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

124678

Comments

  • #92
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,904 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Hogzy wrote: »
    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
    I wasn't particularly happy with that image, but there is a difference between simple nudity and pornography.


  • #93
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    :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...
    Why?


  • #94
    Hogzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,545 ✭✭✭Hogzy


    TBH id choose a pedophile looking at simpsons porn over REAL child porn any day!

    Just googled "Cartoon Porn" on google images and tons of the stuff came up. Shouldnt google be guilty of commiting a offense so!


  • #95
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Xluna wrote: »
    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:

    Its actually 18 in most countries now (even though the age of consent may be lower) and its HAVING the stuff thats illegal not jacking off to it
    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Anyone with a pair of eyes (but no brain) in their head can see that it's porn...
    FYP


  • #96
    Hogzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,545 ✭✭✭Hogzy


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Anyone with a pair of eyes in their head can see that it's porn...

    It is porn alright. Porn is considered anything that depicts sexual arousal in its viewers.

    So porn could be a raunchy paragraph in a novel or indeed drawings of nudity. My issue is whether it is grave enough for someone to be put on a sex offenders register and whether it is considered Child pornography! After all there is no immediate victim, Can you really say society is a victim of such pornography if viewed behind closed doors. Realistically it affects nobody.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,948 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Anyone else noticed...
    This is the chap who's in court.



    Hmmm....


  • #98
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Hogzy wrote: »
    Porn is considered anything that depicts sexual arousal in its viewers.

    Ummm by that definition the only thing that constitutes porn is a mirror (or camera/monitor set up to show the viewer)

    Unless you actually meant to say was:
    Porn is considered anything that causes sexual arousal in its viewers
    In which case just about anything can be considered porn since there is really no limit to how bizzare people can be in their preferences as to what they get off on.


  • #99
    geeky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    Victor wrote: »
    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?

    Just to answer you Victor - even though I'm not au fait with this stuff (genuinely!) I know that you can find people depicting all kinds of disgusting and sometimes illegal things. People don't get prosecuted for looking at these images. Why? Aside from the difficulty of prosecution, the actors are consenting adults.

    This is not the case with child pornography, where a child is abused in the making of it - a vile crime. This is why we prosecute the consumers of child pornography - because they finance the sexual exploitation of children - while not going after consumers of pornography in general.

    This is the distinction I was trying to make. While at a guess, I'd say any child used in the making of kiddie porn will be scarred for life, something tells me that, Bart, Lisa and the Powerpuff Girls will be just fine.

    Short of presenting a Fr. Ted style diagram illustrating the 'real world' and the 'imagination', I don't know how much clearer I can be.


  • #100
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,904 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    But where do you draw the line?


  • #101
    citizen_p
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,494 ✭✭✭citizen_p


    ffs.....first of all....cartoon porn ?????? why

    secondly... its fuking cartoon porn...why would you charge him for that


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    geeky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    Victor wrote: »
    But where do you draw the line?

    Between reality and cartoons.

    Or, if you like, between child abuse and a particularly messed up form of copyright infringement.


  • #103
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,904 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    geeky wrote: »
    Between reality and cartoons.

    Or, if you like, between child abuse and a particularly messed up form of copyright infringement.
    Have you seen Avatar? There are some sections of the film where it is distinctly difficult to tell "reality and cartoons".


  • #104
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    Victor wrote: »
    Have you seen Avatar? There are some sections of the film where it is distinctly difficult to tell "reality and cartoons".

    That's beside the point. In some films a person can be tortured to death and it looks 100% real, but the film-goer doesn't get charged as an accesory to murder.


  • #105
    geeky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    Victor wrote: »
    Have you seen Avatar?

    No.
    Victor wrote: »
    There are some sections of the film where it is distinctly difficult to tell "reality and cartoons".

    Perhaps. I distinctly doubt that's the case with graphic images of Simpsons characters.

    Moreover, if someone's tortured and killed in Avatar, it's not the same thing as watching and paying for a video of a real actor being tortured and killed.


  • #106
    bonerm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,594 ✭✭✭bonerm


    To all the people saying it's alright cos it's just cartoon porn, would you also similarily be ok if it was realistically rendered CG porn showing whatever it is that pdfiles actually look at?


  • #107
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    bonerm wrote: »
    To all the people saying it's alright cos it's just cartoon porn, would you also similarily be ok if it was realistically rendered CG porn showing whatever it is that pdfiles actually look at?
    Yes, that would be fine.

    It's not about how real it looks, it's about whether it actually is real or not.


  • #108
    geeky
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭geeky


    bonerm wrote: »
    To all the people saying it's alright cos it's just cartoon porn, would you also similarily be ok if it was realistically rendered CG porn showing whatever it is that pdfiles actually look at?

    I probably wouldn't bee as strident, but this is hypothetical. This guy looked at the Simpsons and the Powerpuff girls.

    Moreover, I think the material you describe is different to stuff that actually entails a real life child being sexually abused.

    If the stuff you're talking about was found on someone's computer, I'd recommend heavy, heavy counselling.


  • #109
    Xluna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,329 ✭✭✭Xluna


    I've killed tens of thousands of depictions of people in video games,as have many millions of others. Should we not be prosecuted for killing depictions of people if people are prosecuted for viewing depictions of the Simpsons having sex?


  • #110
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    Yes, that would be fine.
    It's not about how real it looks, it's about whether it actually is real or not.

    Context and intent of the producers needs to be taken into account.

    These are probably medical textbooks filled with naked drawings/pictures (some necessairly quite explicit) which could nevertheless hardly be resonably construed as porn.

    On the other hand didnt some phsycologist discover that a lot of paedophiles used to use some suntan lotion advert as porn


  • #111
    Elessar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,260 ✭✭✭Elessar


    Victor wrote: »
    I wasn't particularly happy with that image, but there is a difference between simple nudity and pornography.

    Playing devils advocate here:

    If that's the case, would it be acceptable then for this guy to have a images of minors nude but not in any way pornographic? (I believe this is also illegal, but am open to correction.) If he was a naturist for example.

    It's hard to draw the line.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    AckwelFoley
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    Xluna wrote: »
    I've killed tens of thousands of depictions of people in video games,as have many millions of others. Should we not be prosecuted for killing depictions of people if people are prosecuted for viewing depictions of the Simpsons having sex?

    That depends, did you get a horn doing it?


  • #113
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    Why?

    For the same reason I have stated in a previous post, if you would care to read it. The thread isn't that long...
    Hogzy wrote: »
    It is porn alright. Porn is considered anything that depicts sexual arousal in its viewers.

    So porn could be a raunchy paragraph in a novel or indeed drawings of nudity. My issue is whether it is grave enough for someone to be put on a sex offenders register and whether it is considered Child pornography! After all there is no immediate victim, Can you really say society is a victim of such pornography if viewed behind closed doors. Realistically it affects nobody.

    I don't think it's grave enough to convict somebody of such a serious crime, but it still should not be accepted. It should be banned if anything. To think that people condone animated pictures of infants taking an adults penis is fcuking sick. The concept behind it is sick, the artist is a sick fcuk and so are the people who get turned on by this abnormal genre. You need your head checked out seriously if you fap off to this kind of crap.

    What age is maggie in the simpsons?


    Hogzy wrote: »
    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

    What about having a picture of a real child that is naked, but not involved in any sexual acts? Is that pornographic?

    There's a differance between a child being buggered by his father and a child playing naked. One is porn, the other is not, or do people fail to see there is a differance? It's very possible that the later could cause arousal, but the child has not been abused. He/she is simply playing...
    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Its actually 18 in most countries now (even though the age of consent may be lower) and its HAVING the stuff thats illegal not jacking off to it


    FYP

    Oh witty... not!

    It's porn wether you agree with it or not. So try a little harder next time, yea?

    Pornography: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.
    Hogzy wrote: »
    TBH id choose a pedophile looking at simpsons porn over REAL child porn any day!

    Just googled "Cartoon Porn" on google images and tons of the stuff came up. Shouldnt google be guilty of commiting a offense so!

    I'd chose a paedophile looking at neither. Let's not make it "ok" for paedo's behaving the way they do, be it a real or drawn child. It's a serious fcuking fail if people begin to think it's ok for paedo's continuing their absurd desires for children through other means. What's next? Life like robot children that are lubed up and ready to go? Fcuk that. Society will fail children all over the world if this sick disease is allowed to fester.
    Xluna wrote: »
    I've killed tens of thousands of depictions of people in video games,as have many millions of others. Should we not be prosecuted for killing depictions of people if people are prosecuted for viewing depictions of the Simpsons having sex?

    Not a very good argument really, as people have claimed that video games influenced them in one way or another which changed their perception of the real world, hence causing a crime they otherwise wouldn't do.


  • #114
    Xluna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,329 ✭✭✭Xluna


    snyper wrote: »
    That depends, did you get a horn doing it?

    Errrmm...no. Though some,not me, who have a violent disposition may get a kick out of playing violent video games. You have no issue with someone getting a kick out of a depiction of murder but you do have an issue of someone getting a boner from graphic porn?


  • #115
    Hogzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,545 ✭✭✭Hogzy


    Id say there is a hell of a lot more to this case than what were seeing in the papers


  • #116
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    During the 1990's there were moves in many countries (following international pressure) to toughen legislation regarding child porn. The problem depiction of acts which may be legal in some juristictions but not others (Due to differing age of consent laws) was addressed by specifying 18 as an age limit. In most cases there was no provision to exempt material produced before the changes which was legal with the time.

    With the result that if one has a back issue of the Sun in their possession (16/17 year old topless models were quite common in the 1980's) they could be guilty of posesing child porn. If one comes into possesion of pictures of a naked 17 year old (whom in most juristictions they could quite legally have consensual sex with) not realising the persons age they could be guilty of possesing child porn. Even a teenager possesing a naked picture of themselves could be guilty of possesing child porn. As could a teenager who recieves (unsolicited) by multimedia SMS a naked picture of another teenager.

    Parents who for entirely innocent reasons take photos of their own children on a beach or taking a bath could be guilty of producing child porn as can airport security staff who use body scanners on underage passengers.

    And now cartoons, drawings and computer generated images produced without any malign intent (other than in some case pretty tasteless humour) are the latest target.
    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    It's porn wether you agree with it or not. So try a little harder next time, yea?

    Pornography: creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire..

    Extremely tasteless though they may be the Simpsons cartoons were not produced with the intention to stimulate sexual desire

    So try a little harder next time, yea?


  • #117
    DanGlee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 385 ✭✭DanGlee


    Wait... the guy, or the Cops that spent a year trying to find the Recycle Bin

    Thats what I was thinking... WTF? Are they american police that uneducated? I do forensics and it certainly wouldn't take a year to recover something from the recycle bin?

    I smell a rat!!!

    On another note, it took him an hour and half to delete it????


  • #118
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    DanGlee wrote: »
    Are they american police that uneducated?

    Didnt realise the American police had juristiction in Australia ?


  • #119
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    For the same reason I have stated in a previous post, if you would care to read it. The thread isn't that long...
    I've read the thread. Was gateway hypothesis/desensitization your reason? The same way people frequently go around shooting each other because violent video games are allowed in society? :rolleyes:


  • #120
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,495 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    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.

    It's Australia, ffs. They'll ride anything - even a fictional character.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    DigiGal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,434 ✭✭✭DigiGal


    bonerm wrote: »
    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.
    Yeah I keep mine in the "absolutely no porn here" folder


Advertisement
Advertisement