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

123578

Comments

  • #122
    me-skywalker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,339 ✭✭✭me-skywalker


    Victor wrote: »
    But where do you draw the line?
    yea good pun indeed :-D
    Victor wrote: »
    Have you seen Avatar? There are some sections of the film where it is distinctly difficult to tell "reality and cartoons".
    really? you found it hard to make a distinction between computer cgi and real life. I think you need to get out more.
    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    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.

    Bit of an exaggeration really. There should be no blurring of reality and fantasy here. But realistically there is noway this 'disease' or sickness will ever go away the only way to stop paedo's is by gettin to the route source the people that make it that abuse children and the people taht distribute it, then the people that watch it and they should all be shot in the face or like in america... Chemical castration.


  • #123
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,904 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Elessar wrote: »
    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.
    I don't know what Australian law says. Irish laws says: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0022/sec0002.html#zza22y1998s2
    "child pornography" means—

    (a) any visual representation—

    (i) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,

    (ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or

    (iii) whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of a child,

    (b) any audio representation of a person who is or is represented as being a child and who is engaged in or is represented as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,

    (c) any visual or audio representation that advocates, encourages or counsels any sexual activity with children which is an offence under any enactment, or

    (d) any visual representation or description of, or information relating to, a child that indicates or implies that the child is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation within the meaning of section 3,

    irrespective of how or through what medium the representation, description or information has been produced, transmitted or conveyed and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes any representation, description or information produced by or from computer-graphics or by any other electronic or mechanical means but does not include—

    (I) any book or periodical publication which has been examined by the Censorship of Publications Board and in respect of which a prohibition order under the Censorship of Publications Acts, 1929 to 1967, is not for the time being in force,

    (II) any film in respect of which a general certificate or a limited certificate under the Censorship of Films Acts, 1923 to 1992, is in force, or

    (III) any video work in respect of which a supply certificate under the Video Recordings Acts, 1989 and 1992, is in force;

    So if it was a picture in say a medical book or a naturist setting that didn't overly concentrate on the child's genitalia, there generally wouldn't be a problem. However, it would possibly cause the Garda to investigate further, espeically if someone had a conviction already.
    It's hard to draw the line.
    Exactly, so most countries have drawn a line that saws any depiction of a child in a sexual setting is illegal.

    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    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.
    Guilty in a moral sense, but not in a legal sense as breasts are not genetalia. I get the impression that its been a lot more recent than the 1980s.
    If one comes into possesion 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.
    You may be missing words in this sentence.
    Even a teenager possesing a naked picture of themselves could be guilty of possesing child porn.
    The legal tests are shown above. Plain nudity isn't a problem. A crotch shot would be.
    As could a teenager who recieves (unsolicited) by multimedia SMS a naked picture of another teenager.
    Such a person has not committed an offence as they have not knowingly downloaded the image, knowing it to be child pornography. The is a lack of mens rea. Keeping the image (other than for the purpose of reporting it) might be an offence.
    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.
    Again the tests above.
    Extremely tasteless though they may be the Simpsons cartoons were not produced with the intention to stimulate sexual desire
    How do you know this? How do you know that they aren't used for that purpose? Do you feel uncomfortable or even perhaps aroused at Lois Griffin porn (good grief its a lot worse than a coy camera angle of her flashing Brian)?


  • #124
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,904 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    DanGlee wrote: »
    Are they american police that uneducated?
    Are you so uneducated that you think the Americans still take crown prosecutions?
    me-skywalker wrote: »
    really? you found it hard to make a distinction between computer cgi and real life. I think you need to get out more.
    Well quite a few scenes used both.
    Bit of an exaggeration really. There should be no blurring of reality and fantasy here. But realistically there is noway this 'disease' or sickness will ever go away the only way to stop paedo's is by gettin to the route source the people that make it that abuse children and the people taht distribute it, then the people that watch it and they should all be shot in the face or like in america... Chemical castration.
    Does this work?


  • #125
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Victor wrote: »
    You may be missing words in this sentence.
    Youre right :o fixed now
    Victor wrote: »
    How do you know this?
    Having seen some of the simpsons pictures (colege "rag mag"-twenty years ago -oh and it was someone elses copy your honour) and having the common sense to know it was a (rather bad) attempt at (particulatly tasteless) humor.

    (But poor taste is not a crime)
    Victor wrote: »
    How do you know that they aren't used for that purpose?
    I dont but how can one tell that any picture to a sufficently twisted mind cannot be used for such a purpose ? Do you suggest we ban all pictures (still or moving) and drawings lest someone out there derives some inappropriate kicks from them ?
    Victor wrote: »
    Do you feel uncomfortable or even perhaps aroused at Lois Griffin porn (good grief its a lot worse than a coy camera angle of her flashing Brian)?

    Have never seen any ("camera angle" ??? cartoon ???) Dont feel inclined to go out of my way to look for some either but isint Lois Griffin over 18 ???
    "child pornography" means—

    (a) any visual representation—

    (ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or

    Theres a cartoon on the net which portrays two children in pyjamas outside their parents (slightly ajar)bedroom door. The parents arent visible in the drawing but one child is saying to the other "....and she gives off at me for sucking my thumb...."

    Is this child porn ? :eek:


  • #126
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Mike 1972 wrote: »

    Theres a cartoon on the net which portrays two children in pyjamas outside their parents (slightly ajar)bedroom door. The parents arent visible in the drawing but one child is saying to the other "....and she gives off at me for sucking my thumb...."

    Is this child porn ? :eek:

    No that's not child porn, if you cannot tell the differance then you need to educate yourself a little more... Anybody can tell that this is not child porn, ffs...
    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    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.

    I think you fail to distinguish between a naked 17 year old and a naked 6 month old baby...
    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.

    This is a problem for nudists and also a loop hole for paedophiles... I know a good few people who have pictures of naked children, I have no problem with that at all, as these naked children are not sitting on their fathers penis. Spot the differance?
    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.

    What is the intent in a picture of an infant being penetrated by a grown mans penis, when the artist graphicaly includes sperm and vaginal juices? What is the point of adding in these little details?
    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?

    Contrary to what you believe, these pictures are very graphic, the intention of the artist and these pictures are quite obvious to most people...
    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    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:

    If you read the thread, then why ask the question?

    You cannot compare the two scenarios, no matter what you argue. The "does video games cause violence" debate is a long twisted one. You should look into it, take a sample from both sides of the debate... keep in mind who funds the "video games don't cause violence" side of the study... quite a biased debate ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    You cannot compare the two scenarios, no matter what you argue. The "does video games cause violence" debate is a long twisted one. You should look into it, take a sample from both sides of the debate... keep in mind who funds the "video games don't cause violence" side of the study... quite a biased debate ;)
    1. Why can't you compare the scenarios?
    2. Are you for the banning of violent videogames so?


  • #128
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,904 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Theres a cartoon on the net which portrays two children in pyjamas outside their parents (slightly ajar)bedroom door. The parents arent visible in the drawing but one child is saying to the other "....and she gives off at me for sucking my thumb...." Is this child porn ? :eek:
    No, I think thats just innuendo (and inappropriate innuendo at that).
    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    2. Are you for the banning of violent videogames so?
    I would be slow to ban, but IFCO did ban one last year for its video content (part of the background story, not part of the game play AFAIK). I certainly see the scope for a rating system like the one used in the UK and for films here and it can't be denied that video games do have, at least temporarily, a mind altering effect. Visual perception (especially depth perception) is altered, some people become desensitised to abnormal behaviour, frustration and rage can be present. I would see certain games as enablers, not a core cause, of violence.

    If you want to know why teenagers and adults shoot up schools, workplaces and the like, I would first look at the group dynamic and bullying.


  • #129
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    Victor wrote: »
    No, I think thats just innuendo (and inappropriate innuendo at that).I would be slow to ban, but IFCO did ban one last year for its video content (part of the background story, not part of the game play AFAIK). I certainly see the scope for a rating system like the one used in the UK and for films here and it can't be denied that video games do have, at least temporarily, a mind altering effect. Visual perception (especially depth perception) is altered, some people become desensitised to abnormal behaviour, frustration and rage can be present. I would see certain games as enablers, not a core cause, of violence.
    So, murder and child molestation both being sick and twisted crimes, why should CGI renderings of graphic murders be allowed, but not CGI renderings of sex with children?

    Now, I must admit, typing the above made me feel a little uneasy, but logically, it's bizarre. Why is the innate repulsion we feel towards child molestation not present in any way to the same extent when it comes to gruesome murders? Is it simply desensitization?

    In any case, there's no strictly logical reason to ban CGI child porn, and not CGI murders, even if the sight of it would sicken most people. Legislation should never be based on taste, just harm.


  • #130
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,017 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    No that's not child porn,
    Correct but thats not that the law seems to suggest (no need to shoot the messenger BTW)
    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    I think you fail to distinguish between a naked 17 year old and a naked 6 month old baby...
    The law doesnt


  • #131
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,904 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    So, murder and child molestation both being sick and twisted crimes, why should CGI renderings of graphic murders be allowed, but not CGI renderings of sex with children?
    I've not thought much about the matter, but most people generally think killing someone is a bad thing. Few people get off on killing people.

    Now, many people will make comments like "X deserves to die", whether for serious or non-serious reasons. However, the actual killing is usually distasteful.

    We have also become quite desensitised to violence through the media and putting the genie back in the bottle is a problem.
    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    The law doesnt
    I imagine it might be taken into account in sentencing. However, depoending on what was depicted, the 6 month old might be oblivious, while hte 17 year might be very conscious of the matter.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,293 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Sorry but am I missing something?
    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.

    How the fúck did this spanner become a judge?

    Either way, totally stupid and compounded by the fact that for having REAL images, he got nothing yet he gets convicted for having a doodle of Bart Simpson. Talk about PC bullcrap. Yeah he's a wierd, loony bin eejit for it but it's not criminal in my view.


  • #133
    Wacker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,057 ✭✭✭Wacker


    Legit question here: what would you guys think of people having cartoon images of non-consensual sex? Everyone depicted being 18+. Would this be problematic, or is the issue purely that they're depictions of children?


  • #134
    Fago!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,647 ✭✭✭✭Fago!


    Cartoon images of anything sexual is bad enough, but involving kids or non-consentual sex would just be plain disgusting!


  • #135
    Also Starring LeVar Burton
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,503 ✭✭✭✭Also Starring LeVar Burton


    Absolutely ridiculous... its a bloody cartoon...


  • #136
    Diabhal Beag
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15,238 ✭✭✭✭Diabhal Beag


    NWO must be around the corner. What a ridiculous sentence.


  • #137
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    1. Why can't you compare the scenarios?
    2. Are you for the banning of violent videogames so?

    1. There is no corelation between the two.
    2. Asume much?
    Mike 1972 wrote: »
    Correct but thats not that the law seems to suggest (no need to shoot the messenger BTW)


    The law doesnt

    It surely does. The sentencing would be more severe if you had proper child porn. I.E. Infants.
    Wacker wrote: »
    Legit question here: what would you guys think of people having cartoon images of non-consensual sex? Everyone depicted being 18+. Would this be problematic, or is the issue purely that they're depictions of children?

    Cartoons of rape? Why is that any differant?
    CaptainNegative wrote: »
    Absolutely ridiculous... its a bloody cartoon...

    Why so negative???


  • #138
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    CaptainNegative wrote: »
    Absolutely ridiculous... its a bloody cartoon...
    Diabhal Beag wrote: »
    NWO must be around the corner. What a ridiculous sentence.

    Are you two ok with child porn???


  • #139
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Are you two ok with child porn???

    The problem is that cartoons don't actually have any children in them. How can it be child porn if there is no actually child involved in any way????

    Cartoons are completely fictitious.

    How do feel about animated murders in video games or acted murders in movies? What about written stories involving murder? Are you ok with them so long as they don't feature fictitious child characters?
    They are no different that cartoon 'porn'.

    Whilst cartoons featuring sexual acts involving fictitious child characters would be considered disturbing and perverted, it doesn't make it child porn. Child porn features actual real children. And that is the difference.

    In short, cartoons = potentially sick, but don't involve any real people so cannot be described as porn.


  • #140
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    1. There is no corelation between the two.
    Why not? One depicts a horrific crime, and the other depicts... a horrific crime...


  • #141
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    CrazyRabbit wrote: »
    The problem is that cartoons don't actually have any children in them. How can it be child porn if there is no actually child involved in any way????

    Cartoons are completely fictitious.

    How do feel about animated murders in video games or acted murders in movies? What about written stories involving murder? Are you ok with them so long as they don't feature fictitious child characters?
    They are no different that cartoon 'porn'.

    Whilst cartoons featuring sexual acts involving fictitious child characters would be considered disturbing and perverted, it doesn't make it child porn. Child porn features actual real children. And that is the difference.

    In short, cartoons = potentially sick, but don't involve any real people so cannot be described as porn.


    I can't stand people making comments who have not bothered their fcuking arses reading previous posts. Not even have the decency to say "I read fcuk all of this thread but..."

    Firstly look up the definition of porn, as it has been defined in numerous previous posts. I posted a definition myself ffs. Stop making up your own rules and what you think porn is, because you are wrong.

    Secondly, I have the ability to tell the differance between animated children and animated adults (in most cases). Magie is a child, no.. sorry, she is an infant and people think it's ok to put this infant in a family orgy, it's ok because it's drawn. Well I can tell you now that it's not ok, it's bollocks. Should be banned from being published.

    How I feel about animated murders has nothing to do with child porn, nor does it come anywhere close to child porn. Animated deaths depict generally normal events, having sexual intercourse with a 6 month old baby is not normal by any means.

    It matters not if the characters are fictitious or not. They are depicted as being children, the artist knows damn well what he is doing, it's a loophole which I hope they will close. No literature, pictures or any other medium should normalise child porn. "it's ok because they are not real children" I can tell you now that this statement is wrong. It's not ok, not one bit, and people want to start thinking that way too. It's fcuking sick.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    Why not? One depicts a horrific crime, and the other depicts... a horrific crime...

    There is no corelation between the two. Try understand that...


  • #143
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    You can't just say "there's no correlation" - that's not an argument, it's an unsupported assertion.

    Let's compare both scenarios.

    Do violent videogames depicting murder cause more people to commit murder?
    Do illustrations of children performing sexual acts cause more people to commit child molestation?

    These both can be reduced to:
    Does a visual representation of X crime cause more people to commit X crime in real life?

    They are most certainly similar scenarios.


  • #144
    Also Starring LeVar Burton
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,503 ✭✭✭✭Also Starring LeVar Burton


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Are you two ok with child porn???

    No, but its not child porn... They're not people - they don't even look like people... They're yellow and missing a finger on each hand... They also haven't aged in 20 years and rarely change their clothes...


  • #145
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Magie is .. an infant.

    Eh, Magie Simpson doesn't exist.


  • #146
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    You can't just say "there's no correlation" - that's not an argument, it's an unsupported assertion.

    Let's compare both scenarios.

    Do violent videogames depicting murder cause more people to commit murder?
    Do illustrations of children performing sexual acts cause more people to commit child molestation?

    These both can be reduced to:
    Does a visual representation of X crime cause more people to commit X crime in real life?

    They are most certainly similar scenarios.

    A man is murdered by a thief who breaks into his house, thief uses a hammer which he found in the house.

    A woman is raped and murdered, murderer has stalked the woman for quite some time.

    Are both crimes similar? In both cases somebody has been murdered. But these two cases cannot be compared. A lawyer cannot bring either of these cases to a court and compare them. They are differant crimes. In the former case, the man gets 4 years for 3rd degree murder, later case man is convicted of rape and 1st degree murder. They are simply not comparable.

    Simpsons child porn cannot be compared to the influence violent video games have on a person.

    A case was brought against a man in New Zealand for having child porn (simpsons cartoon characters) on his PC back in 2008. The defence tried to say that the characters did not depict real children as they were yellow and had only 4 fingers. Yet they acted, walked, talked and looked very like children, they also had human genitalia, hence the reason for the judge convicted the man. It was presented that these images may feul a demand for real child porn images and are now prohibited, and rightly so.

    The characters may be 20+ years old, but they still represent underage prepubescent children and one infant.
    CaptainNegative wrote: »
    No, but its not child porn... They're not people - they don't even look like people... They're yellow and missing a finger on each hand... They also haven't aged in 20 years and rarely change their clothes...

    Oh but it is child porn. Again, contrary to what you believe, the little stories you make up in your head are not true, no matter how you present it, no matter how hard you believe this to be true, it is actually child porn.

    They most certainly do look like people. What kind of people do you know...?


  • #147
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Eh, Magie Simpson doesn't exist.

    If by that you mean I mispelt Maggie then /facepalm to you sir...

    If you mean that she does not exist in the real world, what does that matter exactly?






    You know what's really sickening? The amount of people trying to defend these vile images... why are people trying to defend what is in fact, child porn? Honestly. Why are people trying to defend this scum genre?


  • #148
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Iamxavier, you ever seen Taxi Driver?


  • #149
    MaybeLogic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭MaybeLogic


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »





    You know what's really sickening? The amount of people trying to defend these vile images... why are people trying to defend what is in fact, child porn? Honestly. Why are people trying to defend this scum genre?


    Because there's no children involved maybe?
    Thought crimes suck.


  • #150
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    If by that you mean I mispelt Maggie then /facepalm to you sir...?

    I couldn't care less what the correct spelling of Maggie is.
    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    If you mean that she does not exist in the real world, what does that matter exactly?

    What does that matter?? What a scary question.

    It matters because you are talking about child pornography and Maggie is not a child. She is an animated character.


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    MaybeLogic wrote: »
    Thought crimes suck.

    Suck what?

    What are you thinking about?

    Have you got naked animations in your mind??

    I'm calling the Guards.


Advertisement
Advertisement