J
JONJONAUG
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7770781.stm
And once again I am thankful I am not an Aussie.
And once again I am thankful I am not an Aussie.
- Status
C
Chibibar
well.. that means rule 34 site (and other cartoon site) are going to be in big problem.
Also lots of animation does this
Also lots of animation does this
E
EsteBeatDown
JONJONAUG said:
Cool post. Couldn't help but notice your YouTube profile is full of anime. You are probably a pedophile. Cheers.JONJONAUG said:
North_Ranger
Staff member
Australia: once known for surfing, the Great Barrier Reef and the Outback... now known for prosecuting people who get off on cartoon characters.
M
Matt²
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.
C
Chazwozel
You can't can't cartoon kiddie porn in Australia? Oh darn. What an injustice! :eyeroll:JONJONAUG said:
E
EsteBeatDown
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...Espy said:Yeah, you caught that to?EsteBeatDown said:JONJONAUG said:
My eyebrow doesn't go high enough.
:?
North_Ranger
Staff member
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...
Because seriously, the latter case is not only sick. But also slightly pathetic...
I
Iaculus
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.
Don't get me wrong - child porn = way squicky. Just presenting the counterarguments.
M
Matt²
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.
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.
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.
E
EsteBeatDown
The internet cartoon featured characters from the Simpsons TV series.North_Ranger said:
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.....
North_Ranger
Staff member
I don't think anybody wants to go down that road...The Neon Grue said:
M
Matt²
this thread is just icky.
North_Ranger
Staff member
The Neon Grue said:
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.
E
EsteBeatDown
Well....TeKeo said:
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.
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.Ravenpoe said:
North_Ranger
Staff member
Cat said:
I wouldnt think so.Iaculus said:
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.
I don't think anybody wants to go down that road...[/quote:2arljlt5]North_Ranger said:
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.
I
Iaculus
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.Kovac said:
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.
GasBandit
Staff member
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.
And yeah, those guys over at rule34 are a bunch of goddamn sickos.
Probably just wanted to make sure the precedent was set.
- Status