Man appeals child porn convictions with having The Simpsons porn on his computer. (1 Viewer)

[chicky_pie]

CARTOON characters are people too, a judge has ruled in the case of a man convicted over cartoons based on The Simpsons, in which children are shown having sex.

In the New South Wales Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a "person" within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.

Alan John McEwan was appealing his February conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.

"The alleged pornography comprised a series of cartoons depicting figures modelled on members of the television animated series The Simpsons," the judge said.

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

McEwan was convicted and fined $3000 and placed on a good behaviour bond.

"In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word 'person' included fictional or imaginary characters ...," the judge said.

"... the mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a 'person'."

In dismissing the appeal, the judge ordered each party to pay its own legal costs in the first case dealing with the "difficult" issue.


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

:rofl: :rofl:

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

...wot?

Such a deluded judge should be removed from the system.

 

[jb_nc]

Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a "person"

 

[moll.]

Would have been so much better if the reporter had added:
"Also of the opinion that the judge had made the right decision are Springfield judges, Roy Snyder and Constance Ham, whilst attorney-at-law Lionel Hutz was of the opinion otherwise, and is currently filing a lawsuit against the judge for defamation and manslaughter. He is not expected to win."

 

[chicky_pie]

Google The Simp-sons p-o-r-n

then you get those pictures which what the judge was talking about.

*remove the -*

 

[moll.]

Google The Simp-sons p-o-r-n

then you get those pictures which what the judge was talking about.

*remove the -*

Oh shit, we have to remove the "-"?!
Glad you told, it would have been disastrous otherwise.

 

[Serius]

wtf? what a total fucking fool. Cartoon characters are people too? ok wacko, back to the looney tunes bin.

The guy looks at a couple of CARTOON pictures and now he is fined for child porn? wasnt the purpose of child porn laws to protect children from behind exploited? who are they trying to protect exactly with this law?

"in which children are shown having sex."....yeah, cartoon character children, they arent real, they are just drawings. Dont the police have bigger fish to fry/ like you know, the thousands of pedophiles and child porn manufacturers in our country?

guy musta had a pretty shit lawyer

 

[charbler]

Simpsons porn is funny

 

[youngminii]

If this ruling means that ANY animated character is included, I'm fucked.

Oh, and what happened to the Children's court? I thought children weren't allowed to be named.

 

[Rafy]

McEWEN v SIMMONS & ANOR [2008] NSWSC 1292

 

[Serius]

as a defence couldnt you say they werent actually lisa and millhouse or whatever and say they were just cartoon characters that happened to resemble them, werent drawn by the real artists and were actually over 18?...or something.

Also couldnt you say they werent human? they are yellow, have 4 fingers, skin coloured hair etc. Theres no law against pornography of drawings of animals under 18 is there?

 

[Graney]

This is a terrifying erosion of free speech. Anyone who's ever visited encyclopedia dramatica, 4chan, or similar shock sites can be found guilty of possession of child porn now. That would include most bosers.

 

[Will Shakespear]

This is a terrifying erosion of free speech. Anyone who's ever visited encyclopedia dramatica, 4chan, or similar shock sites can be found guilty of possession of child porn now. That would include most bosers.

most bosers?

just because you do it

don't drag the rest of us in with you

sick freak

LOOKING AT NAKED CARTOONS!

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Article name should be changed:

Man appeals child pornography charge on account of it not being child pornography.

Outrageous!

 

[jb_nc]

Where will they draw the line?

Spoiler

My guess is somewhere around Lisa's vagina with Bart's penis inside

Ba-dum

 

[youngminii]

I'll just leave this here.

 

[Enteebee]

Technically, :leonard: is now cp.

 

[Graney]

most bosers?

just because you do it

don't drag the rest of us in with you

sick freak

LOOKING AT NAKED CARTOONS!

I just visited for the racist jokes, I swear to god!

 

[Graney]

So if a fictional character is a person, where does written erotic fiction of reluctance/non-consent, incest, between adults stand?

If I write a story about an adult brother and sister going at it, have I commited a crime in forcing two people to break laws regarding incest? I have a feeling there may be published works of fiction that violate this law in existence...

What about bestiality fiction? Does a fictional animal have the same legal protection as a real animal, in the same way a fictional character apparently has the same protection as a person now?

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Are we any different to Saudi Arabia? What a joke. What say you men, let's spam bomb the crime hotline with claims of child porn being rampant on the interwebs!