Man in Court over Simpsons Porn

My name is URL

AN IPSWICH man has admitted downloading graphic cartoon porn images featuring child characters from The Simpsons and The Powerpuff Girls TV shows.

The 28-year-old is now a registered sex offender and will have to report to police after pleading guilty in Ipswich District Court to having the bizarre images on his computer.

Police went to Kurt James Milner’s Leichhardt home on January 24, 2008 after receiving an anonymous tip-off about the disturbing material.

Milner told police he would co-operate but did not want to give them his computer.

But an hour-and-a-half later he phoned police and said they could now have his computer.

Officers discovered the computer would no longer turn on but a year later police forensic experts recovered 64 images of cartoon child exploitation material in the machine’s recycle bin.

The images depicted figures from The Simpsons, The Powerpuff Girls and The Incredibles in sexually explicit positions.

Milner, a former security guard, told police he downloaded the images to show them to his friend “because he believed they were funny”.

He pleaded guilty to charges of possessing child exploitation material and using a carriage service to access child exploitation material.

Milner was sentenced to 12 months jail but it was wholly suspended for five years. A conviction was recorded.

He was also given a $1000 good behaviour bond for five years.

Crown Prosecutor Suzanne Cantatore said the sentence needed to be harsh as it was Milner’s second conviction for having child exploitation material.

The Leichhardt resident was convicted of possessing child exploitation material in 2003 after 59 sexual images of actual youngsters were found on his computer. He received two years probation with no conviction recorded. “Although these offences involve cartoon characters it is nonetheless serious especially since he has a prior conviction for child exploitation material,” Ms Cantatore said.

Defence lawyer Matthew Fairclough said his client did not get any sexual gratification from the cartoons.

“It was more about amusement,” Mr Fairclough said.

Mr Fairclough said his client complied with his previous probation order but was never offered any counselling.

Judge Deborah Richards said the offences were particularly serious as Milner had history for the same crime.

http://www.qt.com.au/story/2010/01/26/an-ipswich-man-has-admitted-downloading-graphic-ca/

While on the one hand looking at pictures of stuff like that is pretty messed up, does anyone else think it's kind of ridiculous to be classed as a sexual offender because of it?

MaybeLogic

Bit weird but nobody was hurt.

Fago!

My name is URL wrote: »

While on the one hand looking at pictures of stuff like that is pretty messed up, does anyone else think it's kind of ridiculous to be classed as a sexual offender because of it?

What's he doing with the other hand!?

Biggins

Strange, just strange...

Gone Drinking

I remember years ago, before i knew anything about computers or the internet.. a guy in our school brought in printed pictures of the simpsons having sex, bart and lisa were riding in one of them.

In fairness, i just thought they were funny.

mikom

He must have been one of them homer sexuals....

Essien

Judge Deborah Richards said the offences were particularly serious as Milner had history for the same crime

Silly and all as it is, should he not have learned from the first time?

super_furry

Jesus, hope they never get to see 4chan.

genericguy

sure bart and lisa must be near 30 at this stage.

gmonov1

bit hard to know what to make of this really, i know ive seen some of that simpsons porn before, i didnt think it was anything more than a joke thing really. id like to know what his previous conviction was for before i started to feel sorry for him though

seanybiker

Never seen the power puff girls ones. The simpsons ones are fairly funny though.

My name is URL

Essien wrote: »

Silly and all as it is, should he not have learned from the first time?

He should have received a conviction first time, the pictures were of actual kids then.

I missed a paragraph in the OP when copying it

Voodu Child

Milner told police he would co-operate but did not want to give them his computer.

But an hour-and-a-half later he phoned police and said they could now have his computer.

Officers discovered the computer would no longer turn on but a year later police forensic experts recovered 64 images of cartoon child exploitation material in the machine’s recycle bin.

Criminal mastermind :pac:

bonerm

experts recovered 64 images of cartoon child exploitation material in the machine’s recycle bin.

Pffft, that's the first place they look! :rolleyes:

To counter this I make sure to keep stuff like that in my "please do not open" folder.

smellslikeshoes

Child porn being illegal is to protect children in my opinion, nobody is getting hurt in porn that is drawn by someone.

xsiborg

NSFW:

simpsons porn!

ah no, i just wonder why he felt the need to try and botch his computer if he truly believed there was nothing wrong with what he was doing?

plus in the article it does mention that he had previous convictions for a lot more serious than just a few animated cartoon gifs.

hell i remember some of these going around by mms message years ago! :rolleyes:

Essien

Voodu Child wrote: »

Criminal mastermind :pac:

The best part is it took him an hour and a half to even come up with that! :pac:
I can imagine the smug head on him as he handed over the PC thinking "Yeah, they'll never catch me now"

TheZohanS

Does that mean if someone draws a picture of a guy having sex with Jessica Rabbit they can be charged with beastiality?


Makes no sense.

Essien

My name is URL wrote: »

He should have received a conviction first time, the pictures were of actual kids then.

I missed a paragraph in the OP when copying it

The mind boggles tbh, how did he escape any recorded conviction first time around

bonerm

TheZohan wrote: »

Does that mean if someone draws a picture of a guy having sex with Jessica Rabbit they can be charged with beastiality?

I think that law doesn't apply in Toontown .... or at least I hope it doesn't.

techdiver

TheZohan wrote: »

Does that mean if someone draws a picture of a guy having sex with Jessica Rabbit they can be charged with beastiality?

Jessica Rabbit was actually a "cartoon human" ha ha. She just inherited the surname Rabbit from her husband Roger!!

old_aussie

What a waste of resources, It's cartoons ffs

Wazdakka

Ok, funny content aside..
It's a drawing... Completly fictional.. It's not hurting anyone...
How the hell did they make this charge stick?

Can you be convicted with a crime and placed on the sex offenders register for reading a dirty story as well?

A completely fictional circumstance based on fictional characters in a fictional setting... and he was convicted of a CRIME.

I guess the thought police are closer than we think..

The world has turned into such a Joke.

My name is URL

This thread is pointless in light of the fact that he had real images of kids on his machine before, I didn't even read that part before I posted it tbh.. just seen the story on Slashdot and copied it =p

Though it is considered as child porn in Australia - http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/752742

lizardfudge

TheZohan wrote: »

Does that mean if someone draws a picture of a guy having sex with Jessica Rabbit they can be charged with beastiality?


Makes no sense.

Yes. That does not make sense. Jessica Rabbit isn't actually a rabbit...!

This is a crime any of us could be guilty of if you do a google image search for the The Simpsons or the Powerpuff Girls and forget to turn 'safe search' on.

celticbest

I think everybody who has access to email has been sent some sort of cartoon porn at some stage, people either laugh at it or delete it depending on there opinion towards graphic images.

A cartoon is a cartoon, next thing you know is that if somebody is watching the Simpsons you will get arrested for aiding and abetting child cruelty eg. when Homer chokes Bart in most episodes and you don't report it as a crime!!!

TheZohanS

techdiver wrote: »

Jessica Rabbit was actually a "cartoon human" ha ha. She just inherited the surname Rabbit from her husband Roger!!

D'oh!

Well then lets say babs bunny...


Edit: According to Wikipedia Babs Bunny is around 14 so would they charge you on beastiality and having underage porn?

smellslikeshoes

My name is URL wrote: »

This thread is pointless in light of the fact that he had real images of kids on his machine before, I didn't even read that part before I posted it tbh.. just seen the story on Slashdot and copied it =p

Though it is considered as child porn in Australia - http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/752742

Not really pointless though as the two are seperate convictions, pretty sure that the Irish laws are exactly the same any depiction of someone underage is considered child porn even if it is just a drawing of Lisa simpson.

NothingMan

I've seen all these cartoon porn parodies and they're harmless in most cases. Just extreme adult satire but if you couple it with a known pervert who previously had actual child porn and you know he's looking at these as a substitute fapping material then it is very wrong, but the legalities of it I assume would be very shady. I would say a good solicitor could have gotten him off as easily as he got off to maggie and bart.

CrazyRabbit

So this is illegal?

http://xs.to/image-16A4_4B62E95D.jpg

Yakult

Well im never watching simpson porn again

Kold

xsiborg wrote: »

NSFW:

simpsons porn!

ah no, i just wonder why he felt the need to try and botch his computer if he truly believed there was nothing wrong with what he was doing?

plus in the article it does mention that he had previous convictions for a lot more serious than just a few animated cartoon gifs.

hell i remember some of these going around by mms message years ago! :rolleyes:

Because the authorities are quite obviously retarded. Hence his conviction.

Oneironaut

He should've still been in jail for having child porn 'previous'. In fact he probably deserved a medal for becoming slightly less scummy in the interim.

Menengroth™

When contacted for a statement, Helen Lovejoy had the following to say:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_K998pLH9sls/Ssxg4Rehf2I/AAAAAAAAADo/XWteakg4N6w/s400/think_of_the_children.jpg

Black_Knight

He cant wait for the 2012 olympics!

antodeco

In fairness, Maggie was kinda hot in the one where they see Lisa's future.

Mike 1972

child exploitation material

WTF

TheZohanS

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

So this is illegal?

http://xs.to/image-16A4_4B62E95D.jpg

Banned.

Prof.Badass

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

So this is illegal?

http://xs.to/image-16A4_4B62E95D.jpg

Well "cave explorer" is. Afaik it's been posted on boards. Remember a guy showing it to me on his phone. He's going to jail, lol .

Karl Hungus

Wazdakka wrote: »

Ok, funny content aside..
It's a drawing... Completly fictional.. It's not hurting anyone...
How the hell did they make this charge stick?

Can you be convicted with a crime and placed on the sex offenders register for reading a dirty story as well?

A completely fictional circumstance based on fictional characters in a fictional setting... and he was convicted of a CRIME.

I guess the thought police are closer than we think..

The world has turned into such a Joke.

I'm in agreement.

Child pornography is an extremely serious crime because it involves a victim; a child that is deeply and irreparably hurt. A drawing of an imaginary character involves a victim how? It makes about as much sense as arresting Bruce Willis for murder based on his action movies.

Pompey Magnus

Black_Knight wrote: »

He cant wait for the 2012 olympics!

I remember months ago someone on Boards pointed out how the logo might be viewed as that and now EVERY time I see it I can't get the image out of my head.

Thanks Boards for ruining my brain.

Naos

TheZohan wrote: »

D'oh!

Well then lets say babs bunny...


Edit: According to Wikipedia Babs Bunny is around 14 so would they charge you on beastiality and having underage porn?

Nah dude, she's 14 in rabbit years, thats about 99 in human years so you're fine, fap away.

/goes off to google pictures of the Caramel bunny.

Choke

Wazdakka wrote: »

Ok, funny content aside..
It's a drawing... Completly fictional.. It's not hurting anyone...
How the hell did they make this charge stick?

Can you be convicted with a crime and placed on the sex offenders register for reading a dirty story as well?

A completely fictional circumstance based on fictional characters in a fictional setting... and he was convicted of a CRIME.

I guess the thought police are closer than we think..

The world has turned into such a Joke.

Let's stretch that thinking a bit further.

Say one of Dublin's sex shops starts selling child-sex dolls, is that ok?

I have no problem admitting I think that should be banned.

Overheal

Idiot should have gone for smurf porn. Theyre not kids, theyre just little.

Overheal

Wazdakka wrote: »

Ok, funny content aside..
It's a drawing... Completly fictional.. It's not hurting anyone...
How the hell did they make this charge stick?

Can you be convicted with a crime and placed on the sex offenders register for reading a dirty story as well?

A completely fictional circumstance based on fictional characters in a fictional setting... and he was convicted of a CRIME.

I guess the thought police are closer than we think..

The world has turned into such a Joke.

Cases like this wash down the Value in having an offenders registry at all, tbph.

Wazdakka

Choke wrote: »

Let's stretch that thinking a bit further.

Say one of Dublin's sex shops starts selling child-sex dolls, is that ok?

I have no problem admitting I think that should be banned.

The plain and simple fact is that it is not Illegal to be sexually attracted to minors.
It may be disgusting and wrong in my opinion but it is not Illegal.

The acting on it is.
Because the laws are rightly there to protect children from abuse.

It's pushing the theory a bit, but again, you may not agree with it, it may disgust you but a sex doll modelled on a minor is hurting nobody and has no specific reason to be illegal.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Hmm, i'm not so sure...

I rather not see cartoons of children getting screwed by their siblings and parents. Nobody think that's wrong? Even little maggy... how can people not see that an infant depicted having sex with a fully grown man is completely wrong, fictional or not. The idea behind it is sickening... to get turned on by this is sickening. You can blabber on all you want about "oh it's fictional, just a cartoon" yet the cartoon is of a preteen child, with no sexual development. Pretty fcuking disgusting no matter what you may think.

I think in Japan, it's illegal to have these types of images. Banned from computer games, films, cartoons etc etc. Not 100% sure, but I think this law was passed pretty recently.

Just because there is no victim, does not mean it's ok... These pictures should not be produced in any way, while it's a bit ott to convict somebody for having these simpson porn pictures, it should not be encouraged by society as it may lead to the desensitisation of the concept and victimisation of children.

TPD

Wazdakka wrote: »

The plain and simple fact is that it is not Illegal to be sexually attracted to minors.
It may be disgusting and wrong in my opinion but it is not Illegal.

The acting on it is.
Because the laws are rightly there to protect children from abuse.

It's pushing the theory a bit, but again, you may not agree with it, it may disgust you but a sex doll modelled on a minor is hurting nobody and has no specific reason to be illegal.

They might even act as a replacement for those who do wish to act on their impulses.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Wazdakka wrote: »

It's pushing the theory a bit, but again, you may not agree with it, it may disgust you but a sex doll modelled on a minor is hurting nobody and has no specific reason to be illegal.

Holey rubber minor dolls batman...


On a serious note, can you not see that a child sex doll is 100% completely wrong?

People want to normalise child porn? Make some aspects of child porn "ok"? Fcuk that...

syklops

Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »

can you not see that a child sex doll is 100% completely wrong?

They were saying something similar about homosexuality not very long ago.

That it was wrong, that it wasnt normal etc etc.

I think paedophilia needs to be studied more, so that we can get a better grasp on how it affects people, instead of knee jerk sentencing for people we dont understand.

TheZohanS

Naos wrote: »

Nah dude, she's 14 in rabbit years, thats about 99 in human years so you're fine, fap away.

/goes off to google pictures of the Caramel bunny.

Hmmm...but the Simpsons have been around for over 20 years...one could argue that they're not children but have achondroplasia or some other growth disorder...