.

Not that I think that the former should be a crime - It is disturbing to say the least, but as no harm is done in of itself I think it is unjustified to classify it as a crime.

North_Ranger said:

[quote="The Neon Grue":2arljlt5]if I read it correctly, he did also have regular child porn.

I'd really hate to have to see anyone try to defend child pornography in any form.

Click to expand...

I don't think anybody wants to go down that road...[/quote:2arljlt5]
Alright, well, here's the real issue and this is why it's so tricky to navigate this path, we have children and we have sexuality/pornography. Alone these are both fine, in almost any form I would argue (fine meaning, legal, I'm not saying I approve of porn, etc, personally I think it's demeaning and damaging most cases but thats another discussion). However, you mix the two and you get "bad". The problem is, who determines the motive?
Could not an innocent picture have bad motives making it child pornography to particular viewers? Should we then ban all imagery of children?
Of course not.
However, blatant sexuality involving children is bad. Most agree on that.
So does blatant (I'm not talking about suspect motive stuff here, just obvious porn) sexuality involving imaginary characters that are obviously children constitute "child porn"? Obviously imaginary characters involved in sex/sexuality would be considered "pornography" by even the loosest definitions, and depending on the acts engaged in you would have different classes of porn, correct?
So. If it's children, even imaginary cartoon characters you still have "child" porn. The question then is, do we treat it as such and does the viewing or getting off by this sort of porn make you a pedophile and constitute an illegal act?
Honestly, I don't think it's as cut and dried as some of us make it out to seem.
I do think it's wrong, but a part of me wonders if the same rules should apply, or if there isn't a different standard from which to legislate.
Personally I say err on the side of safety but I understand there is some gray area in this discussion.

North_Ranger said:

Click to expand...

:toocool:

Kovac said:

Iaculus said:

Half-hearted devil's advocate - might not animation and drawings be the least harmful way for paedophiles to... relieve some pressure?

Click to expand...

I wouldnt think so.
I'm pretty sure that with a paedophile it wouldnt serve to release pressure at all.
I think it would just go hand in hand with the real thing.

Not that I think that the former should be a crime - It is disturbing to say the least, but as no harm is done in of itself I think it is unjustified to classify it as a crime.

Click to expand...

Do not those with conventional sexual tastes turn to porn and suchlike when regular sex is denied? Admittedly, the wiring for paedophiles may be a little different, but I think it's something to consider.

Also note that paedophiles are not the same thing as child molesters, though the two very definitely overlap. For child molesters and other forms of rapist, it tends to be more of a dominance thing than a sexual one.

EsteBeatDown said:

TeKeo said:

...so the judge ruled that it was child pornography because it might-somehow-maybe-could lead to real child pornography?

And the sum total of his debt to society is $2,000?

:?

So, put another way, the Judge really isn't worried about that...

Click to expand...

Well....

To sum it up, he did not have actual "real" child pornography on his PC. He had pictures of the Simpson children having sex. The issue was whether or not this could be viewed as actual CP since the characters were fictional. The judge found that it could be, even though it was not of real children, and thus charged him with possesion.

Click to expand...

Right, and then from the article:

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.

Rather than jail the man, however, he fined him Aus$3,000 (US$2,000).

Click to expand...

Clearly the judge is not too worried about this guy going on to real child porn.

It seems pretty cut and dry to me, really. If animated porn is tantamount to porn, then animated child porn is tantamount to child porn. It's less about whether there's an actual victim to the crime and more about what a culture wants to put up with.

And yeah, those guys over at rule34 are a bunch of goddamn sickos.

Clearly the judge is not too worried about this guy going on to real child porn.

Click to expand...

Probably just wanted to make sure the precedent was set.

Cat said:

I'm thankful that I'm not a pedophile.

Click to expand...

Great post. Fantastic job.

GasBandit said:

Probably just wanted to make sure the precedent was set.

Click to expand...

Doesn't it also set the precedent that it's not that severe a crime if the punishment is only $2,000?

In Australia, are there sex offender lists?

TeKeo said:

EsteBeatDown said:

TeKeo said:

...so the judge ruled that it was child pornography because it might-somehow-maybe-could lead to real child pornography?

And the sum total of his debt to society is $2,000?

:?

So, put another way, the Judge really isn't worried about that...

Click to expand...

Well....

To sum it up, he did not have actual "real" child pornography on his PC. He had pictures of the Simpson children having sex. The issue was whether or not this could be viewed as actual CP since the characters were fictional. The judge found that it could be, even though it was not of real children, and thus charged him with possesion.

Click to expand...

Right, and then from the article:

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.

Rather than jail the man, however, he fined him Aus$3,000 (US$2,000).

Click to expand...

Clearly the judge is not too worried about this guy going on to real child porn.

Click to expand...

Yeah. That is what worries me the most.

Iaculus said:

Half-hearted devil's advocate - might not animation and drawings be the least harmful way for paedophiles to... relieve some pressure? Compared to any of the alternatives in that direction, it's a victimless crime, and the difficulties we've had with curing paedophilia implies that it's a predisposition rather than a choice.

Don't get me wrong - child porn = way squicky. Just presenting the counterarguments.

Click to expand...

great job you have initiated the internet version on "you know hitler actually did a pretty good job in some ways."

but that aside this is a common misconception. [knowledge from nbc dateline inc] child porn, simulated or not only increases a pedophile's desire for more child porn [/what i said]
I think the trouble is that most people equate this sort of thing with like, a drug dependence. It almost makes sense to compare the compulsions, but when you look as not an addiction the situation gets more complicated.

tldr cartoon porn makes pedos want to scar children.

but yeah anyway hitler really turned that economy around huh?

itt Cat proves once again to be the best poster on these forums.

TeKeo said:

GasBandit said:

Probably just wanted to make sure the precedent was set.

Click to expand...

Doesn't it also set the precedent that it's not that severe a crime if the punishment is only $2,000?

Click to expand...

The important part of the precedent is that it establishes animated (or stillframe, hand drawn) depictions of child porn are criminal. The actual sentence is largely mutable, after that, since it isn't explicitly spelled out (unlike the criminality).

Goddamnit Kissinger, go worship some OP.

It's like the Electric Company up in here!

Child...................Pornography
Child Pornography!

Animated Child....Pornography
Animated Child Pornography!

Yeah, I think that sums it up.

SeraRelm said:

It's like the Electric Company up in here!

Child...................Pornography
Child Pornography!

Animated Child....Pornography
Animated Child Pornography!

Yeah, I think that sums it up.

Click to expand...

Cue Peter Griffin who can't keep up...

Well I won't be able to watch like 90% of anime in australia now. No matter how they're drawn like 99% of anime characters are under 18 and 80% them show their tits at some point.

This is a silly ruling, if a man wants to whack off to naked lisa simpson in the privacy of their own home he should be able to. Who does it hurt? Real child pornography has real consequences. Animated child pornography can't be made illegal simply because it MIGHT cause someone to have urges towards 'real' child pornography. If that was the case violent videogames should be made illegal because it might cause someone to have urges towards 'real' violence.... Oh wait.

Why is it that every crime that has to do with the internet has child pornography fueling it. As a whole western culture is predominated with the evils of child pornography. I'm pretty sure itd be harder for a person to get a job after being *accused* of owning child pornography than of *actually* murdering someone.

and the best part of defending it is that now everyone's going to call me a pedo

Selgeron said:

and the best part of defending it is that now everyone's going to call me a pedo

Click to expand...

Dude, you're just a pedo.

Aaaand this is where I step in.

Rule #1: No child porn. This includes supporting it, showing it or admitting to it. No warning in this case, but the thread is going locky-locky.

This is going to spiral out of control now. Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.