Simpsons Sex Scandal

Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Simpsons Sex Scandal

An Australian man has been convicted of possessing compromising images on his computer - of Bart & Lisa Simpson.

Alan John McEwan has been convicted of having pornographic pictures of children on his computer. They can be named for legal reasons as Bartholemew Simpson, 10 and Lisa Simpson, 8.

The defendant was accused of accessing pornographic material, and on seizure of his computer, was found to have pictures of the Simpson family in various states of arousal.

Judge Adams rejected Mcewan's claims that the images were not of people. "The question before me is whether a fictional cartoon character is a 'person' within the meaning of the statutory offenses or, to be more precise, is a depiction or representation of such a 'person'," he said.

Whilst there was no evidence that this material was to be used for criminal purposes, Mcewan was fined 3,000 AUS$ and made to serve a two year 'good behavior' bond.

The punishment was upheld by the Supreme Court.

This is not the first time that the nude Simpsons have been in court, Royal Sun Alliance [http://www.rsagroup.com/rsa/pages/aboutus/ourbrand] would probably like to forget the incident back in 2001 [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/01/12/porn_cartoon_sackings_fight/], where 10 employees were fired, and 77 were suspended, for forwarding lewd cartoons. Possibly why they're now known as the RSA Group.

Source : The Register [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/08/simpsons_supreme_court/]
Australian Court Judgement [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2008nswsc.nsf/6ccf7431c546464bca2570e6001a45d2/ef4625a9db3003f1ca25751500066d48?OpenDocument]

Permalink
 

PedroSteckecilo

Mexican Fugitive
Feb 7, 2008
6,732
0
0
This strikes me as odd, it harms nobody and doesn't involve any sort of abuse. Basically nobody is wronged in this case and it seems they're just charging him because they feel like it. This strikes me as slightly wrong though I can't think of exactly why.
 

Anton P. Nym

New member
Sep 18, 2007
2,611
0
0
Though this really is whole-body-shudder-inducing, I'm not certain this should be considered criminal activity. It'd be different if the guy was offering these pictures as inducement for criminal activity to others, but fining and putting someone on parole for a "Rule 34" infraction like this does make me a bit concerned about where society is going.

-- Steve
 

Jeronus

New member
Nov 14, 2008
1,305
0
0
The idea of someone actually getting off to The Simpsons kind of makes me sick. Anyway the only thing he is guilty of is being a extremely sick individual.(NOT A CRIME, BTW)
 

Galletea

Inexplicably Awesome
Sep 27, 2008
2,877
0
0
Whoever gave you this job needs a medal.

It is certainly odd. I'm not sure whether it's a terrible offence or not. But then again it reads like he was admitting to their nature, just defending owning them.
 

Fruhstuck

New member
Jul 29, 2008
291
0
0
Why would you wanna see a cartoon 8 year old get it on with her cartoon family?
Seeeeeems a bit sick if you ask me
Surely anything paedophilic is not positive for society?

"It was just a laugh" as a reason can exscuse an image of a child taking part in sexual behaviour?
Even if it is a cartoon the negative connotations are still there

EDIT: Have i gone on an (Opposite/Adjacent) about this?
I can't decide
 

AuntyEthel

New member
Sep 19, 2008
664
0
0
Wait, that stuff's illegal. Shit... delete delete!

Seriously tho, I agree with Pedro in that it isn't exactly a crime against a person or persons. Who exactly is the guy harming by having these cartoons?
 

Toner

New member
Dec 1, 2008
147
0
0
That just ain't right....

Yus ok it was a cartoon, but still, the whole 'scenario' of it sounds to be disturbingly wrong, regardless of which carton they were ripped from.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,406
8,911
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
PedroSteckecilo said:
While I'm no defender of this conceptually... this sets a bad precident, it harms nobody and doesn't involve any sort of abuse. Basically nobody is wronged in this case, they're just charging him because they feel like it. This strikes me as slightly wrong though I can't think of exactly why.
Probably because it's straying very far into "pre-emptive law enforcement" territory. The logic of that argument is, since this man was aroused by fake depictions of child porn, he would in fact be aroused by actual child porn, and so must be punished before he takes that "inevitable" step. In short, enjoying the depiction of an illegal act equates to enjoying the illegal act. It's a favorite of the hypermoral "holier than thou" set and is about three steps away from the institution of "thoughtcrime [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime]".
 

MecaEcco

New member
Jun 30, 2008
134
0
0
Cartoons aren't real...It's creepy but it shouldn't be illegal. This is getting out of hand...next thing you know we're going to be subject to arrest for watching a Coppertone sunscreen print ad (it's the one with the cartoon of a dog pulling down the kid's bathing suit bottoms from the 1950's or so).
 

Zeldadudes

New member
Sep 12, 2008
403
0
0
PedroSteckecilo said:
This strikes me as odd, it harms nobody and doesn't involve any sort of abuse. Basically nobody is wronged in this case and it seems they're just charging him because they feel like it. This strikes me as slightly wrong though I can't think of exactly why.
I completely agree with you there.
The characters are not real and if i was to go over the top they should praise him for not looking at real children haha.
 

Chimpa

New member
Dec 2, 2008
55
0
0
Their making it a crime of concept, that in the mind of an individual like that, pornographic images of cartoon children concludes that he would also be interested in images of real children. Seems a little weird if you ask me. Prehaps all that time the Australians spend living 3/4 of a mile from the surface of the sun is getting to them.
 

Slayer_2

New member
Jul 28, 2008
2,475
0
0
What were they THINKING?!? Oh no, cartoon porn!!! Quick, slap him with a fine and parole.
 

Spinwhiz

New member
Oct 8, 2007
2,871
0
0
Anyone think it's gross that they are also brother and sister? I think that's even more messed up!
 

k3v1n

New member
Sep 7, 2008
679
0
0
cartoon porn doesn't hurt anybody..maybe he's got a fetiche(sp?) for the simpsons..alright alright so it's a bit disturbing but it's not a goddamn crime

it could be worse I mean, he could have real child pornography
 

psico666

New member
Dec 8, 2008
100
0
0
To be perfectly honest, its good that people are being convicted for pedophelia but this is just americanised hentia and therfore is hurting nobody.
 

PedroSteckecilo

Mexican Fugitive
Feb 7, 2008
6,732
0
0
The Rogue Wolf said:
PedroSteckecilo said:
While I'm no defender of this conceptually... this sets a bad precident, it harms nobody and doesn't involve any sort of abuse. Basically nobody is wronged in this case, they're just charging him because they feel like it. This strikes me as slightly wrong though I can't think of exactly why.
Probably because it's straying very far into "pre-emptive law enforcement" territory. The logic of that argument is, since this man was aroused by fake depictions of child porn, he would in fact be aroused by actual child porn, and so must be punished before he takes that "inevitable" step. In short, enjoying the depiction of an illegal act equates to enjoying the illegal act. It's a favorite of the hypermoral "holier than thou" set and is about three steps away from the institution of "thoughtcrime [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime]".
Except being aroused isn't a crime, it's not something you can completely control and that has been psychologically proven. I worry about things like this, I am pretty damn sure there are Functioning Pedophiles in the world, ones that don't go out and rape/murder children they probably just wank off to loli porn. They are not committing crimes, they are keeping their kink (sick though it is) restrained.

I dunno, I'm just of the mind that if they aren't actually doing anything wrong (in this case indirect harm through consumption of child porn), they shouldn't be arrested for it.

I mean, we all know (or know of) that strange anime fan who enjoys witch touching games a little too much. He's not a menace to society, he just has some really unorthodox kinks.