Simpsons Sex Scandal

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Wait how did they get a hold of his computer in the first place?

I'd like to know that too.
Maybe they really are using precogs, Philip K. Dick style.

Also, what's with all the "inappropriate content"-related articles all of a sudden?

They had seized his computer as they were actually looking for paedophillic materials.

I really don't know what happened this week though, all the news was muck; and the extra's (Pizza Morgana) didn't get any feedback.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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].

Drat, I'll fix that. Was browsing both at the same time.

 

[Azhrarn-101]

Well there goes 99% of Hentai.


Thank God.

Though it probably shouldn't be illegal, since no one's being harmed, gross as it is.

My thoughts aswell.
Does that mean that hentai and Ecchi just became illegal to own in Australia?

 

[Clov3r]

hahahahaha, aw how embarrassing for that poor man. That's got to be quite a blow to whatever social life he may have had.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

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.

The legal theory behind the prosecution of child pornography here in the US is that it's evidence of actual child abuse.

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?

I'm not American, but I appreciate how important freedom of speech is to you as a nation, but is it so important that there is no point at which you can say "this is wrong"?

 

[Eipok Kruden]

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]".

It wasn't preemptive, it was misinformed. They charged him with possession of child pornography. Cartoon pornography isn't illegal, but that judge fails at life so........yea. I'm not defending the guy who had the pictures of naked yellow 8 year old children (WTF DUDE!! SERIOUSLY). I'm attacking the people who charged him. He didn't do anything wrong, even though it was morally questionable, but there isn't anything prohibiting immoral behavior in general, just certain kinds of it.

EDIT:

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.

It's called a 'victimless crime'. No one's hurt by the activity, but it's still a legal offence.

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.

I didn't know lolicon was illegal in Australia, consider certain parts in the comment above misinformed and irrelevant. If he had lived in America, this wouldn't have been a big deal (or anything really, no one would care).

 

[bkd69]

I'm not American, but I appreciate how important freedom of speech is to you as a nation, but is it so important that there is no point at which you can say "this is wrong"?

Oh, there are lines, to be sure, but they exist far closer to where speech becomes action, and, unsurprisingly, in the much clearer cut world of commerce, than in political discussion or artistic expression.

Conspiracy, fraud, and harassment are all forms of speech that are generally exempt from protection.

Obscenity is a grayer issue, as that's based on local community standards, so much sport is made by local prosecutors who'll order some piece of fetishistic filth like 2g1c from San Francisco, then move to prosecute the producer for shipping it to Arseton, West Virginia, all in a bid to look good to the local electorate.

Hate speech as an offense is mostly prominent on college campuses as part of of a code of conduct. It's also manifest in workplaces as 'creating a hostile work environment,' which will lead to lawsuits by the aggrieved parties and the federal government. Also note that the standard of evidence is far lower for civil prosecution than criminal prosecution.

Hate speech as a criminal offense is primarily considered an aggravating factor, and generally comes to bear only in the investigation portion of a crime, where the case is budgeted with extra money and man hours.

Offensive speech is protected, because inoffensive speech doesn't need protection.

As far as child pornography goes, as I said, the legal theory for prosecution is based on the concept that the photographs are evidence of actual abuse. There have been moves in the past to extend the law to cover fictional depictions, but they've run afoul of legislating the private behavior of consenting adults, or restricting expression where there's no crime occurring.

But even then, there are still prosecutorial abuses. In Florida, America's wang, one prosecutor decided to file child pornography charges against a guy and a girl. Their victims? Themselves. They were 16 and 17 years old, and had taken pictures of themselves in various states of undress and intimate contact on their cellphones. And the kicker? He was charging them as adults.

 

[rougeknife]

Ok, first, those images = fucked up.

But seriously... over a cartoon? This shit is getting out of hand, I'm starting to hate the retarded monkeys that control my beautiful land more and more each day.

 

[rougeknife]

But even then, there are still prosecutorial abuses. In Florida, America's wang, one prosecutor decided to file child pornography charges against a guy and a girl. Their victims? Themselves. They were 16 and 17 years old, and had taken pictures of themselves in various states of undress and intimate contact on their cellphones. And the kicker? He was charging them as adults.

Ok, that makes me feel better about the issue.

 

[GLaDOS V 2.1]

??? Its illegal to have toon porn? I don't like that stuff , but I know people who do. nobody seems to care.

 

[Brokkr]

But...but...*nobody* was harmed by it. Granted, it's a rather odd taste, but I thought the point of such laws was to prevent harm and exploitation of minors?

All of these articles coming out of Australia make me want to visit less and less.

I totally agree.

 

[Neosage]

Does this mean Hentai is illegal.....SHIT!

 

[DarkBlood626]

Putting a real child in said situation for exploitation is paedophilia
But as sick as this stuff is all a see is thought crime like what some one said is Tom and Jerry animal abuse this is an augment with one side leading to a gun and another leading off a cliff if u pick the gun you are agreeing thoughts can and should be persecuted and controlled but if u chose the cliff well u can tell what happens
if some one fiends this offensive that is not enough to persecute some one else although the reason people supposedly have free will is to ether indulge or stay distant from stuff like this

There is one thing as vague a it is its real are u approving of thought police
Once I for got to turn safe search back on the internet before my younger cousin accessed the computer (because I wanted to access a game trailer rated 18) well he place Simpsons in a search engine and shit similar to this popped up as conman scene
Dictated I got him off the computer turned safe search back on and allow him to finish his home work (witch required him to get images of his favourite cartoon) if you are opposed to stuff like this as I am keep yourself and people u are responsible for away but im not responsible for ((every one)) and nether is the government because if u are then you are approving censorship and all those augments against videogames

((U Know))((Example))I am morally object to this and me in my value system witch is so superior to every one else?s so u all should get behind me)) I am not approving of this just not censorship in general witch shit like this will be used for an excuse to justify even out of context

 

[DarkBlood626]

The game trailer was
(((Condemned))) BTW is you want to know

 

[DarkBlood626]

Whell, guess I'd better get ready for a long haul in prison, my roommate has all six seasons of Family Guy, and Stewie gets naked at least four times a season, so we must both be horrible child molesters for watching the show.

Like seriously, COME ON! Can you imagine this guy sitting in jail?
Why are you here buddy?
What? You sexually abused a 2-dimensional fictional character? How could you even do that? Seriously, I don't think it's physically possible to abuse something that only exists in 2 dimensions, let alone the fact she doesn't really exist. That's almost as fucked up as that guy over there's case... He's doing a dime for murdering his wife's WoW character.

Khell's rule of common sense #613
-You cannot commit a crime against or with something that does not really exist.

Khell's rule of common sense #614
-There is no such thing as an underage cartoon, they aren't people and they aren't born.

Khell's rule of common sense #615
-What's illegal in North America is typically 10,000¥ in Japan.

Is a shame people don?t have common scene nowadays

But I agree with u

 

[Littaly]

So basically every regular 4chan poster can be convicted? I like the sound of that.

 

[geldonyetich]

So basically every regular 4chan poster can be convicted? I like the sound of that.

That, my friend, is what they call a silver lining.

 

[incal11]

Intolerance is the real slippery slope.