Comments on: Pictures of The Simpsons having it off isn’t a threat to society

By: Lucy

Lucy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Homer Simpson

Homer Simpson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

D’oh!

By: SM

SM — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

http://www.polyester.com.au/

Children? Over 16/18?
Insane.

By: David Stephens

David Stephens — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?

By: steve martin

steve martin — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: John M

John M — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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!