The Greens oppose the CPRS not because it is too weak, but because it will point Australia in the wrong direction with little prospect of turning it around in the timeframe within which emissions must peak, says Senator Christine Milne.
Pictures of The Simpsons having it off isn’t a threat to society
|
Here’s a question for you to ponder. Someone sends you an email that contains pictures of child characters from the TV series The Simpsons having s-x. Are you, by possessing and viewing that image, guilty of a crime? Most people would probably assume not and in fact be shocked to learn that yesterday the New South Wales Supreme Court said that such an image constitutes child p-rnography under Commonwealth and State laws. The decision, by Justice Michael Adams concerned a man called Alan McEwen who appealed against a magistrate’s decision in February of this year to find him guilty of possessing and accessing child p-rnography. The p-rnography, according to Justice Adams, comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modeled on members of The Simpsons — namely Bart and Lisa and Maggie. “S-xual acts are depicted as being performed, in particular, by the ‘children’ of the family. The male figures have genitalia which is evidently human, as do the mother and the girl,” Justice Adams wrote. The issue in the case was whether or not these cartoons depicted a “person” and in Justice Adams’ view here the drawings of underage Simpsons characters did. If the drawings “depict some semblance of human form,” then the depiction is that of a “person”. While Justice Adams acknowledged there is a world of difference between a cartoon or pictorial representation of a child and a photograph or other image of an actual child, nonetheless he said, the law in this area is designed not only to prevent the actual exploitation and abuse of real children but to “deter production of other material — including cartoons — that … can fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children.” There are a number of important policy issues raised by this thoughtful judgment. Firstly, does it detract from the seriousness of the evil of real child p-rnography to extend its meaning to images which to many reasonable individuals would not be considered to be child p-rnography, but rather juvenile or even offensive bad taste? Secondly, it is arguable that while some cases involving cartoon images of children engaged in s-xual activity might be considered child p-rnography, if the basis for the cartoon were images of real children, that is not the case here. And then there is the question of who is the victim? There is no victim here, so why spend limited resources prosecuting this case when there are unfortunately, thousands of cases of child p-rnography involving real victims which go undetected each year. Finally, there is a live freedom of speech and expression issue at play here. In his powerful dissent from the US Supreme Court’s ruling earlier this year that upheld a law to criminalise cartoon images of child p-rnography, Justice David Souter pointed out that “any limit on speech be grounded in a realistic, factual assessment of harm.” Do the images of fictional cartoon characters who only resemble real life humans in a tenuous way represent a threat to society? The answer is more likely than not to be — no. |
|
|
8 Comments
Right. If the current anti-child porn push is really about protecting (real) children, an aim everyone would surely find utterly laudable, then why the lack of clear legal differentiation between imagery based on real children and cartoon images? There is no such thing as the right to exploit children sexually – that’s why freedom of expression is not generally understood to include the right to create or possess pornographic imagery of children. But using laws designed to protect children to criminalise a form of expression, however offensive, that can have no real child victims, is absurd and counterproductive. It’s also revealing about the true motives of the moral crusaders who think adults are incapable of regulating what they see and say.
D’oh!
http://www.polyester.com.au/
Children? Over 16/18?
Insane.
Well said. I’m afraid that, when I read the report of this case, I thought the learned judge himself had launched into comedy writing to outdo the Simpsons but then I grew up in an area when every large L Liberals believed in freedom of speech and even first year law students knew what a victimless crime was. Has the world gone totally mad?
It seems pretty silly using the Simpson’s characters as a test case of child pornography.But I suppose it is necessary to draw a line in the sand somewhere.Even a cartoon character could in other circumstances be made very realistic in it’s depiction, even if there is no immediate victim it could lead to something much more sinister, so on balance maybe the judgement is the correct one.
This ruling bothered me, especially as it was the result of an appeal of a magistrate’s ruling. A couple of thoughts came to my mind .How old is Snow White, the subject of similar alteration? If depictions of the SImpsons _are_ OK, what about digital manipulation of innocent photographs?
This was a highly distubing decison by Justice Michael Adams and on what basis does he conclude that this cartoon ” can fuel demand for material ” ? . Does he have conclusive and detailed research to back this claim or is it just something he arrived at in his own mind ?.
And could this mean that wild or rap music may fuel demand for illicit drugs, or perhaps dim lights in nightclbs, or literature where one describes their own positive drug ‘trip”? By just reading newspaper accounts of a terrorist attack could a person be inspired to commit similar ?. And therefore the media may begin to self censor to be on the safe side ?
Justice Adams has stepped further into the realms of ‘thought’ crime with his decision and sadly this is becoming increasingly more common with laws that convict people of “grooming” teenagers for sex when no such teenager existed or was the creation of an on-line policeman reeling in some sad individual who then makes arrangments to meet after being sufficiently baited, only to be pounced upon by a group of AFP officers.
Whilst these things and people may be distasteul and people have the right to question the morals of people who get caught up in these episodes ( whether by having sought out the material or sent it via an email ), how do these strange laws assist children from being abused?.
In NSW alone we have a reported 200,000 abuse reports on children that go unattended every year because of the lack of funds in DOCs yet unlimited money can be found to pursue on-line ‘thought’ crime.
We have stepped onto a very slippery slope with this stuff and where the trail is taking us is pretty scary.
It seems to me that the question of whether this kind of material could ‘fuel’ demand for real kiddy porn should be based on psychiatric evidence, not a judge’s opinion. And does the opinion in this case provide a mitigating excuse for other crimes? Drug possession could be arguably have been fuelled by exposure to legal alcohol and/or tobacco which the alleged crim must (in this judge’s view) have been powerless to stop. Rape is fuelled by legal sexual behaviour. Corruption is fuelled by helping someone out. Murder is fuelled by thinking badly of someone. A lawyer’s field day!