Simpsons Sex Scandal
- Thread starter The_root_of_all_evil
- Start date
I totally agree with you. I'll admit I've been turned on by girls who are 16 or 17. I mean I didn't outright fap to them, that would be a little weird on the bus but it's not wrong to be aroused by this. One of the reasons it works for arousal is because it's a taboo.ArKaiN123 said:
I'm 22 by the way, I just find it dumb that I could go to jail for dating a 17 year old who is willingly dating me. You got 40 year olds dating 20 year olds all the time it's a bit ludicrous.
Hell I've heard cases where someone turns 18 and they end up going to jail because their mate didn't turn 18 quite when they did. It's really dumb. Instead of cracking down on people who are willingly partnered with each other they should focus all those wasted resources on actual sexual predators.
"Justice Michael Adams concluding a fictional cartoon character is a "person" within the meaning of Commonwealth and NSW laws."
With these judges ruling that a cartoon character is a 'person', then an artist drawing somone being killed, by definition of their law IS a murderer. Same for the Simpsons creators themselves who showed bart's johnson in the movie.
Things get muddy when you try to apply real world laws to things that don't exist, and these folks end up labeling innocent people with these serious charges as they keep broadening definitions. Where do you "draw" the line? Draw it between what IS REAL and what IS NOT real.
With these judges ruling that a cartoon character is a 'person', then an artist drawing somone being killed, by definition of their law IS a murderer. Same for the Simpsons creators themselves who showed bart's johnson in the movie.
Things get muddy when you try to apply real world laws to things that don't exist, and these folks end up labeling innocent people with these serious charges as they keep broadening definitions. Where do you "draw" the line? Draw it between what IS REAL and what IS NOT real.
I've seen a few people post the logic that since the Simpsons cartoon is so old, it's okay to have erotic Bart and Lisa pics. However, you need to bear in mind that these aren't grown up Bart and Lisa pics. It's a bit like trying to argue that it's okay to get off at pictures that were taken of 6-year-olds while they were being sexually exploited because they grew up and are 20 years old now.
That said, the main question is in regards to whether or not a drawing of a fictitious character counts as pedophilia. Apparently, this Australian judge thought so.
That said, the main question is in regards to whether or not a drawing of a fictitious character counts as pedophilia. Apparently, this Australian judge thought so.
Cartoon pornography is a slippery slope, there are all suits of issue but chiefly age and consent are big ones.
For example is the depiction of a young almost cherubic girl tied and being molested illegal?
The artist could claim the girl depicted was 18 and this was a consensual roleplay.
But in reality it could appear to the viewer as an underage rape victim.
Cartoon imagery makes me feel uneasy because of these issues. I'm okay with real people doing anything they want as long as its legal and consensual.
For example is the depiction of a young almost cherubic girl tied and being molested illegal?
The artist could claim the girl depicted was 18 and this was a consensual roleplay.
But in reality it could appear to the viewer as an underage rape victim.
Cartoon imagery makes me feel uneasy because of these issues. I'm okay with real people doing anything they want as long as its legal and consensual.
Although that is pretty nasty, this really isn't a crime in my opinion. Considering that these aren't really real people, it shouldn't be treated as such.
I wasn't saying it should be illegal, just that well it freaks me out.
I'll fight for someones right to watch their tentacle porn, I just don't know if I'd want to fight alongside them.
I'll fight for someones right to watch their tentacle porn, I just don't know if I'd want to fight alongside them.
If anything, it should be a bestiality charge. Bart and Lisa look more like dinosaurs with jaundice than children.
It's called a 'victimless crime'. No one's hurt by the activity, but it's still a legal offence.PedroSteckecilo said:
As for the article, I'm quite indifferent towards it. This guy should've known that lollicon is illegal in Australia, so he faced the consequences. This'll only get worrying when they start charging for 18+ pornography... or that firewall starts up.
The thing I find funniest about all this, is that Simpsons porn is very old, and really easy to find. Seriously. Type it in to google images. Congratulations! You are now a sex offender!
Really, I think it's silly that people get so uppity about pornography involving statutory rape, when I've yet to see the same kind of controversy surrounding case where a guy is charged for hentai involving - or, hey, photographs of actual people simulating rape. I must really be missing something when it comes to levels of obscenity.
Really, I think it's silly that people get so uppity about pornography involving statutory rape, when I've yet to see the same kind of controversy surrounding case where a guy is charged for hentai involving - or, hey, photographs of actual people simulating rape. I must really be missing something when it comes to levels of obscenity.
When you start saying 'no one got hurt' you open various cans of worms. It's undeniably an improvement over actual pictures of child abuse, but I'm not entirely happy with the idea that some pervert can sidestep prosecution by doing watercolours of local kids performing sexual acts.
Moving away from paedophilia for a moment, if 'no one got hurt' is a valid defence, what about racist images, or sexist images? If I hypothetically make an picture of a Jewish man being savagely beaten (remember, this is hypothetical), should I be allowed to continue unabated, because no one got hurt? You also have issues over censorship and freedom of expression, which I don't think can be simply brushed aside by the first amendment, or similar statutes.
This topic raises so many issues, I don't think it's something that you can really make a glib comment about and forget.
Moving away from paedophilia for a moment, if 'no one got hurt' is a valid defence, what about racist images, or sexist images? If I hypothetically make an picture of a Jewish man being savagely beaten (remember, this is hypothetical), should I be allowed to continue unabated, because no one got hurt? You also have issues over censorship and freedom of expression, which I don't think can be simply brushed aside by the first amendment, or similar statutes.
This topic raises so many issues, I don't think it's something that you can really make a glib comment about and forget.
The original poster messed up his source link to The Register. Instead, it's pointing to the Austalian Government ruling document on this [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2008nswsc.nsf/6ccf7431c546464bca2570e6001a45d2/ef4625a9db3003f1ca25751500066d48?OpenDocument].
It's an interesting read. Giving it a skim, it seems the reason why the judge made this decision was really more concerned with the idea of what the drawings were representing in terms of an implied desire to act.
The charge levied against the defendant wasn't too severe - a stiff fine, a court-ordained obligation to seek help. If he were actually considered a sex offender he'd probably have faced worse.
It's an interesting read. Giving it a skim, it seems the reason why the judge made this decision was really more concerned with the idea of what the drawings were representing in terms of an implied desire to act.
The charge levied against the defendant wasn't too severe - a stiff fine, a court-ordained obligation to seek help. If he were actually considered a sex offender he'd probably have faced worse.
The legal theory behind the prosecution of child pornography here in the US is that it's evidence of actual child abuse.nilcypher said:
Your lolita watercolorist would be in the clear as long as he didn't use actual children to model in the nude.
If you're going to ban completely theoretical child porn, that leads to prohibiting petite adult women from acting and dressing like juveniles.
And of course racist and sexist and othewise offensive speech is allowable. Otherwise speech is limited to what nobody finds offensive, and how is that different from limiting game content to just what's appropriate for children?
As for your hypothetical illustration of a Jewish man being beaten, that sounds like a perfectly sound basis for an editorial cartoon about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. But if you want to decry that as offensive hate speech that should be disallowed merely because such a hypothetical cartoon may depict a Jewish being beaten, perhaps by a Muslim, you're welcome to it. Just don't expect me to agree with you.
Since when did the depiction of the thing become equivalent to the thing?