NationStates Jolt Archive

Man is charged with child pornography for having a fake Simpson's cartoon on his PC.

Fake Simpsons cartoon 'is porn'
An appeal judge in Australia has ruled that an animation depicting well-known cartoon characters engaging in sexual acts is child pornography.

The internet cartoon featured characters from the Simpsons TV series.

The central issue in the case was whether a cartoon character could depict a real person.

Judge Michael Adams decided that it could, and found a man from Sydney guilty of possessing child pornography on his computer.

The defence had argued that the fictional, animated characters were not real people, and clearly departed from the human form.

They therefore contested that the conviction for the possession of child pornography should be overturned.

Justice Michael Adams said the purpose of anti-child pornography legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of "real" children were depicted.

But in a landmark ruling he decided that the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.

He ruled that the animated cartoon could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children," and therefore upheld the conviction for child pornography.

Rather than jail the man, however, he fined him Aus$3,000 (US$2,000).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7770781.stm

So now the possibility that the clip is objectionable is good enough to prosecute someone for child pornography.
What next? Deciding that the Hustler Barely Legal series could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children," and thus anyone found with a copy is now a "potential" child molester?

But in a landmark ruling he decided that the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.


Will they pay taxes, then, once they're off age?

Well it seems that all crime has been stopped in Australia most notably Sydney (of all places where crime has been stopped in Australia :rolleyes:) that the police and the prosecutors have nothing better to do and need to justify their existence by going out and looking for crap.

Though I never wondered why people got off over Simpsons porn or other porn derived from cartoons that was never intentionally made for it. I mean how does seeing Bart screwing his sister while she sucks off Milhouse appealing?

Is that the sound of millions of Australian computer hard drives erasing hentai?

Will they pay taxes, then, once they're off age?

That's the beauty of cartoon kids they never have to become of age. Bart has been 10 for how long now? Coming up to twenty years.

Well it seems that all crime has been stopped in Australia most notably Sydney (of all places where crime has been stopped in Australia :rolleyes:) that the police and the prosecutors have nothing better to do and need to justify their existence by going out and looking for crap.

Though I never wondered why people got off over Simpsons porn or other porn derived from cartoons that was never intentionally made for it. I mean how does seeing Bart screwing his sister while she sucks off Milhouse appealing?

I've long ago decided that it must be people with an abysmal sense of humour who honestly will think it funny and clever.
Not a reason to put them in jail, though.

I've long ago decided that it must be people with an abysmal sense of humour who honestly will think it funny and clever.
Not a reason to put them in jail, though.

Very abysmal, and no it isn't.

This is bad news for the creators of all that porn out there based on the Evangelion characters.

yeah it could be more absurd and assinine.

he could be serving prison time for having cartoon porn.

Is that the sound of millions of Australian computer hard drives erasing hentai?

Yes. Yes it is.

yeah it could be more absurd and assinine.

he could be serving prison time for having cartoon porn.

The /b/tards must be shitting themselves.

The /b/tards must be shitting themselves.

Only the Australian ones.

there must be something else going on in this case.

why did the police have access to his computer? did a co-worker or family member turn him in? was his computer seized for some other reason but cartoon porn is the only thing they could pin on him?

even the decision to use valuable prosecutor and court time to press this case is nutz. im sure that even the computer crimes division in sydney have far more important criminals to go after.

even the decision to use valuable prosecutor and court time to press this case is nutz. im sure that even the computer crimes division in sydney have far more important criminals to go after.

Yes they do but since that is to hard to do they might as well go for the small time crims instead of the big time crims with the extensive networks and international crime rings that bring in millions of dollars a year into their coffers.

Yes they do but since that is to hard to do they might as well go for the small time crims instead of the big time crims with the extensive networks and international crime rings that bring in millions of dollars a year into their coffers.
yeah but how did he come to their attention? was he looking at a porn animated gif on his laptop on the metro and an offduty cop looked over his shoulder in horror?

yeah but how did he come to their attention? was he looking at a porn animated gif on his laptop on the metro and an offduty cop looked over his shoulder in horror?

I wouldn't know. And if you want you can disregard my last post no matter how much truth there might be in it, I am just in a shitty mood at the moment and will blow up at anything related to public servants.

I'm glad I'm not in Australia or my avatar could get me in big trouble! :eek:

So now the possibility that the clip is objectionable is good enough to prosecute someone for child pornography.
What next? Deciding that the Hustler Barely Legal series could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children," and thus anyone found with a copy is now a "potential" child molester?

Nope. That Japanse man that wished to marry a cartoon character can now move to Australia and demand that his wish be honoured. After all "the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.".

And people have a right to marry, right ;) ?

Edit:
Hmm. I wonder...

Is a Canadian airline flying to Australia obligated to offer a free seat to the drawing of an obese person now ? After all, both rulings apply..

So now the possibility that the clip is objectionable is good enough to prosecute someone for child pornography.
What next? Deciding that the Hustler Barely Legal series could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children," and thus anyone found with a copy is now a "potential" child molester?

It seems the logical consequence. That's lunacy.

Btw, what about shooting in movies? Isn't that an incitation to murder, by the same logics?

I'm glad I'm not in Australia or my avatar could get me in big trouble! :eek:

Stop trying to increase the demand for child porn LG!

Naughty clown :p

I wouldn't know. And if you want you can disregard my last post no matter how much truth there might be in it, I am just in a shitty mood at the moment and will blow up at anything related to public servants.
yeah i read your post on the annoyances thread.

after reading it i decided that my annoyance at people who block the grocery store aisle was not all that annoying after all.

you poor thing.

Btw, what about shooting in movies? Isn't that an incitation to murder, by the same logics?

Poor governor Schwarzenegger...

yeah i read your post on the annoyances thread.

after reading it i decided that my annoyance at people who block the grocery store aisle was not all that annoying after all.

you poor thing.

Thanks, and the fun is only just starting with this mob I could go on but I won't bore you or other people. But yes people who do block aisles are annoying, esepically when they see you there and still refuse to move.

I will stop the threadjack and move this to the annoyance thread. /threadjack

Anyway back to this thread, yes Ashmoria, it does bring up a few questions as to why this guy had been penalised and why the police had his computer in the first place.

Poor governor Schwarzenegger...
I think you mean, "Poor Christian Bale."
Equilibrium alone is going to put him away for over 2,000 years (if he manages to avoid being executed for war crimes, that is).

Nope. That Japanse man that wished to marry a cartoon character can now move to Australia and demand that his wish be honoured. After all "the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.".

And people have a right to marry, right ;) ?

Edit:
Hmm. I wonder...

Is a Canadian airline flying to Australia obligated to offer a free seat to the drawing of an obese person now ? After all, both rulings apply..

I so need to try this.

Poor governor Schwarzenegger...

Then again, he could team up with Chuck Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagall and go downunder to kick some judiciary butt! Dream team...

Stop trying to increase the demand for child porn LG!

Naughty clown :p

Party pooper. :(

Then again, he could team up with Chuck Norris, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagall and go downunder to kick some judiciary butt! Dream team...

If there are an hollywood producers reading this thread, this movie is already in production.

I think people are taking this ruling out of context. Many child pornography laws explicitly include simulated content that does not depict real-life minors, for the express reason it could fuel demand for material that does involve abused children. The judge's decision falls within the intent and letter of such laws. It's not so far-fetched that cartoons showing children in sex acts could warrant a minor fine. All this slippery-slope snark is overblown.

Thank god we have violent crime here. are judges and police are too busy with real criminals.

I think people are taking this ruling out of context. Many child pornography laws explicitly include simulated content that does not depict real-life minors, for the express reason it could fuel demand for material that does involve abused children.

So basicly - you can do whatever you want with a cartoon character that depicts a minor - except letting him have sex ?

I think you mean, "Poor Christian Bale."
Equilibrium alone is going to put him away for over 2,000 years (if he manages to avoid being executed for war crimes, that is).

Christian Bale didn't murder those people, John Preston did. However the director and writers must now all be charged for inciting one character to murder hundreds of others.

I think you mean, "Poor Christian Bale."
Equilibrium alone is going to put him away for over 2,000 years
Well, it is a terrible film...

So basicly - you can do whatever you want with a cartoon character that depicts a minor - except letting him have sex ?

Yes, it's sad that overzealous prosecutors would deny us the artistic expression that could accompany the pornographic depiction of cartoon children. But c'est la vie.

Yes, it's sad that overzealous prosecutors would deny us the artistic expression that could accompany the pornographic depiction of cartoon children. But c'est la vie.

Oh well. I will have to remain satisfied with the inherent artistic expression found in the bloody dismemberment, prolonged torture, alien abduction, incitements to commit crime and other wonderful things one can legally do with cartoon kiddies.

Get out bart, i'm piss.

Oh well. I will have to remain satisfied with the inherent artistic expression found in the bloody dismemberment, prolonged torture, alien abduction, incitements to commit crime and other wonderful things one can legally do with cartoon kiddies.

The suggestion that some lawful act is just as iniquitous as an unlawful one doesn't carry much legal weight. And incitement to commit crime is illegal anyway.

The suggestion that some lawful act is just as iniquitous as an unlawful one doesn't carry much legal weight.

Correct. However, it is wise to examine and challenge the validity and underlying reasoning of laws from time to time.

And incitement to commit crime is illegal anyway.

Convincing Bart Simpson to set the school on fire is a crime ?

Correct. However, it is wise to examine and challenge the validity and underlying reasoning of laws from time to time.Yes, I see what you mean. I think the reasoning behind these laws is that there could be a causal link between the consumption of simulated pornographic content and the consumption of real-life pornographic content of a similar nature. It's not that child sex is so much worse than the other things you mention, it's that it's actually a prevalent problem, while the others aren't. If media content depicting those things started proliferating, bans on simulated depictions of those things might be passed as well.
Convincing Bart Simpson to set the school on fire is a crime ?I thought you meant using a cartoon character to incite real people to crime.

I'm glad I'm not in Australia or my avatar could get me in big trouble! :eek:

I've just now realised that your avatar is Calvin.

shouldn't Australian police be busy fighting drop bears and emperor penguins?

anyway its just seems to be an excuse to convict someone if you ask me

This is bad news for the creators of all that porn out there based on the Evangelion characters.

Or those who've made the Disney princesses porno I've seen online.:eek2:

Well, it is a terrible film...

Whoa. Hold on a second there. It's cult - it ain't terrible. :(

So now the possibility that the clip is objectionable is good enough to prosecute someone for child pornography.
What next? Deciding that the Hustler Barely Legal series could "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children," and thus anyone found with a copy is now a "potential" child molester?Hehehe, I wonder if anyone realizes that the Character of Bart Simpson is actually 22 yrs old since he was first broadcast in 1987 on the Tracy Ullman show.

hardly a 'Minor'. :rolleyes:

Sorry Goofballs, but Calvin is only 13... :eek:

Hehehe, I wonder if anyone realizes that the Character of Bart Simpson is actually 22 yrs old since he was first broadcast in 1987 on the Tracy Ullman show.

hardly a 'Minor'. :rolleyes:

Sorry Goofballs, but Calvin is only 13... :eek:
yes but calvin started out at 6 years old so now he's 19....

are you sure of that number?

*edit*

you subtracted wrong. C&H started in '85. that makes it 23 years old.

yes but calvin started out at 6 years old so now he's 19....

are you sure of that number?

*edit*

you subtracted wrong. C&H started in '85. that makes it 23 years old.
I don't go by their appearance. after all, the "Webster" star would be er...

Ah, I saw the last date of publication and mixed that up with his starting date. looks like Calvin's legal LG! :D

Ah, I saw the last date of publication and mixed that up with his starting date. looks like Calvin's legal LG! :D
let us ALL rejoice!

Hehehe, I wonder if anyone realizes that the Character of Bart Simpson is actually 22 yrs old since he was first broadcast in 1987 on the Tracy Ullman show.

hardly a 'Minor'. :rolleyes:

Sorry Goofballs, but Calvin is only 13... :eek:

Dennis the Menace is going to start collecting Social Security soon.

Well the 2012 Olympics logo has been described as looking like 'Lisa Simpson giving someone a blow job' - how will that go down (ouch) in Australia, will they ban all coverage?

Dennis the Menace is going to start collecting Social Security soon.

and what about Nancy's Aunt Fritzi Ritz (http://www.tommcmahon.net/images/fritzi1.gif)? Not bad for a gal in her 70's...

Well the 2012 Olympics logo has been described as looking like 'Lisa Simpson giving someone a blow job' - how will that go down (ouch) in Australia, will they ban all coverage?

I forgot about that one! :D

I don't go by their appearance. after all, the "Webster" star would be er...

Ah, I saw the last date of publication and mixed that up with his starting date. looks like Calvin's legal LG! :D

let us ALL rejoice!

Yay! :D

Well the 2012 Olympics logo has been described as looking like 'Lisa Simpson giving someone a blow job' - how will that go down (ouch) in Australia, will they ban all coverage?

I think if they define egregious and inexcusable lameness as "pornographic," a lot of the Olympics will be banned.

Is that the sound of millions of Australian computer hard drives erasing hentai?

Hahaha, I was just thinking the same thing.

Well, it is a terrible film...
It is quite firmly in "So Bad It's Good"-territory, as far as I'm concerned.

Ah, I saw the last date of publication and mixed that up with his starting date. looks like Calvin's legal LG! :D
That's ok, we've got plans to get him for something even bigger, and as soon as our inside man finishes gathering the evidence, you'll be Lunatic Goofballandchains.

It is quite firmly in "So Bad It's Good"-territory, as far as I'm concerned.


That's ok, we've got plans to get him for something even bigger, and as soon as our inside man finishes gathering the evidence, you'll be Lunatic Goofballandchains.

:eek:

Well, I already have the evidence on you and several others here, and I suspect that with a plea bargain, I should do just fine. :)

Well, it is a terrible film...

No, you meant to say it's a badass film.

Get out bart, i'm piss.

I wish that I didn't get this, but I do. Friggin' internet.

Or those who've made the Disney princesses porno I've seen online.:eek2:

Is every other picture in a google search porn?

Is every other picture in a google search porn?

Yes.

Get out bart, i'm piss.

I see you have experience with such CP-fuel.

Why don't you have a seat over there?

[/edit] I really shouldn't entire verbs.

It is quite firmly in "So Bad It's Good"-territory, as far as I'm concerned.


That's ok, we've got plans to get him for something even bigger, and as soon as our inside man finishes gathering the evidence, you'll be Lunatic Goofballandchains.
Like that would stop LG!

Is every other picture in a google search porn?

No, not that sparse...

I see you have experience with such CP-fuel.

Why don't you have a seat over there?

[/edit] I really shouldn't entire verbs.

Can't. The seat was stolen by a burglar whilst you were busy policing the internet

I wouldn't know. And if you want you can disregard my last post no matter how much truth there might be in it, I am just in a shitty mood at the moment and will blow up at anything related to public servants.

Can anyone say "Great Australian Firewall"?

Whoa, this surprised me, honestly. Not much surprises me these days, but this. This is nutty even for aussies, with their "hate speech" laws and everything. *SHOCKED*

I think you mean, "Poor Christian Bale."
Equilibrium alone is going to put him away for over 2,000 years (if he manages to avoid being executed for war crimes, that is).

Clive Owen has him beat with 141 deaths in Shoot 'em up (http://www.moviebodycounts.com/Top-Characters.htm)

Or those who've made the Disney princesses porno I've seen online.:eek2:
what about that classic Disney porn picture made way back in the 1960s (possibly even the 1950s)? It had every Disney character doing all sorts of nasty stuff to each other.
I'd link it, but I'm at work right now, and googling "Disney porn" ain't the best idea.

Here is a link to the actual opinion (http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/2008nswsc.nsf/6ccf7431c546464bca2570e6001a45d2/ef4625a9db3003f1ca25751500066d48?OpenDocument).

The key issue is whether given a statute that says:

child pornography material means:(a) material that depicts a person, or a representation of a person, who is, or appears to be, under 18 years of age and who:(i) is engaged in, or appears to be engaged in, a sexual pose or sexual activity (whether or not in the presence of other persons)

does "depict" of a person or "a representation of a person" necessarily exclude fictional or imaginary depictions or representations?

Given this context, the court ruling is hardly as ridiculous as it has been protrayed. Among other things, the court did not hold that the Simpson's characters were actually persons.

Also, as has been noted, the defendant here merely paid a fine for his possession of child pornography -- and the fact that the pornography used Simpson's characters hardly makes the case outrageous.

I would note that the criminalization of fictional child sexual images is not unique to Australia or a new issue. Many countries ban virtual child pornography. [I]See generally http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Legal_issues_elsewhere.

In the U.S., virtual pornograph has repeatedly been criminalized -- although the Supreme Court has previously held such laws violated freedom of speech. Compare Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-795.html), 535 U.S. 234 (2002) (holding that Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 abridges freedom of speech because it bans materials that are neither obscene nor produced by the exploitation of real children) with United States v. Williams (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-694), 553 U.S. ___ (2008) (holding that PROTECT Act does NOT abridge First Amendment freedom of speech by outlawing the pandering of material that is believed to be, or claimed to be, illegal child pornography).

Prohibiting virtual child pornography is moralistic nonsense.

Many countries ban virtual child pornography.

And they all suck.

I'm not defending cartoon child porn, but this gets dangerous, what's next, stick figures?

Good, I hope they keep it up.

Child Pornography should be banned in all forms, even in virtual 'not really people' depictions.

Yes it can. Much more. Don't give them ideas.

Look at this depiction of child porn I found on somebody's computer (honestly, it is, just trust me):

http://i35.tinypic.com/10z5mon.jpg

Take them away!

Look at this depiction of child porn I found on somebody's computer (honestly, it is, just trust me):

http://i35.tinypic.com/10z5mon.jpg

Take them away!

WHAT IN GOD'S GREEN EARTH!?!?

Sir, I'm afraid that this forum has a PG-13 limit and such images are not allowed on here.:p

And they all suck.

I'm not defending cartoon child porn, but this gets dangerous, what's next, stick figures?

Because Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, etc., are all well known for their oppressive governments. :rolleyes:

And your slippery slope argument is noted and rejected as the hysteria it is.

Look at this depiction of child porn I found on somebody's computer (honestly, it is, just trust me):

http://i35.tinypic.com/10z5mon.jpg

Take them away!

Yeah, that is pretty much exactly the standard applied in the courts. :rolleyes::p

Look at this depiction of child porn I found on somebody's computer (honestly, it is, just trust me):

http://i35.tinypic.com/10z5mon.jpg

Take them away!

that is so hot.

*starts touching himself*

Well the 2012 Olympics logo has been described as looking like 'Lisa Simpson giving someone a blow job' - how will that go down (ouch) in Australia, will they ban all coverage?

Better yet they can change the logo to something that actually looks good.

Is every other picture in a google search porn?

So, you actually went looking for the Disney Princess porn then?

Can anyone say "Great Australian Firewall"?

Well the government is hell bent to block over a 1000 sites to the public including sites that discuss euthanasia.

Get out bart, i'm piss.
I thought of that too. Part of me died, stronger, etc.
shouldn't Australian police be busy fighting drop bears and emperor penguins?

You can't fight drop bears, you can just make sure they only get tourists.


I'm not sure why exactly child porn that doesn't feature any real child is illegal. Who exactly has been harmed?

So, you actually went looking for the Disney Princess porn then?

No, I was google imaging Rei Ayanami for an MSN display picture. Every other picture was porn. It was ridiculous.

No, I was google imaging Rei Ayanami for an MSN display picture. Every other picture was porn. It was ridiculous.

Ah I see, do you know google has a filter on it?

No, I was google imaging Rei Ayanami for an MSN display picture. Every other picture was porn. It was ridiculous.

Google image searching for any cartoon character will almost certainly lead you to porn, and lots of it. Seriously, porn of everything. Every single pokemon. Bowser and Princess Peach. Kiss your childhood goodbye.


Assuming safe search is off, of course.

Is every other picture in a google search porn?

Not really. Why?

Prohibiting virtual child pornography is moralistic nonsense.

I'm not at all sure I disagree, but will play devil's advocate for a moment.

Is it really true that virtual child pornography causes/risks none of the dangers of "real" child pornography? Is the only harm from child pornography in the making of it? Why then is the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography also criminalized?

Additional harms from the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography include:


prohibiting the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography is critical to preventing and punishing the production of child pornography. You can't completely divorce the source from the demand. The advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials.


child pornography is often used as part of a method of seducing other children into sexual activity; a child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with an adult, or to pose for sexually explicit photographs, can sometimes be convinced by viewing depictions of other children `having fun' participating in such activity. More specifically, child pornography is used by child molesters to:


Demonstrate sex acts to children. Offenders commonly use pornography to teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.

Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. Some children naturally fear sexual activities. Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.

Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.

Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.



child pornography is often used by pedophiles and child sexual abusers to stimulate and whet their own sexual appetites, and as a model for sexual acting out with children; such use of child pornography can desensitize the viewer to the pathology of sexual abuse or exploitation of children, so that it can become acceptable to and even preferred by the viewer

See, e.g., link (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/heimbach050102.htm)

Note: the last two definitely and the first to a degree apply to virtual child pornography. In fact, "cartoon" characters having sex may be even more useful for the purposes of luring and desensitizing children to sexual abuse.

On the other hand, what exactly is the value of virtual child pornography? How does it contribute to the marketplace of ideas? What redeeming social value does it have that outweighs its potential harm?

Why then is the possession, sale, use, and distribution of child pornography also criminalized?

Because these are all economic roles that contribute to its making, and because the children could reasonably be argued to be worse off the more pornography of them is propagated. If I hire someone to commit murder for me, I am still guilty of a crime.

Note: the last two definitely and the first to a degree apply to virtual child pornography.

"Virtual" child pornography is separable from the child pornography economy the moment you legalize it.

As for the more important aspects... well, for one, the primary evidence the testimony you posted cites for the connection between use of child pornography and child molestation is data from people who have been caught in child pornography circles, but that's obviously not a random sample of people who casually use child pornography. By all the evidence, the industry is massive: the people who are actually caught are in all likelihood a small minority, and while I don't know I'd guess that most of them are a lot more than "casual users"--I'd bet that people involved in production and distribution, for instance, are caught far more often than people who merely visit the websites and download the material.

At that point, it's a correlation/causation issue: the fact that lots of people very heavily involved in child pornography (most of which does involve the sexual abuse of children) are also active pedophiles doesn't prove much about the causal role it has.

In fact, "cartoon" characters having sex may be even more useful for the purposes of luring and desensitizing children to sexual abuse.

I'm a little skeptical about this entire line of reasoning. For one, the evidence lacks any kind of control: who is to say that active pedophiles would not sexually abuse children at the same rate even without such ready materials to "desensitize" them? A child is going to be susceptible to the suggestions of a trusted adult (which is generally what child abusers are) in any case, and I'm not sure why a resistant child would be convinced by the introduction of cartoon pictures.

On the other hand, what exactly is the value of virtual child pornography? How does it contribute to the marketplace of ideas? What redeeming social value does it have that outweighs its potential harm?

Does any kind of pornography have much "redeeming social value", or a meaningful contribution to the "marketplace of ideas"? It's an aspect of individual freedom and really has very little to do with the general worthy aims of free speech. It's designed not to convey ideas but to make people respond sexually.

"Virtual" child pornography is separable from the child pornography economy the moment you legalize it.

Actually, the opposite is arguably true. According to the expert I cited, if that child pornography becomes legal if it is "virtual" or "fictional," that makes prosecuting any child pornography case much more difficult as you now have a disputed issue over the "reality" of the child pornography.

As for the more important aspects... well, for one, the primary evidence the testimony you posted cites for the connection between use of child pornography and child molestation is data from people who have been caught in child pornography circles, but that's obviously not a random sample of people who casually use child pornography. By all the evidence, the industry is massive: the people who are actually caught are in all likelihood a small minority, and while I don't know I'd guess that most of them are a lot more than "casual users"--I'd bet that people involved in production and distribution, for instance, are caught far more often than people who merely visit the websites and download the material.

At that point, it's a correlation/causation issue: the fact that lots of people very heavily involved in child pornography (most of which does involve the sexual abuse of children) are also active pedophiles doesn't prove much about the causal role it has.



I'm a little skeptical about this entire line of reasoning. For one, the evidence lacks any kind of control: who is to say that active pedophiles would not sexually abuse children at the same rate even without such ready materials to "desensitize" them? A child is going to be susceptible to the suggestions of a trusted adult (which is generally what child abusers are) in any case, and I'm not sure why a resistant child would be convinced by the introduction of cartoon pictures.

I'm a bit disappointed that your response comes down to little more than "uh, huh, the expert could be wrong 'cuz I question his data." Although I cited only one source, my statements reflected findings of Congress and many other sources. Do we really need a source battle or will you respond to the question that "virtual" child pornography poses a legitimate concern to the government?


Does any kind of pornography have much "redeeming social value", or a meaningful contribution to the "marketplace of ideas"? It's an aspect of individual freedom and really has very little to do with the general worthy aims of free speech. It's designed not to convey ideas but to make people respond sexually.

So your answer is that vitrual child pornography has no redeeming social value and makes no contribution to the marketplace of ideas. But, despite the evidence that it can cause harm, it must be legal in the name of "FREEDOM."

First, that is not how rights work. No rights are absolute, but must yeild if a government impignment is sufficiently justifiable.

Second, I'd argue that adult pornography does have redeeming social value and does not cause (or risk) significant harm, so that is a non-starter.

Third, specific to the question of freedom of speech, speech that has no value and makes no contribution to the marketplace of ideas is generally not protected speech. See, e.g., obscenity, fighting words, defamation.

According to the expert I cited, if that child pornography becomes legal if it is "virtual" or "fictional," that makes prosecuting any child pornography case much more difficult as you now have a disputed issue over the "reality" of the child pornography.

That's easily resolvable enough: ban virtual child pornography that closely resembles actual children. Not really much of an argument when it comes to, say, Simpsons cartoon characters.

I'm a bit disappointed that your response comes down to little more than "uh, huh, the expert could be wrong 'cuz I question his data."

I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure how else you want me to respond. And I'm not the only one who questions that kind of data (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1), either.

Do we really need a source battle or will you respond to the question that "virtual" child pornography poses a legitimate concern to the government?

Whether or not it is depends very much on the empirical question: does the use and availability of virtual child pornography actually lead to child sexual abuse? You have not presented any other convincing justification for banning it.

First, that is not how rights work. No rights are absolute, but must yeild if a government impignment is sufficiently justifiable.

So? I'm fairly sure I've never claimed that any consideration of individual freedom automatically trumps a government interest for the welfare of children here--that's why I've actually bothered to contest your evidence.

Second, I'd argue that adult pornography does have redeeming social value

What, in particular?

and does not cause (or risk) significant harm

That issue is disputed, too, and is not exactly as clear-cut as you suggest it is. Certainly both rape victims and rape perpetrators have cited pornography as a factor. Some feminist critics have long argued, with some empirical backing, that even non-violent consensual adult pornography encourages degrading and sexist notions of women, and weakens inhibitions against rape--and if the evidence you have cited on the effects of child pornography is accurate, then there may be something to that (certainly and most directly with respect to sexually explicit materials that do depict violent and non-consensual behavior.)

Ah I see, do you know google has a filter on it?

Yes. But safesearch annoys me when looking for Giger art and such, so I leave it off.

Google image searching for any cartoon character will almost certainly lead you to porn, and lots of it. Seriously, porn of everything. Every single pokemon. Bowser and Princess Peach. Kiss your childhood goodbye.


Assuming safe search is off, of course.

Nooooooo! Whyyyyyyyyyyyy????!!!

*makes note never to search for pictures of Mario or the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles*

I always have safe search off, too, because otherwise I get curious as to what's being blocked. And then I see it anyway.

Nooooooo! Whyyyyyyyyyyyy????!!!

*makes note never to search for pictures of Mario or the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles*

I always have safe search off, too, because otherwise I get curious as to what's being blocked. And then I see it anyway.

I hope you're not a fan of the StarFox franchise...

draconian measures against "child" pornography are just another damd fanatical right wing witch hunt, which needs to be brought to an end.

and porn ain't got shistikovich to do with "kiss your childhood goodby" either.

hells bells, i was tryna look up little girls dressess when i was in kindergarten, and who wasn't? people who claim not to have been either had too traumatic a childhood to remember, or have been brainwashed or have brainwashed themselves into lying to themselves.

child pornography is often used as part of a method of seducing other children into sexual activity; a child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with an adult, or to pose for sexually explicit photographs, can sometimes be convinced by viewing depictions of other children `having fun' participating in such activity. More specifically, child pornography is used by child molesters to:


Demonstrate sex acts to children. Offenders commonly use pornography to teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.

Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. Some children naturally fear sexual activities. Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.

Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.

Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.



Couldn't these, to some degree, apply to porn featuring adults?

Couldn't these, to some degree, apply to porn featuring adults?
specifically adult pron which features models made up to look young.

If an animated gif of Lisa Simpson having sex is viewed as "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children" and that it can "depict a real person", then surely the same argument can be made for, say, an skinny 18yr old woman dressed as a school girl with pig tails, fake freckles and a shaved vagina to make her look as young as possible. Something very easy to find on the internet and in porn mags, like Barely Legal.
It's pretty obvious that the depiction of such a woman is meant to be of a girl much younger than 18 and as such could be used for all those items listed by Cat Tribe.

So do we now prosecute anyone caught buying Barely Legal, or with a movie clip on their pc of a "schoolgirl" being screwed by her "teacher" or her "father's buddy"?

specifically adult pron which features models made up to look young.

If an animated gif of Lisa Simpson having sex is viewed as "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children" and that it can "depict a real person", then surely the same argument can be made for, say, an skinny 18yr old woman dressed as a school girl with pig tails, fake freckles and a shaved vagina to make her look as young as possible. Something very easy to find on the internet and in porn mags, like Barely Legal.
It's pretty obvious that the depiction of such a woman is meant to be of a girl much younger than 18 and as such could be used for all those items listed by Cat Tribe.

So do we now prosecute anyone caught buying Barely Legal, or with a movie clip on their pc of a "schoolgirl" being screwed by her "teacher" or her "father's buddy"?

Almost all (if not all) adult pornography contains a disclaimer that everyone appearing in said pornography is 18 or older. This includes Barely Legal.

Now, I will admit that clips of such porn on the web may not contain the disclaimer included in full presentations. But that could be corrected if there were truly a risk of prosecution otherwise.

Although I personally enjoy such pornography*, I still am not clear on what makes it necessarily absurd and asnine to outlaw what appears to a reasonable person to be child pornography--particularly where the intent of the maker and/or distributor is to make people think it involves children.

Additionally, I think Barely Legal (note the title implies non-minors) is a far cry from depictions of young children.

*To be clear, I am not saying I enjoy child pornography. I am saying I enjoy adult pornography including some of the Barely Legal ilk.

Wasn't Simpson's porn originally intended as shock humour, rather than for erotic purposes? Regardless, the fact that someone can get prosecuted for possessing a drawing is highly disturbing.

That's easily resolvable enough: ban virtual child pornography that closely resembles actual children. Not really much of an argument when it comes to, say, Simpsons cartoon characters.

I'm curious as to how you would phrase such a law and why you would find it unobjectionable, as opposed to one that outlaws all virtual child pornography.


I'm sorry, I'm not entirely sure how else you want me to respond. And I'm not the only one who questions that kind of data (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1), either.

Whether or not it is depends very much on the empirical question: does the use and availability of virtual child pornography actually lead to child sexual abuse? You have not presented any other convincing justification for banning it.

Although the issue can be disputed, I would argue that Congress has sufficient grounds to conclude that virtual child pornography does actually lead to child sexual abuse. Even the source you cite tends toward that conclusion.

For your further consideration, the following is from the government's brief in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition:

A wealth of evidence supports Congress’s finding that pedophiles use child pornography to seduce children into sexual activity. Researchers and prosecutors who testified at the Senate Hearing informed Congress unequivocally that pedophiles use child pornography as a method of seduction.4

4 Senate Hearing 35 (statement of professor of psychology Dr. Victor
Cline) (Child pornography is used “to seduce children into engaging in
sexual acts” with adults.); id. at 96-97 (testimony of Bruce A. Taylor,
President and Chief Counsel of the National Law Center for Children and
Families) (“Actual or simulated child pornography is shown to convince
the child that other children regularly participate in sexual activities with
adults or peers. * * * Continued exposure to the pornography lowers the
inhibitions of the child to a point where he allows the molester to kiss and
touch him sexually. Eventually, if successful, the seduction process
progresses to more explicit activity between the child victim and adult or
other children, using the pornography as instructional tools.”) (footnote
omitted); id. at 20 (statement of Deputy Chief Postal Inspector Jeffrey J.
Dupilka) (“Child molesters use kiddie porn to seduce children into
participating in sexual activity with them.”); id. at 18 (statement of
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kevin U. DiGregory) (“Entirely
artificial images * * * can be used by pedophiles to seduce children”); id.
at 37 (testimony of Dee Jepsen, President of Enough is Enough)
(“Therapists who treat sexually addicted persons declare, and studies
confirm, that pornography, often child pornography, does play a major role
in the molestation process with children.”).

Earlier federal investigations arrived at the same conclusion. In 1986, the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography found “substantial evidence that photographs of children engaged in sexual activity are used as tools for further molestation of other children.” Final Report, supra, at 411.5

5 See Final Report, supra, at 411 (“Children are shown pictures of
other children engaged in sexual activity, with the aim of persuading
especially a quite young child that if it is in a picture, and if other children
are doing it, then it must be all right for this child to do it.”); id. at 649
(“Child pornography is often used as part of a method of seducing child
victims.”); ibid. (“A child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with
an adult or to pose for sexually explicit photos can sometimes be convinced
by viewing other children having ‘fun’ participating in the activity.”); ibid.
(“From a very early age children are taught to respect and believe
material contained in books and will thus have the same beliefs about child
pornography.”); id. at 649-650 (“Child pornography is * * * used to
illustrate the activities in which the pedophile wishes a child to engage. In
such instances a pedophile offender shows the child the pornography and
asks the child to imitate the pictures.”) (footnote omitted); id. at 649 (“A
pedophile offender will use child pornography in which the children appear
to be having a good time. The offender uses this material to lower the
inhibitions of the child and entice him or her into a desired activity.
Children who view this material are also subject to a certain amount of
peer pressure as they see other children engaged in the activity.”).

In that same year, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations also concluded that pedophiles use child pornography to “lower a child’s inhibitions,” and to “assist them in seducing their victims.” S. Rep. No. 537, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 10, 44 (1986). This Court specifically noted in Osborne that “evidence suggests that pedophiles use child pornography to seduce other children into sexual activity,” 495 U.S. at 111, and the available secondary literature confirms that conclusion.6

6 Tim Tate, Child Pornography: An Investigation 118 (1990) (a
pedophile’s collection of child pornography is “a vital tool in the future
seduction of new victims”); Daniel Campagna & Donald Poffenberger, The
Sexual Trafficking in Children: An Investigation of the Child Sex Trade
118 (1988) (child pornography is used “to lower a minor’s inhibitions and
resistance to sex,” and “as an instructional aid to indoctrinate victims into
various sexual practices”); Shirley O’Brien, Child Pornography 89 (1983)
(child pornography is “used to convince [the] child that other children are
sexually active,” and as a tool to “lower[] [the] child’s inhibitions” against
sexual activity with adults); Seth Goldstein, The Sexual Exploitation of
Children: A Practical Guide To Assessment, Investigation, and Intervention
149 (2d ed. 1999) (child pornography “is often used by the child molester
to seduce the child”).

The reported cases also provide vivid examples of pedophiles using images of child pornography in the course of exploiting children sexually.7

7 See, e.g.., United States v. Snyder, 189 F.3d 640, 643 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1097 (2000); Burke v. State, 27 S.W.3d 651, 655 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000), petition for discretionary review refused, Nos. 00-1869 & 00-1870 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 6, 2000).

Child pornography is not the only means by which pedophiles seduce children into sexual activity. The evidence before Congress, however, shows that it plays a significant role. One witness informed Congress that approximately one-third of the molesters in his practice had used child pornography as a seduction tool. Senate Hearing 116 (testimony of Dr. Cline). Another witness testified that a study of 1,400 sexual exploitation cases in Louisville, Kentucky “revealed that a significant number of molestation cases involve child pornography.” Id. at 92. The testimony that Congress heard is consistent with evidence from other sources. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported that most of the child molesters that it interviewed “said they had used [such] material to lower the inhibitions of children or to coach them into posing for photographs.” S. Rep. No. 537, supra, at 9. And a study conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department’s Sexually Exploited Child Unit revealed that more than 20% of the 320 cases investigated by that unit during a ten-year period involved the use of child pornography. The Sexual Exploitation of Children, supra, at 149.

The evidence before Congress also established that computer-generated pictures of child pornography can be used to seduce children just as effectively as pictures of real children. One witness explained that there is “no difference” between computer-generated pornography and pictures of actual children in terms of their effectiveness as a tool of seduction of minors. Senate Hearing 116 (testimony of Dr. Victor Cline). Another witness similarly testified that “[t]he real and the apparent * * * are equally dangerous because both have * * * the same seductive effect on a child victim.” Id. at 70 (testimony of Bruce A. Taylor). Since computer technology can be used to produce visual depictions that are virtually indistinguishable from unretouched photos of actual children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, it would be difficult to reach any other conclusion.

Indeed, even the student note relied upon by the court of appeals found it “relatively easy to infer from proof that children are swayed by images of actual children the conclusion that they will also be swayed by lifelike computer-generated images.” Adelman, supra, 14 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. at 490. The note further stated that “computer-generated images may be even more dangerous than photographic ones,” since “t will soon be possible to create realistic sexually explicit images of a child’s friends or siblings in an effort to convince that child that engaging in sexual acts is acceptable.” Id. at 490-491.

[I]Note: I'll try to deal with the rest of your post later.

The evidence before Congress also established that computer-generated pictures of child pornography can be used to seduce children just as effectively as pictures of real children. One witness explained that there is “no difference” between computer-generated pornography and pictures of actual children in terms of their effectiveness as a tool of seduction of minors. Senate Hearing 116 (testimony of Dr. Victor Cline). Another witness similarly testified that “[t]he real and the apparent * * * are equally dangerous because both have * * * the same seductive effect on a child victim.” Id. at 70 (testimony of Bruce A. Taylor). Since computer technology can be used to produce visual depictions that are virtually indistinguishable from unretouched photos of actual children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, it would be difficult to reach any other conclusion.

Indeed, even the student note relied upon by the court of appeals found it “relatively easy to infer from proof that children are swayed by images of actual children the conclusion that they will also be swayed by lifelike computer-generated images.” Adelman, supra, 14 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. at 490. The note further stated that “computer-generated images may be even more dangerous than photographic ones,” since “[i]t will soon be possible to create realistic sexually explicit images of a child’s friends or siblings in an effort to convince that child that engaging in sexual acts is acceptable.” Id. at 490-491.[/INDENT]


However, none of this really applies to Simpson's porn.

Well the government is hell bent to block over a 1000 sites to the public including sites that discuss euthanasia.

Good to see that it is now being viewed as farcical now, because it could be a dangerous precedent (nevermind the UK and Wikipedia...)

However, none of this really applies to Simpson's porn.

Fair point, but it doesn't take great imagination to consider that children might be similarly influenced by pornography featuring cartoon children with which they are familar.

Moreover, are you saying a legal distinction can and should be made between realistic and unrealistic virtual child pornography?

Fair point, but it doesn't take great imagination to consider that children might be similarly influenced by pornography featuring cartoon children with which they are familar.

Yet, this is sounding like "it is possible to abuse this, so we shall not merely forbid the abuse but the whole thing". I dislike that line of reasoning even though I understand and concede the practicality of it.

Yet, this is sounding like "it is possible to abuse this, so we shall not merely forbid the abuse but the whole thing". I dislike that line of reasoning even though I understand and concede the practicality of it.

I am not entirely fond of that line of reasoning either.

But combine the "this is often abused" point with "the abuse is seriously bad" point and the "this doesn't really have a legitimate use or redeeming value" point, and I start to lean against virtual child porn.

On the other hand, what exactly is the value of virtual child pornography? How does it contribute to the marketplace of ideas? What redeeming social value does it have that outweighs its potential harm?

One could ask the same question about pretty much every current tvshow (big brother anyone ?) as well as the major popstars (hello mrs Spears). Yet they seem quite succesful.

So I guess the redeeming value is: "it sells".

Fair point, but it doesn't take great imagination to consider that children might be similarly influenced by pornography featuring cartoon children with which they are familar.
nor does it take great imagination to consider that children might be similarly influenced by pornography featuring 18yr olds made and dressed up to look as young as they are.

One may as well argue that all pornography could be (and has been) used to entice children. So does this mean that we should now consider all porn to "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children" and prosecute people just on the basis?

Almost all (if not all) adult pornography contains a disclaimer that everyone appearing in said pornography is 18 or older. This includes Barely Legal.
which has nothing to do with my post. You really think someone wanting to use pics/vids of the type I mentioned to entice kids is going to stress and point out to them that the models are over 18?

Although I personally enjoy such pornography*, I still am not clear on what makes it necessarily absurd and asnine to outlaw what appears to a reasonable person to be child pornography--particularly where the intent of the maker and/or distributor is to make people think it involves children.
Sure it doesn't show young children.
You don't think the publishers of BL aren't intending to make the reader/viewer think the 'schoolgirl' isn't in fact much younger than she is in reality? In that case, why call themselves Barely legal and have their models wear Junior school-type uniforms?
(Unless it's normal for 18 and 19 yr olds to attend Junior School in the US)
you really think that some guy whacking off to a BL "schoolgirl" is really thinking, "oh yeah, that's a hot 21 yr old pretending to be a schoolgirl" and not "oh yeah, that's a hot 16yr old schoolgirl"? (or even 15yr old or 14 yr old or...)

And some depictions of schoolgirls, especially the skinny clean-shaven ones, could be considered to be depictions of pre-pubescent schoolgirls - say 12 or so. Young enough depictions that they could be used to entice and fool, say, a 10 or 11yr old child into thinking this is normal behaviour.


The publishers of Barely Legal (and I only use this title as an example as it's the only one I can think of off-hand; I'm sure there's more titles out there a lot more borderline than BL) certainly aren't intending their product to be used in such a way. And very likely neither were the makers of the animated x-rated Simpsons gifs which abound.
So again, why should one be now considered a crime and not the other? Both show (supposed) "depictions" of underage sex which could possibly be used to entice children. But only one will get you on the sex offenders list. What could be more asinine than that?

Additionally, I think Barely Legal (note the title implies non-minors) is a far cry from depictions of young children.
I always thought the title Barely Legal implied that they weren't quite. That they were, y'know, a week away from their 16th birthday. On the cusp as it were. And I'm sure the publishers of BL figured some people would think the same when they came up with that name.

Is every picture in a google search porn?

Fixed. :p

Clive Owen has him beat with 141 deaths in Shoot 'em up (http://www.moviebodycounts.com/Top-Characters.htm)

What about Dr. Strangelove? That has nuclear bombs.

I think Stanley Kubrick should be charged for inciting global nuclear war... Or using humour to prevent it. ;)

can't. The seat was stolen by a burglar whilst you were busy policing the internet
Boom, headshot! XD

draconian measures against "child" pornography are just another damd fanatical right wing witch hunt, which needs to be brought to an end.

and porn ain't got shistikovich to do with "kiss your childhood goodby" either.

hells bells, i was tryna look up little girls dressess when i was in kindergarten, and who wasn't? people who claim not to have been either had too traumatic a childhood to remember, or have been brainwashed or have brainwashed themselves into lying to themselves.
Wow, that was bold. o.o

That said, I can't help but think that's projection* on your part to some extent. Just because you were trying to look up dresses while in kindergarten doesn't mean you should assume everyone was. I do agree about the notion that porn doesn't mean kissing your childhood goodbye though...

*It's a fact of psychology that people see in others what they notice about themselves...

Fair point, but it doesn't take great imagination to consider that children might be similarly influenced by pornography featuring cartoon children with which they are familar.

Moreover, are you saying a legal distinction can and should be made between realistic and unrealistic virtual child pornography?

The Simpsons isn't really a kid's show to start with... just because it's a cartoon doesn't mean that children are its intended audience.