simpsons porno
Do we consider the Simpsons "persons"?
(a) Of course not; they have four digits on their hands, and they never age. (b) Of course they are because we experience their adventures as real-life proxies. An Australian judge just decided (b), which means (unauthorized) drawings of Bart, Lisa, and Maggie nekkid and fooling around constitute child pornography (and not just trademark and copyright violations). New York Times
(a) Of course not; they have four digits on their hands, and they never age. (b) Of course they are because we experience their adventures as real-life proxies. An Australian judge just decided (b), which means (unauthorized) drawings of Bart, Lisa, and Maggie nekkid and fooling around constitute child pornography (and not just trademark and copyright violations). New York Times
Comments
While I agree with the copyright violations, I think the child porn aspect of this story is absurd. How would you like to have to let everyone in your neighborhood know that you are a child predator when all you did was had some stupid sexual cartoon on your computer? I'm sure the guy wasn't wacking off to the Simpson kids sexual escapades, at least I hope not. When I was a kid, Penthouse, I think, ran a cartoon called Penus (a spoof of Peanuts). Why was that OK then but now it would be considered child porn? Eat my shorts!
Posted by Madd Maxx on 12/09/08 at 07:43 AM
This is crazy. Were these people smoking HIV drugs when they ruled on this case?
Posted by Matt in Florida on 12/09/08 at 09:43 AM
:roll:
Posted by KW in Dallas, TX on 12/09/08 at 10:13 AM
Still, you have to worry about people if they even just have cartoons of incest and pedophilia, don't you?
Posted by kingmonkey in Athens, Ontario on 12/09/08 at 10:31 AM
kingmonkey - It probably depends, but I don't think you can an assumption that someone is a pedophile based soley on cartoons of incest and pedophilia. It might just be for humor.
Posted by Madd Maxx on 12/09/08 at 10:34 AM
I agree with the Judge.The Depiction of the likeness of underaged youth in sexual situations is Child pornography. Same as Manga and Anime. Obviously if they need to draw your perverse fantasies of children they have issues.
As the captions and cartoons are meant in humor we must as Adults realize the impact and implications these types of drawing create. Now if y'all will excuse me I have to wipe my hard drive.
As the captions and cartoons are meant in humor we must as Adults realize the impact and implications these types of drawing create. Now if y'all will excuse me I have to wipe my hard drive.
Posted by avmayes614 in the wt"F"-State on 12/09/08 at 10:38 AM
I plucked this reply from the comments section of the news article site. I am amazed by the logical counterarguments presented! Take that ya dimwitted Judge:
Quote: “Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate, finding that while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were “markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being”, the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.”
If cartoon characters can be considered to be people and the same laws, that govern us, apply to them, then the judge should consider this:
The Simpson family first appeared before TV audiences in 1987. That was 21 years ago. At that time Bart and Lisa attended to school, which means that they should be at least 27 years of age by now.
They may appear childlike (probably due to some genetic syndrome), but a judge’s ruling has to be based on facts, not appearances.
And the fact is, that “the Simpson kids” are of age and have a legal right to practice sex.
Quote: “Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate, finding that while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were “markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being”, the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.”
If cartoon characters can be considered to be people and the same laws, that govern us, apply to them, then the judge should consider this:
The Simpson family first appeared before TV audiences in 1987. That was 21 years ago. At that time Bart and Lisa attended to school, which means that they should be at least 27 years of age by now.
They may appear childlike (probably due to some genetic syndrome), but a judge’s ruling has to be based on facts, not appearances.
And the fact is, that “the Simpson kids” are of age and have a legal right to practice sex.
Posted by agent j in Toronto, Canada on 12/09/08 at 11:03 AM
I really feel that I need to chime in here but this is so incredibly stupid my mind is numb.
Which rhymes with dumb.
Which rhymes with thumb.
Which is rhymes with "just plain stupid".
Which rhymes with "judge".
Which rhymes with dumb.
Which rhymes with thumb.
Which is rhymes with "just plain stupid".
Which rhymes with "judge".
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 12/09/08 at 11:18 AM
I agree that it could be considered porn...just not child porn.
Posted by Madd Maxx on 12/09/08 at 12:51 PM
I agree Edgar. My suspicion is that it isn't pedophiles viewing this kind of stuff. It's regular people who may find it amusing. Pedophiles are probably going for the real porn just like when I want to crank one out, I don't look for cartoons...I look for the real stuff.
Posted by Madd Maxx on 12/09/08 at 02:05 PM
I totally forgot about that, Qualityleashdog!
Posted by KW in Dallas, TX on 12/09/08 at 04:48 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Category: