According to an Australian Judge, cartoons are people too!

SockPuppetHyren · Post by **SockPuppetHyren** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:59 pm

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767202-2,00.html

I laughed my head off at this. Then I remembered I've watched/read a multitude of violent and sexual cartoons/comic/anime/manga. I play video games too! Guess I better not show my face in Australia, else I'll be charged for being a Multi-murdering child-molesting blasphemous bestiality-loving drug-user hyper criminal who can never be rehabilitated.

HOORAY THOUGHT POLICE!

Jockel · Post by **Jockel** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:00 pm

Oh noes, i shall delete the loli stuff xD

Lordstar · Post by **Lordstar** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:47 pm

i think i know the site this guy made. its pretty gross bart simpson fucking his mum and such

not classy at all

Pixel_Outlaw · Post by **Pixel_Outlaw** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:50 pm

I think the ruling should be that cartoons may be considered porn (look at hentai) rather than cartoons are people. Cartoons may be considered porn if their creator's intent is to provoke sexual arousal because that is what porn does.

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:51 pm

I used to make fun of Australia by calling it America Jr. or America-lite because Australia had so much in common with the neo-con run United States. However it looks like Australia just out-America'd America here.

UnscathedFlyingObject · Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:57 pm

Cartoons arz ppl!!????

Australian courts are even worse than American ones.

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:20 pm

Lordstar wrote:i think i know the site this guy made.

Of course you would.

Post by **BulletMagnet** » Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:54 pm

The cartoons showed characters such as Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex.

Ick, as if the first two weren't bad enough...

I'm sure the classic "free speech" argument comes into play here, but depictions, even of fictional characters, engaged in this sort of thing don't strike me as the sort of thing that free speech is intended to protect...though defining cartoons as "people" is definitely not the way to proceed.

ZOM · Post by **ZOM** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:26 am

Interesting...

Sooo... if lolis are real people, what are tentacle monsters then?

Now I'll never visit Australia, I'm afraid of the death sentence, you know.

SockPuppetHyren · Post by **SockPuppetHyren** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:30 am

BulletMagnet wrote:
The cartoons showed characters such as Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex.
Ick, as if the first two weren't bad enough...

I'm sure the classic "free speech" argument comes into play here, but depictions, even of fictional characters, engaged in this sort of thing don't strike me as the sort of thing that free speech is intended to protect...though defining cartoons as "people" is definitely not the way to proceed.

You can't have free speech if it's not free. I'm not exactly a fan of the concept of Simpsons characters going at it either, that's why I don't look at or look for that sort of thing.
But, I truely don't believe that someone should be convicted and go to jail for something like this. It's not exactly something nice to look or think about, but it's still fictional. No one's being hurt. Besides, with that sort of reasoning, most Video Games should be denied existence for a multitude of reasons. And I doubt anyone here wants that.

Pixel_Outlaw · Post by **Pixel_Outlaw** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:43 am

Ahhhh but one does not have total free speach. You can still commit crimes with "free speach".

SockPuppetHyren · Post by **SockPuppetHyren** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:57 am

Pixel_Outlaw wrote:Ahhhh but one does not have total free speach. You can still commit crimes with "free speach".

Which ones? No sarcasm, I'd really like to know. What I know on the subject is pretty limited, and the more info I have, the better.

Knowledge is power and all that.

CStarFlare · Post by **CStarFlare** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:28 am

A classic example is yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Slander/libel are good ones too.

In terms of visual media, shit like child porn doesn't fly.

EDIT: Yeah, I forgot this thread was about Australia. This is for America, though I suspect it may hold true in Australia as well.

Pixel_Outlaw · Post by **Pixel_Outlaw** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:28 am

I cannot speak for Australia, but I know that free speech is limited when you violate the rights of other people or impede their speech.

The point is that if he gets his jollies from naked cartoons, the man is mentally ill. If they found child porn in addition this would only further reinforce the case against him.

SockPuppetHyren · Post by **SockPuppetHyren** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:48 am

Pixel_Outlaw wrote:I cannot speak for Australia, but I know that free speech is limited when you violate the rights of other people or impede their speech.

I see. Thatnk you! I'll probably have to do some more research on my own for more later on.

Pixel_Outlaw wrote:The point is that if he gets his jollies from naked cartoons, the man is mentally ill.

Lawl wut? That's a pretty heavy assumption you got there. If something like that makes a man mental, then the loony bins of America should have been packed with lonely nerds like me ;_; a while ago.

In any case, I doubt this guy was using said images for titillation. Might have been just a really tasteless joke from a friend.

Pixel_Outlaw wrote:If they found child porn in addition this would only further reinforce the case against him.

If there was some actual child porn (with real, flesh and blood children), I doubt there would even be much of a case. Hell, I wouldn't have posted this link here if there was some actual child porn present. But, like most situations like this, there isn't any. It just seems to me like this is one of those cases where someone said "He MUST be thinking something nasty!" and convicted the poor man based on that. If anything, the defendant is the real victim here in my opinion.

CStarFlare · Post by **CStarFlare** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:03 am

I'm kind of curious how he ended up in court for this in the first place.

If he received the images against his will he probably wouldn't be in trouble. They really have better things to do than punish people who had cartoon CP forced upon them.

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:26 am

Pixel_Outlaw wrote:I cannot speak for Australia, but I know that free speech is limited when you violate the rights of other people or impede their speech.

The point is that if he gets his jollies from naked cartoons, the man is mentally ill. If they found child porn in addition this would only further reinforce the case against him.

Halo Elite: wut wut WUT

I suppose if he gets his jollies from spandex, furries, seatbelts on a lady, or....naked men; he must be mentally ill as well? Where does the line stop, McCarthy?

Ceph · Post by **Ceph** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:29 am

Pixel_Outlaw wrote: The point is that if he gets his jollies from naked cartoons, the man is mentally ill.

Don't let iatneH hear this!

Pixel_Outlaw wrote:If they found child porn in addition this would only further reinforce the case against him.

And where did that come from?
Sorry, but your post and this whole "case" has my bullshit detector tingling.

iatneH · Post by **iatneH** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:29 am

The n00b wrote:seatbelts on a lady

HAWT. And safe!

Specineff · Post by **Specineff** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:35 am

Jockel · Post by **Jockel** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:19 am

Pixel_Outlaw wrote:I think the ruling should be that cartoons may be considered porn (look at hentai) rather than cartoons are people. Cartoons may be considered porn if their creator's intent is to provoke sexual arousal because that is what porn does.

...which would be no problem, as porn itself isn't illegal.
I mean in child pr0n you have a victim, which is not the case with loli hentais, or drawn simpsons characters having sex.
So me thinks this whole thing is stupid.
If kids are his fetish it's his thing, imo - no harm done.
As long as he doesnt condone the act of raping a child by watching real kiddie pr0n, it's ok if you ask me.

Acid King · Post by **Acid King** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:43 am

The only crime this guy committed is having bad taste. There is no crime here, there is no victim, no one was harmed. It's bullshit. Fuck Australia. I think this was pretty obviously done as a preemptive position to ban virtual child porn. They wouldn't have to take that kind of position to do that in the states because a producer of graphic, realistic looking virtual child porn would just be prosecuted for obscenity, not because cartoons are people.

Pixel_Outlaw wrote:I cannot speak for Australia, but I know that free speech is limited when you violate the rights of other people or impede their speech.

The only speech that isn't protected in the United States is obscenity and so called "fighting words", like inciting an angry mob of people to attack a police officer. Slander and libel are not crimes, you don't go to jail for slander. You get sued in civil court for that.

Elixir · Post by **Elixir** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:02 pm

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:17 pm

i thought this was a thread about australian law...?

Acid King wrote:The only crime this guy committed is having bad taste.

and that should be a crime

Acid King wrote:They wouldn't have to take that kind of position to do that in the states because a producer of graphic, realistic looking virtual child porn would just be prosecuted for obscenity, not because cartoons are people.

over-turned in 1999

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:18 pm

Jockel wrote:If kids are his fetish it's his thing, imo - no harm done.

i give in...

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:18 pm

Surely we must protect the rights of fictional characters to tie up resources that can be used against actual child pornographers, ensuring that people like Michael Adams have a steady stream of real child rape because there's no way this shit could be unintentional

Lordstar · Post by **Lordstar** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:32 pm

Ceph wrote:
Lordstar wrote:i think i know the site this guy made.
Of course you would.

yeah its funny that. But then im aware of your website too so i guess that does not mean a lot . . or does it

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:12 pm

jpj wrote:
Jockel wrote:If kids are his fetish it's his thing, imo - no harm done.

i give in...

You would punish people for a victim less crime because it does not conform to your moral standards? As you expend more and more resources on this foolhardy endeavor it gets easier to pass even more stupid moral based legislation. Turn back now before it's too late, learn from my countrymen in the United States: neo-conservatism is nothing more than a PC word for fascism.

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:39 pm

that isn't what i said.

by talking about resources, you're missing the woods for the trees. this is scapegoating.

in the UK we have a sex offender's register. i would put someone like that onto the register for 1-2 years. what that entails is monitoring from the authorities, and blocked from working in any capacity with children. hope that makes sense now

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:58 pm

It's nice that one person assumes Jockel isn't talking about real children while the other person is doing so (correctly as the sentence cannot be read any other way)