Monday, December 08, 2008

Man Convicted Of Possessing Simpsons Porn

Okay, this has always been a topic I wondered about --

If you did any Google image search without filters for topics like The Simpsons, Kim Possible, Teen Titans, Peanuts, etc you got tons and tons of porn images depicting the underage characters having sex with each other. It was all there in your face, as a part of Google's automatic thumbnail displays.

And I always thought: that's sort of child pornography, isn't it?

Is it a gray line, or black and white? Is it just harmless gross-out fun, like in the Tijuana Bibles of old?

Or should depicting Bart and Lisa Simpson in a sex act (or Charlie Brown and Lucy) be illegal?

Well, a man in Australia has been convicted of possession of child porn for using his computer to access images of the Simpsons children having sex:
"In the New South Wales Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a "person" within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws."

Meaning, the cartoon images would be treated under the law as if they were of real people.

In addition, it appears that Google (or the copyright holders of the assorted characters in question) has massively cracked down on these images as of late, preventing them from being included in the search result thumbnails even with the Safe Search filter shut off. This is pretty significant, considering only several weeks ago Image Search was choked to the gills with these pictures -- many drawn so professionally, they looked like actual screenshots from the cartoons.

Personally -- setting aside the question of whether cartoon characters should be considered "people" in terms of porn -- there is definitely an aspect of a lot of this art that goes beyond the slapstick Tijuana Bible aesthetic, and which I think is kinda sick.

Okay, I'll spoil this for you: Wimpy would
prefer to eat hamburgers more than...anything else

For example (I've decided to totally edit this description of one of the Simpsons images out at the last minute, as it's just too disturbing). This is different, in my humble opinion, from Daisy Duck and Mickey Mouse having passionate sex against a wall. Daisy and Mickey are consenting adults sowing their wild oats in the usual way -- albeit by committing adultery and unfaithfulness to Minnie and Daffy!

So I shed no tears for the absence of porn based on underage cartoon characters on the Internet. Nor will I miss feeling like a party to an illegal act every time I do an image search for cartoon and comic book characters.

However, there must be a rather sizable number of people actually visiting these XXX cartoon parody sites -- not just those who get off on such images, but just regular people looking for some gross-out humor. Will the latter category find themselves roped in with these crackdowns, even arrested? Would having an illustration of a "Peanuts Orgy" on your hard drive be enough to convict you as a sex offender?

It would be helpful, I think, for these boundaries and determinations of what is or is not legal to view and download to be clearly delineated and widely broadcast, as to prevent misunderstandings.


  1. Some things are just plain right, and some things are just plain wrong. Your reference to Mickey Mouse and Daisy Duck engaging in a tryst bothered me, but I could overlook that. But when you implied that Daisy would be cheating on DAFFY Duck, well... that's where I draw the line. For you to imply that there is an inter-studio relationship between Daisy and Daffy is highly offensive to mah cartoon heritage.

    Why, you're implying that a Disney duck isn't man enough to keep his lady from straying over to try a Warner duck.

    Just because Donald is not as sophisticated and glib as Daffy, that's no reason to hurl such slander at him. I'm sure that he keeps Daisy's nest feathered well enough.

    I insist you issue a public apology to Donald -- nay!-- to ALL Disney ducks!

  2. Actually Val, Daisy's love is Donald not Daffy.
    As for those who like to get off by playing with childhood cartoon images... Ewww, that's just sad and desperate.

  3. Hell, even if the laws are clearly delineated, it can be twisted to mean whatever someone wants.

    Read "Tonight On Dateline, This Man Will Die" for an example.

  4. I am literally shuddering thinking about the google traffic you will get after posting this. Donald and Daisy aren't married I don't think.

    Nevertheless, If Mickey ever pulled something like that, you can rest assured that Donald would exact revenge out of that squeaky voiced nothing. Donald has been known to destroy his whole house when his faucet leaked and to force his nephews to smoke cigars until they puked JUST TO TEACH THEM A LESSON. If Mickey was going behind his back with his sweet Daisy, all bets would be off.

    The logo would not live another day, and Scrooge would (begrudgingly) probably pick up the lawyer's bill to keep him out of jail also.

  5. I the US, possession of the images is not (nor do I believe it should be) illegal. The US courts have recently made clear that if there are no actual children involved, it is not Child pornography.

  6. However, it would still be copyright (and even possible trademark) infringement to produce and distribute such images.

  7. I personally believe this whole situation is completely irrational.

    It'd be okay if they were charging violation of copyright or something similar, but child pornography? Calling a fictional character a person?

    Hide your comics people, you all have other crimes such as multiple murders, drug (real or fictional) abuse or rape concealed within those pages.

  8. I think this is outrageous and an incredible violation of what I believe to be the essential human right to be able to express yourself artistically. No one was hurt in the production of such material. If people who like this filth go on to molest children or produce pornography with actual children, then prosecute them for such acts (and fully!).

    Incidentally, the last time I checked it was illegal to assault or murder someone, but that legal fact never stopped anyone from depicting cartoon characters from doing it to each other all the time.

    It's puzzling and frustrating that puritanism extends beyond America's borders.

  9. For better or worse (probably worse), this has actually been ruled as legal in the United States by the Supreme Court. I think it's all distasteful, terrible shit but apparently it's legal.

  10. Well, we knew it was going to happen in Australia with its internet laws and it seems it has happened.

    While I've discussed philosophically the idea of treating fictional characters like real people, I don't really feel comfortable with laws forbidding people from making or viewing images of IMAGINARY CREATIONS doing the nasty.

    Heck, would this mean that Lost Girls is forbidden in Australia and you'd be arrested if you owned a copy?

  11. I didn't realize Daisy and Donald were divorced. Is Daffy Daisy's second husband?

  12. "Daisy and Mickey are consenting adults sowing their wild oats in the usual way -- albeit by committing adultery and unfaithfulness to Minnie and Daffy!"


  13. It's a black and white thing Val; those pictures are not child pornography.

    Many people forget that the laws are not based in morality (there are as many moralities as people): the child pornography laws are not enabled because sex between children or sex between an adult and a child is "wrong" (whatever "wrong" means to you). They are enabled because it helps to protect the weak (in this case, children) from possible abuse.

    (I'm not saying that child pornography is "good"; I'm saying that the law is not based in something as ambiguous as to what is "good" or "bad".)

    The child pornography laws exists to protect children. Real children; drawings of cartoon characters having sex (no matter the "age" of the cartoon... which is stupid; cartoons have no age) is never child pornography. And people should be able to produce, commercialize, and consume such drawings, because they do not harm anybody.

    (Regarding the availability of those drawings to children, it's the same rules that should apply to the availability of "normal" pornography to children.)

    The child pornography laws are there to avoid (or try to avoid) harm to those that cannot protect themselves: children in this case

    Morality has nothing to do with it. It should never have anything to do with it.

  14. Daisy is apparently a very popular duck.

    (left Donald broke, jobless, and damn near out of his mind)

    (read more at the Disney Insider Blog)

    (I could never win at "Jeopardy")

  15. I agree with Canek. Real child pornography should be prosecuted.

    Prosecuting over pictures of the Simpsons kids having sex is essentially thought police, and *assumed* thought policing at that.

    You've got Simpsons kids having sex on your computer.

    There for I assume you downloaded it because it arouses you.

    There for I assume you wank off to it.

    There for I assume you're a pervert who may one day go beyond that and either download real child porn, or possibly abduct and hurt real children.

    That's a lot of fucking assuming and it's horrible that people get chucked in prison for years (with other very bad men who'd like to kill pedophiles) over those assumptions.

    While I may not like it, the reality is a pervert jerking off to pictures of cartoon child characters doesn't actually hurt anybody.

    With real children it does as it feeds the demand and financially supports those who produce it and gives them incentive to create more.

  16. Slander! Slander, I say!

    Our cartoon heritage is clearly under attack! I know your agenda! But me and several thousand Mormons will stand against you until Epcot freezes over!

  17. Begging your pardon, Canek, but there IS a moral argument there: that abusing children is wrong. And I of course realize it's wrong, but that's the point - laws ARE based on ethics. You are correct, however, in the fact that that same morality is rooted in the idea that abusing children is wrong and that drawings do not actually harm real people.

  18. Did you read what Neil Gaiman said about this?

    It's very interesting, and more or less exactly how I feel about it.

  19. ". . . Teen Titans . . ."

    Speaking specifically rather than generally, I think a case could be made for the Titans being 18 or 19 (or at least not being necessarily under 18). The general assumption of fan fiction seems to be that they're not minors, despite still being teens.

    (Wasn't this a conceit of the original "New Teen Titans" comics?)

  20. While in some measure child pornography punishment is a means of protecting children, one can easily see it also as a means of punishment for aberrent behavior and/or morality. Yes, to a certain extent this can get people angry about this situation being a "thought crime" since there was no actual harm to an individual, but defining the cartoons as persons isn't to enable showing of harm but rather that the newly-minted convict engaged in lascivious behavior that was worthy of punishment.

    An alternative argument could possibly be that there is an actual harm here- interest in such materials can theoretically be said to drive further interest in/increase the market for real children being filmed and therefore real harm is caused.

    As for whether this is different from tijuana bibles...I wouldn't see much difference. At the time the bibles were popular, they showed sexual activity that was meant to be shocking and outside of mainstream. Sure, we can re-visit them from this generation of porn and ever-present sexuality and view them as tame...but they were not. Just like these Simpsons things, only now "origenators" have to stoop to a much more debased level to "shock" people.

  21. Yeah-- I disagree totally, & not just because these characters under discussion are totally fiction, & not even people. & you know, I like Lost Girls, which seems to be the topical fallback position for this discussion.

    What, should we be giving dudes with Calvin peeing on truck logos stickers for indecent exposure?

  22. Morning, Val! It was great seeing you this weekend at the CBLDF party.

    I mention that, because the CBLDF is currently involved with a case very similar to what you are discussing here.

    Neil Gaiman has (as always) an excellent essay on why this sort of thing is important. You can read it here:
    (and more recently, he discusses the NSW case).

    Now, regarding images and what they represent...

    I'm not an expert on pornography (although it would be cool to be paid to become one), but I do know that there are certain things which cannot be depicted. Bondage is okay, so long as there is no sex involved. Underage depiction is out, which is why almost every hentai manga and anime rewrites the characters so that they are college students or older. (I suspect that imported dojinshi is illegal from a pornographic viewpoint, but that is an elephant's mosquito, and hardly worth the effort to litigate.)

    Now, I've seen very rudimentary computer animation online (the least offensive being Kama Sutra positions animated). Is animation of Bart and Lisa having sex illegal from a pornographic viewpoint? Is animation of realistic CGI characters pornographic?

    My judgment would be: are the characters minors, or readily depicted as minors? If so, then one can say that the production laws have been broken, and a person is subject to prosecution.

    Is possession wrong? I don't think so. I don't know if there is a legal precedent, saying that until a person acts against the law (for example, owning a gun is legal, shooting someone is illegal) the person is innocent.

    Now, there is pornography which I find repulsive (at worst) or boring (at best). But there's a lot of pornography and erotica I do enjoy as a responsible adult. I share it with my friends. But we're careful and responsible, because we know others might be offended.

    So... I don't approve of such imagery, but if you do, then have fun, but don't be stupid.

  23. Laws are also utilitarian. We do not prosecute murderers or thieves based upon any sort of morality or ethics. We prosecute them because they are not conducive to a stable society.

  24. As for Daisy and Daffy and Mickey...

    I guess once you go black, you never go back...

    (And if you want something really wicked, Google [mickey mouse divorce joke])

    Or... even better... Wally Wood:

    and if I could find it, there's a cartoon of What If Disney had colonized Times Square in the 1970s...

  25. @Lewis sadid:

    "Begging your pardon, Canek, but there IS a moral argument there: that abusing children is wrong. And I of course realize it's wrong, but that's the point - laws ARE based on ethics. You are correct, however, in the fact that that same morality is rooted in the idea that abusing children is wrong and that drawings do not actually harm real people."

    I never said there is no moral argument; my point is that the laws should not take into account such arguments. Not because laws are "amoral", but because: the morals of whom are we going to use? Yours? Mine?

    The laws are NOT based (or should NOT be based) on ethics: the laws should be all about the rights of the people. That's why prohibiting alcohol is something really stupid (as it is prohibiting drugs, but that's another discussion); is drinking alcohol bad? Maybe; but if you don't mess with the rights of anybody (i.e., DUI and killing or hurting somebody else), do it if you like. "Wrong" and "right" (I repeat, whatever that means) has nothing to do with it.

    And that's why drawings of "underage" cartoons is not child pornography, and should not be any other crime for that matter. "Morality" laws or "thought" laws are stupid, in the first place; and really dangerous in the second place. You cannot (and should not) regulate what people think or what people perceives as morally right or wrong. That's for each one to decide.

    You enable laws to protect rights; if you don't mess with the rights of anybody, we have a say in Mexico: "haz con tu culo un papalote y hazlo volar" ("do with your asshole a kite and take it to fly"), if that makes you happy. Nobody should mess up with what you do if you don't mess with anybody else.

  26. I read one of the DeSade works referenced by Gaiman in his article: "101 Days Of Sodom." It was about an "anything goes" situation which started out with very simple things, got more and more intense, and escalated to the point of cannibalism, murder, and finally burning the house down to the ground. As each taboo was crossed, there was an emptiness and a need to regain that feeling. As a college student, I read that story as an example of what happens when there are no limits, rules, or boundaries.

    I'm not a delicate flower. I've seen lots and lots of porn in my lifetime. And, at 34, I look back and I say, "some porn is destructive." I've known people addicted to extreme pornographic (but in theory legal) images, and far worse for those addictions, because the search and indulgence literally took up all their time. They were never satisfied, their impulses never put in check, by the so-called "safe" indulgence in these images. Every piece of extreme porn they looked at reminded them how they were not getting the real thing. That was the bottom line. And I think they were better off without any of it. I think they needed to be distracted doing something completely different. I'm not thinking about their "freedom of art" here. I'm thinking about practical, day-to-day matters, like their sanity, their quality of life, and their ability to develop meaningful emotional and physical relationships with other human beings.

    As for defending free speech, I hope when somebody comes out with a comic book that Gaiman and the rest find personally hateful and offensive, they will step up to the bat and defend that too. Not an art book with beautiful Melinda Gebbie illustrations. But some sort of over-the-top extremely religious comic book full of hate for a variety of topics -- like Jack Chick on speed. If a book like that gets published, and prosecuted for "hate speech," I want to see all these free-thinkers defend their right to be hateful. Because when I see a cartoon image of a little child being sexualized and engaged in carnal acts, I consider it hateful, and "hate speech."

    I realize I'm just a big square (draws polygon around her head for emphasis)

  27. Caneck, I'm sorry to correct you but in Mexico it is illegal to have images of underage characters in sexual situations in comics. And, even when almost no one enforces that particular law, it is also illegal to show adult characters in certain positions. Not only that, but it's the Mexican legislators the ones who are trying to get illustrations of underage characters considered as child pornography, as some of them are being used as pedophile grooming tools (Someone far more experienced than I in the subject tells me that there's a difference between erotic material targeted for adults and erotic material targeted to make children comfortable with the idea of having sex with adults.)
    I'm pretty sure that if the case had been judged in Mexico and not in Australia, the veredict would've been pretty much the same (Unless the man in question was a politician or rich, but that's another problem)

  28. @luxshine: You're right about the (never enforced) laws in Mexico. It's called "letra muerta", "dead writing", in the sense that it's written law, but nobody actually cares about it. Another one is the abortion prohibition in almost all the country (in Mexico City is legal in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy); there has been no case in years against anyone who has performed or decided to have an abortion, even when is prohibited and each year dozens of thousands of women do it.

    But that's not the point; my point is that the laws should not be based on morality, because in any normal country there is no such thing as a "general morality". The laws should be based around the rights of the people. In the case of "underage cartoon porn", the rights of none are being violated, so is stupid (and dangerous) to prohibit it. It's dangerous because then lets make illegal to listen to hip-hop or gangsta rap, or to play video games where we kill fictional people or fictional cops, or see movies where the "bad guys" win, etc. It has no end once is started.

    That's why we separate religion from government; because the religion (as the morals, or the concept of "good" and "bad") are entirely related to individuals: and if you don't interfere with the rights of anyone, believe in whatever you want, and do with yourself or another consensual adults whatever you like.

    And the legislators you mention are only some, and let me tell you that I'm pretty sure that if a case similar like the one in Australia had been judged in Mexico City, the result would've been different. I'm sure it wouldn't get to a trial, even.

    The rest of the country I don't know (it can be very conservative in some places), but about Mexico City I'm pretty sure.

  29. Val- From Neil's article, he's basically talking about how he would defend any speech, even if he found it personally offensive or hateful. Taking a direct quote from his site:

    If you accept -- and I do -- that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or like or want said.

    I like to think that would defend things he found personally hateful or offensive. I agree that a picture of the Simpson children having sex is icky, but it truly isn't harming any children. It isn't harming anyone except the people who see it and dislike it. I know that I would.

  30. @Val: you said:

    And I think they were better off without any of it.

    And that's the core of the matter. Who are you to say what is better or not to someone? Who I am myself, for that matter?

    Just because something offends you (or myself) or disgust you (or myself), or some personal experiences with some acquaintances makes you (or myself) believe that something is "wrong" or "bad", it doesn't make it automatically "wrong" or "bad" in absolute terms.

    That's been my point all along; the laws cannot be enabled just because someone can be offended by something. Almost anything can offend someone. They should be enabled only when something concrete (like the rights of someone) are being harmed.

    You said:

    I hope when somebody comes out with a comic book that Gaiman and the rest find personally hateful and offensive, they will step up to the bat and defend that too.

    My blog is in Spanish, but there I speak a lot about this kind of thing. To me, organized religion is one of the worst things that had happened to humanity: it literally offends me that a lot of hate, fear and obscurantisms can be (and it's) extrapolated from any of the major religions out there.

    But I would never suggest to anyone to believe or stop believing in anything, no matter how stupid or wrong it appears to me. And I actually have defended that right for people with completely opposite convictions to mine.

    So put aside your personal disgust of the subject, and think: is there anyone being directly harmed because of "underage cartoon porn"? No, there is no one. Can someone being indirectly harmed because of it? Maybe; but it's the same with alcohol, cigar, to much evangelical TV or to many reality TV shows. We have laws to protect underage people from that (well, not from evangelical TV or reality TV shows), and also from pornography. Any kind of pornography, including "underage cartoon porn". Consenting adults have the possibility (and the responsibility) to decide if they consume or not those kind of things.

    It's not the State (which is the one that enforces the laws) the one who should decide what is "right" or what is "wrong"; it's the individual, and only the individual, who makes that decision. And he or she should be able to do anything as long as it doesn't harm anybody else.

  31. By the way; I forgot to mention the really important thing about this kind of situation.

    Besides being stupid to discuss if a "underage cartoon" having sex is or not child porn (which, I repeat, is not), the real problem is that it distracts from the very serious and very real problem of actual children being abused to make (real) child porn.

    In Mexico we have a real problem with that; thousands of children are forced to enter rings of child prostitution, and to make child porn. That's the real problem; the people that forces those children are the real criminals.

    Wasting time and resources because someone gets a laugh watching Bart doing Lisa is not only stupid; it's irresponsible because there are real criminals out there harming real children.

  32. Is there indeed no one "harmed" by these images?

    The argument is two-fold: first, that *society* is harmed by the existence of these images, that we are all lessened by them and by their implications. And second, that they have the potential to lead to real harm to real people.

    That second is the same thing as the "slippery slope" argument: if you allow same-sex marriage, then by God, before you know it, you'll have people demanding to marry sheep and ship figureheads, and blacks will want to marry whites, and Jews will want to marry Christians, and think where that will lead.

    And it's the same thing as the "gateway drug" argument: if you smoke pot, you're going to be shooting up heroin with dirty needles tomorrow, and super-heorine the next day, and then what? "Here, lick the anus of a mongoose! You could get high!" (Thanks, Ellen DeGeneres.)

    Ultimately, it boils down to one word, though. Thank you George Orwell.


  33. @Canek: I know about letra muerta laws. I hear about them every time I have dinner with my mother, who is among the legislators that want to 'clean up' our laws: update the ones that needs updating, erase the ones that make no sense anymore, add the ones we need. Incidentally, the same people who want to prosecute illustrated images of children as child porn are the ones who want to keep abortion legal.
    I live in Mexico City too, and unfortunately, half my family are lawyers. I mean unfortunately, because I work in the editorial business so sometimes, I find myself in the position of defending myself for things my office do, like publishing Hentai. Now, I think that adult publications are necessary and not exactly porn by themselves, but try to explain to a table of six lawyers that no, not all anime is erotic and no, they aren't underage and no, not all the guys who buy violent rape fantasy stories are in fact rapists... unfortunately, that rapist they just caught and it's about to be tried did had a huge collection of violent porn...
    Now, the case against underage cartoon porn is not that someone is hurt in its production, but that it normalizes the sexuality of children. That's why if the case had been tried in Mexico City, the veredict would've been the same. (Also, while the cases against printed media aren't publicized that much, they exist. I've worked in two editorials that have payed huge fines for publishing material that is against the law. It's pretty much something that happens every month for some editors, but apparently, the sales enough are good reason to keep publishing those things instead of stoping)

  34. "Ultimately, it boils down to one word, though. Thank you George Orwell.


    that's right, Jim. me disapproving of a illustration of a child having sex with an adult is me advocating "thoughtcrime."

    Really, who is truly operating on the "slippery slope" theory here?

    You are saying that being against drawn child porn images is a "slippery slope" to hating gays, etc. That first I disapprove of the child porn -- then I will tell homosexuals they can't marry?

    What, because it is all on the same spectrum? Are you seriously putting gay rights on the same line of continuity as the protection of child porn?

    I don't buy that.

  35. @luxshine: I didn't know that; very interesting. Do you work for Editorial Vid? (I understand if you don't want to tell).

    Anyway,my point remains the same; and it's not confined to Mexico, either. The laws should should not be based on morality.

    I've worked in two editorials that have payed huge fines for publishing material that is against the law. It's pretty much something that happens every month for some editors, but apparently, the sales enough are good reason to keep publishing those things instead of stoping)

    Another reason to bring them down ;)

    (Te laws, not the editorials :D)

  36. @Jim Drew:

    Is there indeed no one "harmed" by these images?

    Not directly, no. The same as with gangsta rap, or reality TV shows.

  37. @Canek: I worked for Vid as a translator long ago, but as far as I know, Vid has never had this type of problem since they do keep pretty close to the line of what's allowed and what's not -which is why Dragon Ball had censorship, and there are a little bit of changes in almost every single manga they publish, some pretty notable, some not so much.
    The laws have to be changed, but not abolished. I like freedom of press and speech, I hate that I had to change a script I wrote so a gay character would never come out of the closet due to those laws, and that a non-sexual nude drawing I did of a 15 year old girl that showed absolutely nothing and had every single pertinent bit covered caused my editor to pay a huge fine because it was the week a particular lawyer was out gunning against comics. But I do know that I can't shake the feeling that something is very wrong when someone asks in a convention if an artist can make a drawing of a 10 year old naked, tied up and sucking an adult man cock and no one thinks it might be a warning flag that the guy in question should be investigated.
    My position is 'sure, it shouldn't be illegal to have said materials, but if you're investigated for something -say, pedophilia, rape, gender violence- and you have porn referent to those interests? It should be used against you and not just swept under the carpet as 'non evidence'.

  38. Val, in response to your response to Jim, none of us believe you should not be condemning the creators and devourers of such works. The point is that the article is about the government's right to jail you for doing so.

    I have absolutely no problem if you want to shame, boycott, or otherwise take legally acceptable action against such people. However, to make the production and consumption of such materials illegal is describing a form of thoughtcrime.

  39. You know, I usually will think spoof-cartoon porn is usually funny, but sometimes it's usually weird because they make it pedophilic and incestual(speleeng?). Like, I've seen some things that are unneccary, like Bart and Lisa, George Jetson and Judy...those are really wrong. And, in a sense, they are child porn and pretty disgusting. It is technically a depiction

  40. From the other thread...
    "1) You spend your life thinking these views that you hold are self-evident. You hang around people who think that those views are self-evident. And then somebody comes along and challenges these assumptions. And it really bothers you. It almost feels as if someone is accusing you personally. And you just need to get rid of that dissenting opinion, change it, something!" --Val

    This knife cuts both ways. Look, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but you seem to be, how shall I say, calling the kettle black.

    In the end there just lines on paper to quote R. Crumb. I think they're awful drawings, but you should be able to send someone to prison for drawings. And drawings that aren't even of real people. The Simpsons aren't real.

    Real kids = prison and good riddence.
    Cartoons =/= prison but you're a sick person if you like this stuff. That's all I'm saying.

    Forget the Simpsons for a second. What if this guy had been brought up on murder charges for owning the movie Saw? He hasn't killed anyone. Most likely will never kill anyone. Too bad it's 5-7 in the pokey because after all a murder on film is the same as a murder in real life. Do you see how ridiculous this whole thing is?

    Don't let our dissent get you down. We don't all have to agree and thank god for the 1st admendment.

    Agreeing to disagree,

  41. Here's the problem I have with the "thoughtcrime" argument.

    In some countries and states it *is* a crime to view any images depicting minors engaged in sex acts. "They're not real" is not a valid argument. If you get caught with a comic book showing a baby being raped by a grown man, you can go to prison.

    I have a big problem when depiction of sex between _two consenting adults_ is banned or leads to someone's arrest.

    This, not so much. If that makes me a fascist, so be it. But the laws are already on the books. Calling someone's beliefs wrong or claiming they're trying to create a "thought crime" doesn't change that.

    It's not only morally wrong, it's wrong IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, folks.

  42. I am glad he got busted. Maybe now him and sickos that like Yaoi comics and stuff like Lost Girls can go spend some time with the other rapists.

    If anyone tries to stop us we can just point out they are defending someone who likes to look at little boys and girls.
    Who would be willing to have there name smeared just to defend some abstract fuzzy slippery slope concept... Well other then maybe Batman?

    After we deal with the more harmful concept of sex we can then deal with people like Frank Miller and the way they treat girls in comics.
    The way Frank Miller beats girls (in his books) Is just like a loaded gun and will only feed the blood lust.

    PS I feel the need to inform you that I have found a crude depiction of child porn right here on your site! It would be wise of you to deal with that before you get reported.
    If you don't think some sick man will use that image to get his jollies I have images to prove that at lest one man already has... I do ask that you only ask for this proof as a last resort. :blush:

    PPS If you want to look for grounds to censure out this post I am sure you can find them but I ask from one (poor) artist to another that you don't censure my thoughts.... on the matter at hand.

  43. Remember when Sue Dibny was raped via flashback in Identity Crisis? Wasn't the blog-o-verse up in arms about that? Brad Meltzer was clearly a woman hater and a sick person?

    But Sue Dibny isn't *real*. It's not a REAL rape. Why so serious?

    Clearly, there is a difference between the depiction of rape in a comic and reality. Don't get so excited over it!

    And Sue getting murdered by Jean Loring...stop bitching about it.

    It's not *real*.

    There. I feel better already.

  44. Sorry, but the others were taken up. I really agree with you on most parts of your new post, but the whole illustrated child porn. Alan Moore's Lost Girls came under fire of this, but they were depicted as older in the book. It came down to the Miller Test, which is a judicial act of what is considered obscene and can over-ride the first amendment. Which is subjective due to the fact that it confides in the local's view of what is obscene. Like this "Butt Bandit" who's been leaving butt marks on things with vasoline. He may be fined very harshly or get jail time in Nebraska. The Miller Test thingy is very vague or absent in alotta countries, and I think the posters didn't think about that. Miller vs. California is a U.S. law, not part of other countries' laws.

    I didn't read everyone's thingy, but to me, I believe most's defense wasn't for the porn or the guy, but that the government would arrest those who technically haven't done or harmed anyone. (Given, they probably harm themselves.) For instance, in your latest post you put the image of Homer and Lisa into people's heads. Should you be arrested? Of course not. You've done nothing, absolutely nothing wrong. I believe that is most's argument. And that, that is a "thought-crime", which is not a crime. The guy wasn't their is no harassment towards anyone.

    What should be done is to locate these the site putting these pics out and confining them to their site with major I.D. proof for entry. That way, it keeps kids or people not in the know out, and will really deter the people who have a problem. Google, specifically Google-Image, and other search-engine types are problematic. But, if they can keep all of us on file, you'd think they could take out the trash every now again.

    Again Val, I don't support the loser or the stupid, tasteless images, I support the freedom to think. Please don't hate me because my opinion...sincerely. It just seems the most logical in my mind.

  45. Hysan,

    This is the problem I had with Val's characterization of the opposition.

    It is absolutely OK to be up in arms about illustrated child porn. It is not OK to jail people for creating or owning it. Social ostracizing is fine by me.

  46. Or to put it another way, Hysan, do you believe Meltzer or Didio should be jailed for Identity Crisis (seriously)?

  47. Ok we know OS wants this crap treated like real kid porn and I do think she has the majority view outside of the comic book world but I wounder about a few things.

    If she could get rid of Simpson porn but at the cost of Lost Girls is that a fair trade?

    Maybe something a little more close to home then. A man has been picked up for breaking obscenity laws. He is on trial for having Lolicon AND Yaoi manga.

    If you could arrest people for Lolicon manga but Yaoi manga was dragged down with it who's side of the battle would OS take and more importantly who's side would Friends of Lulu take?

  48. *sigh*

    I officially remove myself from this discussion. Guh.