Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Man in Court over Simpsons Porn

135678

Comments

  • #62
    geeky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    extra-ordinary_ wrote: »
    Does this mean you don't consider any drawn material pornography?

    Not necessarily, but drawn material doesn't involve the exploitation of real people.


  • #63
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    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.

    But what you're talking about here is something imaginary or fictional, as in it is not real and not effecting any real person, it is something that is on paper, printed or on jpg, and in that sense yes, it is harmless. Extremely distasteful, yes, but harmless none the less. Now the problem hee is that imaginary characters are exactly that: imaginary. So if we extend that logic, any thoughts that a pedophile might have to that end; if they imagine a child while masturbating, then they are equally culpable to the law for that imagined situation as they are for possessing real child pornography (real, as in photographic or video with an actual child victim). There should be a clear disconnect between fantasy and reality in these cases. I don't see how anyone could fairly be prosecuted for fantasy, and that's exactly what this is.

    Try and imagine a comparable situation in any other crime. If a person draws a picture of themselves having sex with a famous celebrity, is it rape? If someone writes a story about themselves robbing a bank, are they equally as culpable as if they had actually robbed it? That's exactly what's being suggested here; that a fantasy crime should carry the same penalty as a real one.


  • #64
    extra-ordinary_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭extra-ordinary_


    geeky wrote: »
    Not necessarily, but drawn material doesn't involve the exploitation of real people.


    I agree but exploitation is not pornography.
    It's the sexual content that defines it as pornography.


  • #65
    me-skywalker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,339 ✭✭✭me-skywalker


    My name is URL wrote: »
    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?

    Yea in fairness 64 images??? and havign them on your hardrive. Im sure we've all seen most of them but never actually thought ' Oh I better save that for the lads!'


  • #66
    extra-ordinary_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭extra-ordinary_


    Karl Hungus wrote: »
    But what you're talking about here is something imaginary or fictional, as in it is not real and not effecting any real person, it is something that is on paper, printed or on jpg, and in that sense yes, it is harmless. Extremely distasteful, yes, but harmless none the less. Now the problem hee is that imaginary characters are exactly that: imaginary. So if we extend that logic, any thoughts that a pedophile might have to that end; if they imagine a child while masturbating, then they are equally culpable to the law for that imagined situation as they are for possessing real child pornography (real, as in photographic or video with an actual child victim). There should be a clear disconnect between fantasy and reality in these cases. I don't see how anyone could fairly be prosecuted for fantasy, and that's exactly what this is.

    Try and imagine a comparable situation in any other crime. If a person draws a picture of themselves having sex with a famous celebrity, is it rape? If someone writes a story about themselves robbing a bank, are they equally as culpable as if they had actually robbed it? That's exactly what's being suggested here; that a fantasy crime should carry the same penalty as a real one.

    it's not illegal to have a picture of yourself photoshopped having sex with a celebrity. it's also not illegal to have a picture of you robbing a bank or pretending to rob a bank.


    He wasn't convicted of child abuse for having these pictures.

    He was convicted of possessing child pornography.


    It's the actual material that's illegal, not the thought, intention, victim or lack of victim.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    geeky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    extra-ordinary_ wrote: »
    I agree but exploitation is not pornography.
    It's the sexual content that defines it as pornography.

    and the exploitation that primarily defines (or should define) kiddie porn as illegal.


  • #68
    geeky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    extra-ordinary_ wrote: »
    it's not illegal to have a picture of yourself photoshopped having sex with a celebrity. it's also not illegal to have a picture of you robbing a bank or pretending to rob a bank.


    He wasn't convicted of child abuse for having these pictures.

    He was convicted of possessing child pornography.


    It's the actual material that's illegal, not the thought, intention, victim or lack of victim.

    Oh Jesus wept.

    The powerpuff girls are not real children.


  • #69
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,623 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    me-skywalker wrote: »
    Yea in fairness 64 images??? and havign them on your hardrive. Im sure we've all seen most of them but never actually thought ' Oh I better save that for the lads!'

    If you view an image online, and don't clear your cache.. it's on your hard drive

    I don't know if the law differentiates between having stuff saved manually in a folder and saved automatically in your browser cache


  • #70
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    extra-ordinary_ wrote: »
    it's not illegal to have a picture of yourself photoshopped having sex with a celebrity. it's also not illegal to have a picture of you robbing a bank or pretending to rob a bank.

    Thanks for clearing that up. Really. Wasn't a rhetorical statement at all, it was genuine legal advise I was seeking before I photoshopped myself doing Rachel Weisz up the bum.
    extra-ordinary_ wrote: »
    He wasn't convicted of child abuse for having these pictures.

    He was convicted of possessing child pornography.


    It's the actual material that's illegal, not the thought, intention, victim or lack of victim.

    *Sigh*

    Swings and roundabouts really...

    Yes, I know what he was convicted of. But consider that child pornography is illegal for a reason, the reason being that a child is victimized. What I'm putting to you is, that without a child, there is no child pornography. A depiction does not equal what it is depicting. It may be extremely distasteful and offensive, but it is not in my opinion the same thing as child pornography.


  • #71
    syklops
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,966 ✭✭✭✭syklops


    My name is URL wrote: »
    If you view an image online, and don't clear your cache.. it's on your hard drive

    I don't know if the law differentiates between having stuff saved manually in a folder and saved automatically in your browser cache

    As far as I know it doesn't differentiate. Its still considered in possession.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    extra-ordinary_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭extra-ordinary_


    We can go around in circles if you like.

    Pornography does not need to depict 'real' people to be considered pornographic.

    <snip>


  • #73
    extra-ordinary_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,562 ✭✭✭extra-ordinary_


    Karl Hungus wrote: »

    Try and imagine a comparable situation in any other crime. If a person draws a picture of themselves having sex with a famous celebrity, is it rape? If someone writes a story about themselves robbing a bank, are they equally as culpable as if they had actually robbed it? That's exactly what's being suggested here; that a fantasy crime should carry the same penalty as a real one.


    sigh*

    This is not a comparable situation and if you were to go on from what your suggesting then he should have been convicted of the crime depicted in the pictures - ie. sex with a minor.

    This wasn't the case (as you say you already know), he was convicted of having child pornography.

    So I think your analogy is arse about tit here, and I was trying to demonstrate this to you in my reply but you seem to have missed the point.


  • #74
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    extra-ordinary_ wrote: »
    Pornography does not need to depict 'real' people to be considered pornographic.

    Obviously. :rolleyes:

    Nobody is arguing that it can't be pornographic if it's not real. Nobody. You're pulling that out of thin air, and ignoring any points that anyone is making.

    A pornographic depiction of a child is still pornographic, yes. But the very reason child porn is illegal in any moral society is because it involves a victim; a child who cannot give consent. A pornographic picture of an imaginary character has no victim. See, what I'm doing here is making a distinction between child pornography (pictures or videos of an actual human child), and pornography depicting a child.

    Lets put it another way. If a woman dresses up as a horse in a porno, that doesn't make it bestiality. It's a depiction of bestiality, but seeing as no animals are involved, it cannot be considered bestiality. Can you see the difference here? A depiction is incomparable to the real thing.


  • #75
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    extra-ordinary_ wrote: »
    We can go around in circles if you like.

    Pornography does not need to depict 'real' people to be considered pornographic.

    <snip>


    Well here's some irony....


    Banned for posting pornography.


  • #76
    Elliemental
    Closed Accounts Posts: 924 ✭✭✭Elliemental


    Cartoon porn? I really have heard it all now!
    Seriously, though. Isn't there some wierd Japanese rape-porn sub-culture? Hentai, or something like that. That sounds more serious to me.


  • #77
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    syklops wrote: »
    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.

    Can you not see the differance between sex involving two consenting adults and sex involving one adult and a child that doesn't have a clue wtf is going on...?
    Sofaspud wrote: »
    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?


    What else is a child sex doll intended for? Humour? If that's the case then both the manufacturer and customer have a pretty **** sense of humour. You think it would be funny:

    Man: "hey guys, look at this hilarious doll I got"
    Friend 1: "eh... that's a child? Looks like a sex doll"
    Man: "yea, isn't it hilarious, haha so funny"
    Friend 2: ":eek: dude, it's sick..."


  • #78
    me-skywalker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,339 ✭✭✭me-skywalker


    Karl Hungus wrote: »

    Yes, I know what he was convicted of. But consider that child pornography is illegal for a reason, the reason being that a child is victimized. What I'm putting to you is, that without a child, there is no child pornography. A depiction does not equal what it is depicting. It may be extremely distasteful and offensive, but it is not in my opinion the same thing as child pornography.
    You may havea very valid point, as without a child there is no victim. But maybe the law extends to images of children fictional or otherwise, maybe it could be considered (sorry to usea drug reference) a 'Gateway' imagery?
    extra-ordinary_ wrote: »
    We can go around in circles if you like.

    Pornography does not need to depict 'real' people to be considered pornographic.

    <snip>
    TheZohan wrote: »
    Well here's some irony....


    Banned for posting pornography.

    MEGA LOL!!


  • #79
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    TheZohan wrote: »
    Well here's some irony....


    Banned for posting pornography.

    I laughed. Hard. :D


  • #80
    spinandscribble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,000 ✭✭✭spinandscribble


    calling cartoon porn child porn is sortof like arguing teen porn (youngish looking older women in a school uniform ect) is child porn. still its a popular option on porn sites.

    not agreeing with the simpson stuff in any way, its sick.


  • #81
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    me-skywalker wrote: »
    You may havea very valid point, as without a child there is no victim. But maybe the law extends to images of children fictional or otherwise, maybe it could be considered (sorry to usea drug reference) a 'Gateway' imagery?

    No, the law definitely does extend to that, and even further. As far as I know, even if it's a woman of legal age pretending to be a child, it's still considered child pornography. Which is in my opinion, extremely absurd. Suggesting anything to be 'gateway' is the same kind of argument that violent videogames turn kids into killers, it's bunk. The way I look at it is, there's probably ****loads of people out there fantasizing about sex with minors without any visual aid, and if there is any 'gateway' then it's probably the pedophiles own imagination. As much as we don't like that idea, there's nothing really wrong with that, we can't help what some people think. When it crosses the line from fantasy and reality though, that's the issue.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    TheZohanS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,581 ✭✭✭✭TheZohanS


    Karl Hungus wrote: »
    I laughed. Hard. :D

    Me too. :)

    Plus the cartoon character looked kinda young, and seeing as how the poster linked it here to a potential audience of thousands of people they could be done for distribution too.

    Should I call the cops?!


  • #83
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    spinandscribble wrote: »
    calling cartoon porn child porn is sortof like arguing teen porn (youngish looking older women in a school uniform ect) is child porn. still its a popular option on porn sites.

    Its a fair point. Ive always thought of this school uniform thing as a bit suspect although on the other hand it could be argued that a person going to school isint necessairly under the age of consent (or even under 18).

    but FFS I wish people would stop calling the simpsons stuff cartoon porn

    It wasnt porn it was parody -albeit in rather bad taste* but parody nonetheless

    * in the eye of this beholder at any rate


  • #84
    Windwalker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22 ✭Windwalker


    I must admit when I first read the op post I thought that the thing behind it was that the images could be used to 'coach' (is that the right word?) children. To make them comfortable with what he might potentially do, by using a cartoon that they would probably be familiar with...
    Am I totally off base here? :confused:


  • #85
    Sofaspud
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,626 ✭✭✭Sofaspud


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    What else is a child sex doll intended for? Humour? If that's the case then both the manufacturer and customer have a pretty **** sense of humour. You think it would be funny:

    Man: "hey guys, look at this hilarious doll I got"
    Friend 1: "eh... that's a child? Looks like a sex doll"
    Man: "yea, isn't it hilarious, haha so funny"
    Friend 2: ":eek: dude, it's sick..."

    Nope, I don't think a chil dsex doll would be funny. I think it would be sick and disgusting. Which is why I compared the Simpsons images to a blow-up sheep, rather than a child sex doll.
    The pictures are intended for humour, and have just as much to do with child pornography, as blow up sheep have to do with beastiality.


  • #86
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,904 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Karl Hungus wrote: »
    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.

    Where does the cartoon stop and real image start? http://topgelato.com/wp-content/uploads/Avatar-Movie-Full-Video-Trailer-Online.jpg Image is SFW
    geeky wrote: »
    Not necessarily, but drawn material doesn't involve the exploitation of real people.
    Are you certain? Ignoring hte Simposons for a moment, are you saying that down through the ages that artists haven't used models or reality to inspire?
    Karl Hungus wrote: »
    No, the law definitely does extend to that, and even further. As far as I know, even if it's a woman of legal age pretending to be a child, it's still considered child pornography. Which is in my opinion, extremely absurd. Suggesting anything to be 'gateway' is the same kind of argument that violent videogames turn kids into killers, it's bunk. The way I look at it is, there's probably ****loads of people out there fantasizing about sex with minors without any visual aid, and if there is any 'gateway' then it's probably the pedophiles own imagination.
    And surely that imagination shouldn't be stimulated?


  • #87
    Hogzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,545 ✭✭✭Hogzy


    Does anyone have a link to the actual reported case...

    I have access to Westlaw UK and Ireland and Lexis Nexis but cant find it anywehre


  • #88
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    What else is a child sex doll intended for?
    So a paedophile can satisfy their sexual urges without harming any child?

    If no harm is done to any child, no harm is done to any child.

    "Gateway" hypothesis is unproven.


  • #89
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Its a fair point. Ive always thought of this school uniform thing as a bit suspect although on the other hand it could be argued that a person going to school isint necessairly under the age of consent (or even under 18).

    but FFS I wish people would stop calling the simpsons stuff cartoon porn

    It wasnt porn it was parody -albeit in rather bad taste* but parody nonetheless

    * in the eye of this beholder at any rate

    Anyone with a pair of eyes in their head can see that it's porn...
    Sofaspud wrote: »
    Nope, I don't think a chil dsex doll would be funny. I think it would be sick and disgusting. Which is why I compared the Simpsons images to a blow-up sheep, rather than a child sex doll.
    The pictures are intended for humour, and have just as much to do with child pornography, as blow up sheep have to do with beastiality.

    The images are very graphic... it's not very funny at all. You would want to have one sick sense of humour to find them funny.
    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    So a paedophile can satisfy their sexual urges without harming any child?

    If no harm is done to any child, no harm is done to any child.

    "Gateway" hypothesis is unproven.

    :eek: You gotta be joking me. It should not be displayed what so ever... Nore should child sex dolls be used to satisfy a paedophiles urge...


  • #90
    Xluna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,329 ✭✭✭Xluna


    I think the moral of the story is this, next time you're about to jack off to cartoon porn make sure to ask the drawing if she is over 16. The artist might have decided she was 15 and 11 months when he was drawing her. Hell ask the drawing for I.D. just in case.:rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Hogzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,545 ✭✭✭Hogzy


    What about the simpsons movie when it showed barts penis. Was that child pornography. That must mean the millions of people who own the DVD must be guilty of committing an offense. TBH i can see that case being overturned


Advertisement
Advertisement