According to an Australian Judge, cartoons are people too!

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:41 pm

CMoon wrote:Holy crap.

People need to decide if having thoughts (amoral by your standards) is a crime? Do you really support this 1984 bullshit?

Downloading an image of anything...I don't get how it is a crime, no matter how much it offends you. (What does someone believe seeing loliporn makes people rape little girls??? Like video games make children kill people, right?)

As far as sick or insane however, I'd like to point out the huge percentage of Americans who think that the earth is only 6000 years old and that they'll see the rapture in their lifetime. These are the same people who believe that homosexuality and abortion are the two GREATEST worldwide problems. There is honestly a very deep list of sick/mentally-ill behavior that we swallow like a great lump of cow shit every day, but go all crazy over some dudes who are a bit perverted in their sexual fantasies.

Like man, what the fuck?

I'd like to point out that the UK and Australia just passed up the US in levels of craziness and/or fascist behavior.

Jockel · Post by **Jockel** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:44 pm

CMoon wrote:Downloading an image of anything...I don't get how it is a crime, no matter how much it offends you. (What does someone believe seeing loliporn makes people rape little girls??? Like video games make children kill people, right?)

Well if you download actual real-life child pr0n images (or videos for that matter) you more or less condone the act of raping a child.
Although this reasoning doesn't apply to e.g. teenagers who explore their sexuality and take pictures or whatever.
I think the law should make a difference between "slightly" underage teens and real >child<-porn.

Elixir · Post by **Elixir** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:44 pm

The great thing about this ordeal is that The Simpsons and its characters have been portrayed as sex objects a whole bunch of times. If they think they're going to display that kind of attitude and regard for their characters in such a manner and not have people fantasize or want to fuck their brains out, they're sorely mistaken.

Official art.

Official art.

A bunch of snapshots of nudity from The Simpsons are here. I mean, these showed on primetime tv, where everyone can freely see them. I'm pretty sure some of you here have seen "that" episode where Homer and Marge go screwing outdoors. It goes without saying that the fanbase will make art of it, it happens with almost everything. And people will save it to their HDDs. There's nothing wrong with this.

Australia's government's just stupid.

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:01 pm

Gozer wrote:
JUSTICE!

Cartoon rights are being violated here

jpj · Post by **jpj** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:27 pm

The n00b wrote:
CMoon wrote:Holy crap.

People need to decide if having thoughts (amoral by your standards) is a crime? Do you really support this 1984 bullshit?

Downloading an image of anything...I don't get how it is a crime, no matter how much it offends you. (What does someone believe seeing loliporn makes people rape little girls??? Like video games make children kill people, right?)

As far as sick or insane however, I'd like to point out the huge percentage of Americans who think that the earth is only 6000 years old and that they'll see the rapture in their lifetime. These are the same people who believe that homosexuality and abortion are the two GREATEST worldwide problems. There is honestly a very deep list of sick/mentally-ill behavior that we swallow like a great lump of cow shit every day, but go all crazy over some dudes who are a bit perverted in their sexual fantasies.

Like man, what the fuck?
I'd like to point out that the UK and Australia just passed up the US in levels of craziness and/or fascist behavior.

we actually *denied* a government proposal to allow suspected terrorists to be held for up to 90 days without charge, while you have guantanimo bay...

while we have referendums on these issues, you get people like george W signing away your civil liberties right under your nose.

i'm not sure that america has less covert surveilance, or it's just that people aren't as aware maybe...?

Post by **BulletMagnet** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:49 pm

Elixir wrote:The great thing about this ordeal is that The Simpsons and its adult characters have been portrayed as sex objects a whole bunch of times.

Fixed. I'm sure there's also a debate to be had as to whether depicting a character in the nude/having sex in any capacity automatically makes him/her/it a "sex object."

I'd like to point out that the UK and Australia just passed up the US in levels of craziness and/or fascist behavior.

I think you've still got a ways to go.

MX7 · Post by **MX7** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:14 pm

mufunyo wrote:get out bart i'm piss

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:35 am

Jockel wrote:
CMoon wrote:Downloading an image of anything...I don't get how it is a crime, no matter how much it offends you. (What does someone believe seeing loliporn makes people rape little girls??? Like video games make children kill people, right?)
Well if you download actual real-life child pr0n images (or videos for that matter) you more or less condone the act of raping a child.

So someone having a fantasy or enjoying looking at someone underage is now condoning underage rape?

Please explain.

Also please show how their 'condoning' of this rape you are talking about (what rape?) actually supports or is in anyway related to crime.

I would like to understand how clicking 'save as' commits a crime.

Just admit this is a witch hunt.

Jockel · Post by **Jockel** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:33 am

CMoon wrote: Please explain.

Pretty simple: this material can't be shot without rape, as there are not exactly hundreds of children below age 10 that actually *want* to have sex.
Although there might be some kids who enjoy this stuff, but you never can be sure if the kid was forced or not (or payed, for that matter).
And if a lot of people download the pics from mr. rapist, he will surely feel motivated to make some more (not like this would be the main motive of doing it).
So if you buy a CD of your favourite band, you'll support your band.
And if you download CP from your favourite rapist, you'll support the rapist and thus, rape.

croikle · Post by **croikle** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:29 am

Downloading music and movies is bad because it hurts the industry.
Downloading CP is bad because...

Seriously, though, real CP is a bad thing, as Jockel shows (at least, according to my morals...). I'm not so sure about drawn stuff; sure, it might influence people to do horrible things, or support the human CP industry, but on the other hand you can use the influence argument about so many other pastimes that are accepted as harmless, or at least not regulated for adults. Should we all be monitored and denied gun licenses because we enjoy violent games?

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:53 pm

I'm sorry to be playing the devil's advocate, but isn't thought crime worse.

I was thinking about my roommates I had back in the day who were into harsh noise etc. and enjoyed many disturbing images of murder, torture, rape, etc. all of which are heinous acts and are illegal to commit. Should they be jailed/fined/whatever for enjoying those images?

My issue (and the one I've been trying to push through all these posts) is you are taking a very serious crime of child abuse/rape and putting it on someone who not only hasn't committed the crime, they very likely haven't supported the crime in any way whatsoever. They're just perverts.

Case in point--a person is browsing 4chan (probably a crime in of itself) and sees an attractive girl and enjoys the picture, only to realize she is underage. I don't get the crime.

The only way to turn it into a crime is to twist it and say that someone paid money to a person who is either doing this, or exploiting children; which isn't in fact what we are talking about. We're talking about possessing images, period, and that really is in the area of thought crime.

It takes something like Simpson porn to bring this to the point of absurdity; where in fact there never even was a crime other than the amoral thoughts of 'perverts'. It also illustrates how much of this is NOT about the actual crime of child abuse (that so many people claim it is) but a moral crusade/witch hunt.

Ex-Cyber · Post by **Ex-Cyber** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:28 pm

Yeah; I would say that in some of the more severe cases it goes beyond "thought crime" and into the territory of designating certain people as subhuman. Some people appear to see "pedophile" not as a description of a person, but as some kind of demon that would be drawn and quartered in a just world.

Post by **undamned** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 7:48 pm

FIL wrote:I blame sexy children.

Wow.

CMoon wrote:a person is browsing 4chan (probably a crime in of itself)

Seriously.
-ud

The n00b · Post by **The n00b** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:08 pm

I just saw the Simpson's movie this morning. There's an extended nude scene where the audience actually catches glimpses of Bart's weiner. So is the Australian FBI coming after me?

Jockel · Post by **Jockel** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:04 pm

CMoon wrote: I was thinking about my roommates I had back in the day who were into harsh noise etc. and enjoyed many disturbing images of murder, torture, rape, etc. all of which are heinous acts and are illegal to commit. Should they be jailed/fined/whatever for enjoying those images?

My issue (and the one I've been trying to push through all these posts) is you are taking a very serious crime of child abuse/rape and putting it on someone who not only hasn't committed the crime, they very likely haven't supported the crime in any way whatsoever. They're just perverts.

I understand your point and even agree with it.
It's just that more or less i tried to get behind the government's logic.

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Sun Dec 14, 2008 2:52 am

Perhaps instead of calling possession of images a crime, they should use possessions of images that MIGHT link an individual to illegal behavior as a starting point for investigation of that individual. Then we can step past the thought crime part and actually look for real crimes. Did the priests raping little boys even have any child porn?