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

123457

Comments

  • #182
    chupacabra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,453 ✭✭✭chupacabra


    Red_Marauder wrote: »
    That makes no sense. How can it be one without the other.

    If it's worse for a child, then by definition, it's 'not as bad' it it's an innocent adult - complete rubbish.

    To be honest I don't know if you know what you think yourself.

    To be fair its 4am and im pretty drunk, so i might not be expressing myself prtoperly. At least we both agree that its wrong.


  • #183
    amandakola
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29 ✭amandakola


    I'm not sure where exactly I stand on this issue of being prosecuted for possessing animated childporn, even though my inititial reaction is that it's ridiculous.

    But first, and this might be controversial, let me say that I don't think we have complete control over what turns us on, but we CAN control our behaviour. And I think there are pedophiles out there -people who are turned on by the thought of children -who would never actually touch or hurt a child. Having a particular fetish/sexuality does not automatically make someone evil, or capable of harm.Thinking something, and acting on it are two very, very different things. Really, i think it's important to make that distinction. I believe in people's right to freedom of thought and of feelings, while at the same time of course believe nobody has the right to sexually abuse a child.

    So with that in mind, I think, even if the simpson's porn wasn't just for a laugh, even if it was a turn on for him, he's not hurting anybody, and that at the end of the day it's just animation. Similarly, there is a lot of brutal violence and rape in hentai, and yes people do get off on it, but nobody gets physically harmed.

    My problem is that some studies have shown that violent pornography does affect attitudes however. Numerous studies have been done where men who were shown violent pornography afterwards expressed a more negative attitude to women than men who didn't, for example. I don't know about more advanced studies, such as whether viewing certain pornography impacted behaviour, as opposed to attitudes. But IF more extensive research DID show that regular use of animated pedophilic pornography increased the likelihood of actually abusing a child... well then of course we can't say "nobody gets hurt" anymore.

    It's difficult to draw the line. I don't really like the idea of precautionary action being taken against someone. And i really don't like this shady area of banning particular drawings for example. But there's also a big differece between pixelated Simpsons gifs and the ultra realistic CGI childporn that is out there.So it's tricky. But I guess until more definite links can be..drawn [groan] between animated porn and it's actual impact on behaviour, I don't think it should be illegal.


  • #184
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    CrazyRabbit wrote: »
    I refuse to discuss this further with someone who believes that sexual abuse of a child is more shocking & serious than the murder of a child.

    Logic is absent it would appear.

    I never said the murder of a child. I did mean murder in general, mainly adults.

    You are right, logic is very absent, it has been since the start of this thread with people defending child porn pictures being ok because they are cartoons?

    Yet, you post one on this site and you will get banned ;)
    Red_Marauder wrote: »
    Wait... why?

    To suggest that child sex abuse is more serious than adult sex abuse just doesn't make sense. Can you elaborate on why you think this is?

    Sure. I believe that a child is more innocent, they do not understand sex, they do not know the differance between right and wrong, not an infant. To sexually abuse a child, for me, is the worst crime on this planet, but that's my opinion, not fact or law, please respect that. An adult may be able to cope with a crime a little better than a child, as the child is still developing and learning etc etc. I am not saying that all adults will be fine, I am saying the chances of an adult recovering would seem to be higher. ]

    To take a childs childhood away by doing such a vile act is beyond words, that to me is worse than adult sexual assault.
    Innocence is innocence. If a woman gets raped walking home from work or from a nightclub she is just as innocent as a kid being picked up on his or her way home from school.

    Of course both are innocent, don't get me wrong, rape is an extremely serious crime.

    Neither is more serious than the other.

    One is more serious than the other, both for the victims and the law also states it too, harsher sentencing etc etc.
    This defies all logic.

    Obviously murder is the ultimate crime, but I would consider child sexual asault to be worse again. Murder = the end for somebody, whole lives destroyed, I understand that, but personally, child sexual assault is just the lowest of the low.

    It is less shocking as it happens on a regular basis, it's all around us and has been published a lot more than child sex abuse. While the later is very popular too, you just hear less about it, and what you do hear about it is ambiguous, not much detail is given. For me, it is a lot more shocking. It's difficult for me to explain it to be honest.


  • #185
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    You are right, logic is very absent, it has been since the start of this thread with people defending child porn pictures being ok because they are cartoons?

    I think that probably the logic is most lacking in people who think that animated drawings/electronic pixels are actually real children. They aren't they are drawings. One would think that in order to make pictures of child porn one of the requisites would be an actual child. No? Are we to give imagined and drawn representations of fictional characters the same status in law as actual human beings?


  • #186
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    chupacabra wrote: »
    Even tho the images he got jailed for didn't depict any real children in them you cant deny that it is still dangerous for a pedophile to have access to such content. It only serves to further their sick fantasies and in a worse case scenario might even incite them to carry out their fantasies in real life.

    But then we're back to the same argument that a fantasy depiction of something will cause more of that thing in real life; it's the same as violent video games being the cause of real life violence, or that porn incites men to rape.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    I think that probably the logic is most lacking in people who think that animated drawings/electronic pixels are actually real children. They aren't they are drawings. One would think that in order to make pictures of child porn one of the requisites would be an actual child. No? Are we to give imagined and drawn representations of fictional characters the same status in law as actual human beings?

    Where did I equate a drawing to a real child? Where did anybody do that, because nobody did, your perception is not correct in this scenario. It's pretty simple really, without getting overly complicated. Why would fictional characters get the same status in law as humans? Now that's fcuking stupid. Of course, you will pick and chose what you wish from the above posts and twist it to suit your own agenda, maybe you should try read it again. What you fail to understand is that these drawings depict children in extremely vulgar positions. How do you condone these images?

    Still people are defending this child porn, sickening...
    Karl Hungus wrote: »
    But then we're back to the same argument that a fantasy depiction of something will cause more of that thing in real life; it's the same as violent video games being the cause of real life violence, or that porn incites men to rape.

    It's a valid argument.


  • #188
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Where did I equate a drawing to a real child? Where did anybody do that, because nobody did, your perception is not correct in this scenario. It's pretty simple really, without getting overly complicated. Why would fictional characters get the same status in law as humans? Now that's fcuking stupid. Of course, you will pick and chose what you wish from the above posts and twist it to suit your own agenda, maybe you should try read it again. What you fail to understand is that these drawings depict children in extremely vulgar positions. How do you condone these images?


    You asserted that there have been "people defending child porn pictures being ok because they are cartoons"

    Clearly when you are equating cartoons of the yellow skinned and freakishly proportioned Simpson family to actual real human beings, then you have crossed the line that says "you are now leaving reality".

    Lisa and Bart Simpson are not real children. They are a fictitious figment that have but 3 fingers, spikey heads, and skin of no shade that has ever been seen on a human being. They can never be depicted in child porn as you assert for the simple fact that they are not children.

    Whilst I would agree wholeheartedly that these cartoons are crass and vulgar they cannot and should not ever be compared to the suffering and rape that has occurred in order to make images of child porn. Why you would seek to blur the line between what is imagined and unreal with what can and does cause real and actual human suffering is frankly beyond me and I can only conclude you have some serious issues.


  • #189
    Ri_Nollaig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭Ri_Nollaig


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    No need to get personal...


    I am quite happy that there are very logical people involved in creating these laws. Why do you defend a drawing of naked preteens having sex with other family members? Why do you see this being ok?

    That link is a crock of shíte. Are they trying to take the piss out of peoples genuine concern? Fcuking scum.

    I bolded the reason why people will "defend" this.
    Just because it is illegal in some countries also doesn't make it wrong; afterall they are many stange laws in many countries, our own included.

    This is a cartoon and should never been connected to real child porn, infact doing so slightly undermines real child porn cases and makes the reactions from some people seem slightly crazy.

    Looking at the article its must likely the police were just after him again due to the previous child porn cases but that should not affect this charge.

    I am not defending someone who gets the jollies off on a cartoon, I know here is an entire sub-section of manga that does this. But at the same time where are people going to stop with this?


  • #190
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    You asserted that there have been "people defending child porn pictures being ok because they are cartoons"

    Clearly when you are equating cartoons of the yellow skinned and freakishly proportioned Simpson family to actual real human beings, then you have crossed the line that says "you are now leaving reality".

    They represent human beings, as their actions, lifestyles, religion and everything else about them have been taken from humans, even their genitalia. They miss one finger, painted differant and have odd hair. They speak and act like humans.
    Lisa and Bart Simpson are not real children. They are a fictitious figment that have but 3 fingers, spikey heads, and skin of no shade that has ever been seen on a human being. They can never be depicted in child porn as you assert for the simple fact that they are not children.

    Being real was never the argument, that's pretty obvious. The similarities between them though are undisbuted. Yet, they still represent children. Ask any person in the world that has seen the Simpsons and ask what maggie lisa and bart are. The answer you get will be "children".
    Whilst I would agree wholeheartedly that these cartoons are crass and vulgar they cannot and should not ever be compared to the suffering and rape that has occurred in order to make images of child porn. Why you would seek to blur the line between what is imagined and unreal with what can and does cause real and actual human suffering is frankly beyond me and I can only conclude you have some serious issues.

    I have not compared the two nor have I set out to blur the distict line between the two. I have challenged people here defending these sick images because they are "drawings". It seems to be ok for some sick fcuks to accept these pictures as normal, they are not. They are far from it.

    As for your last line, what a pathetic attempt at a psychoanalysis, the fcuk was the need for that anyway? Pissed off so you resulted in some out of debate rubbish insult? Fcuking typical. :rolleyes:


    Ri_Nollaig wrote: »
    I bolded the reason why people will "defend" this.
    Just because it is illegal in some countries also doesn't make it wrong; afterall they are many stange laws in many countries, our own included.

    Are you saying there is nothing wrong with these pictures? Why are you defending people who defend these pictures?
    This is a cartoon and should never been connected to real child porn, infact doing so slightly undermines real child porn cases and makes the reactions from some people seem slightly crazy.

    Childrens sexual organs being penetrated by adults sexual organs... yea, that's child porn alright.
    Looking at the article its must likely the police were just after him again due to the previous child porn cases but that should not affect this charge.

    More than likely, but I am happy they used this excuse, it may be the start of an appropiate ban on these sickening paedophile pictures.
    I am not defending someone who gets the jollies off on a cartoon, I know here is an entire sub-section of manga that does this. But at the same time where are people going to stop with this?

    Lolicon I believe it is called, more sick twisted shít, but what do you expect from Japan?

    Any child depicted in CGI, drawn (to an extent) or other animation, involved in sexual acts with adults or other children should be banned completely. It shoudln't be a grey area.


  • #191
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    It's lovely arguing with Hanna Sharp Mulch. He badgers you to give him the answers he wants to loaded questions, and says you don't understand when he doesn't get the answers he expects. :D

    Like the way he keeps stating that people are defending 'child porn'? When really, nobody is defending it, they're making a distinction between actual child porn where a physical human being is hurt, and a drawing. But "You're defending child porn!" and "Why are you defending child porn?" are wonderfully big ad hominems. :D
    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Are you saying there is nothing wrong with these pictures?

    Hell of a loaded question right there, but you know what? I'll bite.

    Depends on what you mean by wrong. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with the pictures in question in so far that nobody gets hurt (both in the sense of physically and psychologically hurt) in the making of those pictures, the creation of such pornography is victimless. In the sense of finding the idea personally and morally repugnant and disgusting, yes I do find the idea of such pornography wrong. As far as I'm concerned there's plenty of different degrees of wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    I have not compared the two nor have I set out to blur the distict line between the two.

    Indeed because with you they are not actually two things, but namely one thing ie; "child porn"

    I'm glad that Karl hasn't given up on you and is here to try and coax you back to reality but for my part I don't really have the time or the inclination. Good luck!


  • #193
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Karl Hungus wrote: »
    It's lovely arguing with Iamxavier. He badgers you to give him the answers he wants to loaded questions, and says you don't understand when he doesn't get the answers he expects. :D

    Like the way he keeps stating that people are defending 'child porn'? When really, nobody is defending it, they're making a distinction between actual child porn where a physical human being is hurt, and a drawing. But "You're defending child porn!" and "Why are you defending child porn?" are wonderfully big ad hominems. :D



    Hell of a loaded question right there, but you know what? I'll bite.

    Depends on what you mean by wrong. Frankly, there's nothing wrong with the pictures in question in so far that nobody gets hurt (both in the sense of physically and psychologically hurt) in the making of those pictures, the creation of such pornography is victimless. In the sense of finding the idea personally and morally repugnant and disgusting, yes I do find the idea of such pornography wrong. As far as I'm concerned there's plenty of different degrees of wrong.

    Come on now, any question I have asked has not been "loaded", they are clear questions which are not trick questions, there's no hidden agenda but a simple question which a lot of people avoid answering, the answers should be simple and straight forward. The whole point of me asking these questions is to gather your viewpoints, so I can agree or make my next point. I could make asumptions, but I rather not...

    Throughout the whole thread people have defended these pictures. I don't understand why, as to me, they are sick and disgusting. These pictures, in some countries have been considered to be an offense of child porn and rightly so. Contrary to popular belief, that word is not reserved only for real living children. You know that?

    Why should somebody have to be physically hurt for these to be harmful? There may be no victims, but that doesn't mean it's ok for these pictures to exist and for sickos to be exchanging them with sticky fingertips.

    I do not believe you should be jailed for these pictures, but they should not be allowed. It should be made an offense in Ireland to have these pictures and they should not be encouraged. Offenders should be punished in some way but a sex offenders list a bit ott.


    Indeed because with you they are not actually two things, but namely one thing ie; "child porn"

    I'm glad that Karl hasn't given up on you and is here to try and coax you back to reality but for my part I don't really have the time or the inclination. Good luck!

    That's it? Again, you cannot defend your points so you result to this degenerate, base type posting... Typical :rolleyes:


  • #194
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    There may be no victims, but that doesn't mean it's ok for these pictures to exist and for sickos to be exchanging them with sticky fingertips.
    But why?

    Throughout this thread, you've continually just made the assertion that these pictures are inherently wrong, without explaining why, apart from casually mentioning something vague about desensitization/gateway hypothesis.

    You haven't gone into detail on why you think they are wrong. You haven't linked to any articles or studies that support your position. All you've done is thrown around words like "sickos" and expressed outrage and bewilderment at people defending these pics.

    The reason people defend the pictures is simple - if there's no victim there's no crime. If there is strong evidence that these pictures being legal will indirectly cause more cases of child abuse, then yes, you have a point. But you haven't argued this point. You've merely asserted it as if it were obvious...


  • #195
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Why should somebody have to be physically hurt for these to be harmful?

    Because that's the very reason why child pornography is wrong; because children are exploited and hurt. They don't prosecute for possessing that kind of material because it may incite people who view it to act it out, they do it because it's funding an industry that is exploiting children. That's the very reason pedophilia is criminal; it hurts children.


  • #196
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    But why?

    Why are these pictures wrong? Are you taking the piss? I shouldn't have to explain to you why these images are wrong.
    Throughout this thread, you've continually just made the assertion that these pictures are inherently wrong, without explaining why, apart from casually mentioning something vague about desensitization/gateway hypothesis.

    I have explained why.
    You haven't gone into detail on why you think they are wrong. You haven't linked to any articles or studies that support your position. All you've done is thrown around words like "sickos" and expressed outrage and bewilderment at people defending these pics.

    I have gone into detail. I explained why these pictures are wrong and should be banned.
    The reason people defend the pictures is simple - if there's no victim there's no crime. If there is strong evidence that these pictures being legal will indirectly cause more cases of child abuse, then yes, you have a point. But you haven't argued this point. You've merely asserted it as if it were obvious...

    It is obvious to a lot of people that this is not right, it's wrong, it shouldn't be done and shouldn't be published, distributed or collected. It should be outright banned and I hope it does get banned at some stage, sooner than later.

    Do people think it's ok to draw pictures of children and infants getting screwed by their parents? How is that ok? How is that "normal"? It's not...

    There are cases for and against what you state, there is still yet to come, scientific proof to dismiss or aprove this claim. Well no hard evidence anyway.

    "exposure to any stimuli that makes the
    consideration of a particular behavior more likely to occur also seems likely to
    increase the probability that an individual will participate in that behavior."

    Quoted from: Link
    Karl Hungus wrote: »
    Because that's the very reason why child pornography is wrong; because children are exploited and hurt. They don't prosecute for possessing that kind of material because it may incite people who view it to act it out, they do it because it's funding an industry that is exploiting children. That's the very reason pedophilia is criminal; it hurts children.

    Again, nobody has compared directly, child porn and animated child porn. Nobody has said there are no victims in child porn involving real children.

    What about child porn were children are not hurt in any way? Still criminal, yet the victim has not been emotionaly or physically scared. Life may be very normal for him/her.


    A few links for ye who have made up your own truths in your heads...

    Child porn definition: American here

    Case in Australia: Link

    Case in Australia (appeal): Link

    Canadian law: Link

    The UK plan on bringing out a similar law: Link


    Now tell me that simpsons porn (maggie lisa bart) is not child porn... ;)


  • #197
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Why are these pictures wrong? Are you taking the piss? I shouldn't have to explain to you why these images are wrong.
    There. Is. No. Victim. Therefore. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With. Them.

    I'm not taking the piss, I'm honestly wondering if you are...
    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    I have gone into detail. I explained why these pictures are wrong and should be banned.
    "Because they're sick/not normal" is not a reason.
    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Do people think it's ok to draw pictures of children and infants getting screwed by their parents? How is that ok? How is that "normal"? It's not...
    Something doesn't have to be normal to be legal.

    I think it's fine. I think that if a weirdo wants to jack off to sick, yet fictitious images of children engaging in sexual acts, then there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do so.


  • #198
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Herbal Deity wrote: »
    There. Is. No. Victim. Therefore. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With. Them.

    I'm not taking the piss, I'm honestly wondering if you are...


    "Because they're sick/not normal" is not a reason.


    Something doesn't have to be normal to be legal.

    I think it's fine. I think that if a weirdo wants to jack off to sick, yet fictitious images of children engaging in sexual acts, then there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

    Wow... :eek:


  • #199
    Rycn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 722 ✭✭✭Rycn


    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?
    http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/media/images/2010/01/25/IQT_26-01-2010_NEWS_02_court26a.1_t325.jpg

    Yes


  • #200
    Herbal Deity
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,397 ✭✭✭Herbal Deity


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Wow... :eek:
    I don't know what's so shocking. The pics aren't real, no one gets hurt no matter how sickening you, I or anyone else finds them.

    The second someone lays a finger on an actual child, I'm all for extremely harsh sentencing, but for drawings? I can't logically justify that tbh.


  • #201
    BaconZombie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,814 ✭✭✭BaconZombie


    Going my the law, if you draw a normal stick-figure,with a triangle as a dress on it, it's can be legally defined as child-porn!!!!!!

    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Didn't see any penis. Or any sexual acts. I wouldn't consider that to be child porn, giving the context and all that.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    CrazyRabbit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,659 ✭✭✭CrazyRabbit


    What somebody please think of the fictional cartoon children!!!!!

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I've just drawn this incredible sexy cartoon of Marge Simpson naked and I want to now knock one off to it.

    P.S. Please don't tell Homer. He'd get very upset that I mentally raped his wife.


  • #203
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    BaconZombie wrote: »
    Going my the law, if you draw a normal stick-figure,with a triangle as a dress on it, it's can be legally defined as child-porn!!!!!!

    Obviously that wouldn't be graphic enough to be considered child porn.
    CrazyRabbit wrote: »
    What somebody please think of the fictional cartoon children!!!!!

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I've just drawn this incredible sexy cartoon of Marge Simpson naked and I want to now knock one off to it.

    P.S. Please don't tell Homer. He'd get very upset that I mentally raped his wife.

    No children involved, which is what the thred is about ;)


  • #204
    Ri_Nollaig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭Ri_Nollaig


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Obviously that wouldn't be graphic enough to be considered child porn.

    But this is the problem!
    where will you draw the line (not a pun ...ok its a little one)?
    If you draw a stick figure and slowly add more detail does it just magically become illegal all of a sudden? This is why the idea of cartoon kiddie porn is retarded. Anyone defending this, are not defending the actual drawings themselves just the idea that an actual drawing you could do IN the court room while been charged for this; could be seen as illegal!


  • #205
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,217 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Ri_Nollaig wrote: »
    But this is the problem!
    where will you draw the line (not a pun ...ok its a little one)?
    If you draw a stick figure and slowly add more detail does it just magically become illegal all of a sudden? This is why the idea of cartoon kiddie porn is retarded. Anyone defending this, are not defending the actual drawings themselves just the idea that an actual drawing you could do IN the court room while been charged for this; could be seen as illegal!

    Bullshít. It's not rocket science.


  • #206
    Ri_Nollaig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭Ri_Nollaig


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Bullshít. It's not rocket science.
    No im afraid your wrong, it has to be precise.
    When laws are created its important to cover all the angles otherwise it may leave the door open to some loophole at a later stage.

    So...
    Going by "simpsons drawing should be banned/illegal" you better include "stick men boys" too. After all, you are using your imagination to fill in the blanks in both cases (so to speak). So with that in mind, do you now see this as a bit silly?


  • #207
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Bullshít. It's not rocket science.

    You're very wrong here. Laws regarding child porn are so vague and scattershot in what they cover, that they very often miss the mark. There were cases of teens in America who took risqué pictures of themselves were prosecuted for distribution of child pornography and placed on sex offenders registers, like so, where laws meant to protect children are instead being used to victimize them:
    The American Civil Liberties Union is helping three teenage girls fight back against a Pennsylvania prosecutor who has threatened to charge the girls with felony child porn violations over digital photos they took of themselves.

    Or have a read of this.

    What you think is so clear-cut, really isn't. The fact of the matter is, the subject of child porn is an extremely emotive one, and reactions towards material that might be considered child porn by some can be hysteric and overboard. You're right to say that it's not rocket science though, it's something extremely different that most people don't yet understand.


  • #208
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    No need to get personal... .

    I didn't.

    I said the laws were illogical and insane (not you or people like you). Here's the quote again:
    OutlawPete wrote: »
    making laws that I would class as being illogical and insane..

    As an example.

    If someone downloads images from say; Limewire and finds them to then be child porn and immediately deletes them -- in the eyes of the law -- they are in still GUILTY OF BEING IN POSSESSION OF CHILD PORNOGRAHPHY and CREATING PORNOGRAPHIC IMAGES OF CHILDREN.

    These are laws which I consider to be crazy and insane!!

    Anyone who has ever been on a Adult Website can tell you that the home page alone can have up to 500 thumbnail jpegs. These are all instantly stored in your cache and Windows (especially Vista) sometimes uses your harddrive as cache.

    There is forensic software available that recover these jpegs and again in the eyes of the law you are in possession of these images and guilty of creating them also.

    So, I am not getting personal with you - I am just making it clear that I feel your 'views' are crazy and there people who think and feel like you in powerful positions in the justice system.
    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    I am quite happy that there are very logical people involved in creating these laws. .

    The people maybe 'logical' but when it comes to child pornography - for some reason - their logic goes out the window and the laws they make become 'illogical' in my eyes.

    I think it is because there is HYSTERIA in the world whenever the word 'Child' and 'Sex' are mentioned within a five mile radius of one another. People who are usually logical seem to go bonkers for a short time it would appear.
    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    Why do you defend a drawing of naked preteens having sex with other family members? Why do you see this being ok?.

    Why do you see it as 'NOT OKAY'??

    I see it as okay because nobody is hurt either physically or emotionally.

    Sure, people maybe offended - but since when has been offended ever hurt anyone? Just BE OFFENDED and mind your own business.

    If someone wants to go into Smyths Toy Store today and buy some dolls and have sex with them and record it and make a porno with him, his girlfirend and Tiny Tears - what business is it of yours??

    These people are most likely bananas but they are not hurting or harming anyone and the same goes for animated porn.
    Hanna Sharp Mulch wrote: »
    That link is a crock of shíte. Are they trying to take the piss out of peoples genuine concern? Fcuking scum.

    Thank you for addressing this question as I had always wondered what people like yourself would make of it and now I know :)

    No, they are not trying to "take the piss out of people's genuine concerns".

    They are trying to highlight the fact that people have lost the plot when it comes to child abuse. You don't get it as your views run parallel to the views of the people they are satirizing.

    You didn't go into any detail of which parts of the programme so I will asume you meant all of it.

    You might think it's not funny but we recently had a case where British Airways staff were told to cruise the aisles of aircrafts to see if there were any ... Men :eek::eek::eek: .. siting beside ... children :eek::eek::eek: ... :rolleyes:

    So it would appear to me that the programme is just as, if not more, relevent today than it was ten years ago when it first came out.


  • #209
    MikeC101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    Karl Hungus wrote: »
    Or have a read of this.

    The link actually refers to a work this thread made me wonder about - Lost Girls, by Alan Moore. I'm fairly sure I've seen it for sale in either Hodges Figgis or Waterstones pretty recently (in the last year or so). Moore himself describes it as "pornography", and the main characters are girls in their teens, below eighteen. So how does that work? It's a comic, that's sexually explicit, features girls who are clearly stated to be underage, but is openly for sale in a bookshop.


  • #210
    Pittens
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,404 ✭✭✭Pittens


    And what about the Marquis the Sade - probably available in every Judge's Library? Plenty of deflowered virigns under the 17 there.

    we could end up jailing the bourgeoisie.

    ( Only kidding - these kinda of grey area laws apply only to the powerless).


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    MikeC101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭MikeC101


    I think the issue in the eyes of the law is only concerning images, not text. Of course you make a perfectly good point - what makes a drawing any more "real" than a graphic description?


Advertisement
Advertisement