Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Man in Court over Simpsons Porn

245678

Comments

  • #32
    Kold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #33
    Oneironaut
    Closed Accounts Posts: 41 ✭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.


  • #34
    Menengroth™
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 920 ✭✭✭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


  • #35
    Black_Knight
    Moderators Posts: 12,424 ✭✭✭✭Black_Knight


    He cant wait for the 2012 olympics!


  • #36
    antodeco
    Registered Users, Subscribers, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,690 ✭✭✭✭antodeco


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


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    child exploitation material

    WTF


  • #38
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    CrazyRabbit wrote: »
    So this is illegal?

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


    Banned.


  • #39
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭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 :D.


  • #40
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #41
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Naos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,740 ✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    Choke
    Closed Accounts Posts: 95 ✭✭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.


  • #44
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


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


  • #45
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #46
    Wazdakka
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,467 ✭✭✭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.


  • #47
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,220 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #48
    TPD
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭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.


  • #49
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,220 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • #50
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #51
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭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...


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    kawaii
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,327 ✭✭✭kawaii


    Maybe he removed the actual child porn and planted the cartoon porn there...


  • #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Leichhardt resident was convicted of possessing child exploitation material in 2003 after 59 sexual images of actual youngsters were found on his computer.

    This didn't get him on the sex offenders register but Simpsons pron did?


  • #54
    Sofaspud
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,625 ✭✭✭Sofaspud


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »


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

    It's wrong, sick and disgusting, if it's intended as a sex aid.

    But I've seen a bunch of these cartoon porn things, and a better comparison would be the blow-up sheep sex dolls. They're not intended for sexual gratification, but for humour.

    And inflatable love-sheep are really pretty common, should the sale of those be illegal?


  • #55
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,725 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Voodu Child wrote: »
    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:
    Wait... the guy, or the Cops that spent a year trying to find the Recycle Bin :confused:


  • #56
    extra-ordinary_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,179 ✭✭✭extra-ordinary_


    Whether there's a victim or not, these cartoons depict children having sex - ie. child pornography.

    Yes you can say, I can sit here at my desk and draw a picture of a child having sex with a man/woman and is that child pornography. Yes it is - it's depicting a child having sex.

    These drawings are not of real children but does that matter? Do the images need to be photographic in nature and for these children to really exist to make it child pornography.

    Is anyone familiar with Anime pornography? Are they real people? No.

    Is it pornography? Yes.


  • #57
    geeky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    extra-ordinary_ wrote: »
    Is anyone familiar with Anime pornography? Are they real people? No.

    Is it pornography? Yes.

    Did anyone get harmed in the making of it? No.

    While I've very little sympathy if reports that he was convicted of having 'real life' kiddie porn on his computer are true, prosecuting someone for weird/stupid but ultimately harmless cartoons is utterly daft.


  • #58
    extra-ordinary_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,179 ✭✭✭extra-ordinary_


    geeky wrote: »
    Did anyone get harmed in the making of it. No.

    Are you talking about Anime/hentai here? You mean you don't consider this porn?

    geeky wrote: »
    ... prosecuting someone for weird/stupid but ultimately harmless cartoons is utterly daft.

    Harmless to you - maybe (and that's open to debate), but this is a paedophile we are talking about where images depicting children having sex are a long way from being described as harmless.


  • #59
    geeky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    extra-ordinary_ wrote: »
    Are you talking about Anime/hentai here? You mean you don't consider this porn?

    Actually I was referring to the images yer man got convicted of having, though I see my post may have been confusing (apols) On you're other question - believe it or not - can't judge, as I've never watched it. But if it is pornographic, then.... so what?
    extra-ordinary_ wrote: »
    Harmless to you - maybe (and that's open to debate), but this is a paedophile we are talking about where images depicting children having sex are a long way from being described as harmless.

    I mean in the sense that nobody was harmed in the making of it. More than the thought of a person getting their rocks off thinking about children (which is unpleasant, but merits counselling rather than a prison stretch) it's the sexual things done to innocent children in making kiddie porn that makes it so utterly vile, and a criminal offence. In 'bart and lisa' images, there's no real-life eight-year-old being made to fellate a ten-year-old. Surely you appreciate that distinction?


  • #60
    smellslikeshoes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,354 ✭✭✭smellslikeshoes


    extra-ordinary_ wrote: »
    Whether there's a victim or not, these cartoons depict children having sex - ie. child pornography.

    Child pornography ie. actual children involved in sex acts is a very serious thing and putting it in the same category as drawn pictures of fictional characters is absurd in my opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    extra-ordinary_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,179 ✭✭✭extra-ordinary_


    smellslikeshoes wrote: »
    Child pornography ie. actual children involved in sex acts is a very serious thing and putting it in the same category as drawn pictures of fictional characters is absurd in my opinion.

    Does this mean you don't consider any drawn material pornography?


Advertisement