Simpsons Sex Scandal: Man Convicted of Possession of Child Pornography of Cartoon Characters

0638905800New South Wales Supreme Court Justice Michael Adams is not amused and believes John McEwan should not aroused by the Simpsons children having sex. The jurist has ruled that Bart Simpson is a “person” for the purposes of pornography and thus McEwan was properly convicted of possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.


In a surprising decision, Adams held “In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word ‘person’ included fictional or imaginary characters …”

McEwan had pictures of cartoon characters likes Bart, Lisa and Maggie Simpson having sex. Presumably, if he had simply stuck to the Homer and Marge, he would have been just fine. Well . . . at least not convicted.

Of course, the court failed note that the father in this broken Springfield family has also been caught on tape buying pornography:

[Homer walks up to the counter in a convenience store]
Homer: Yeah, um, give me one of those porno magazines, a large box of condoms, a bottle of Old Harper, a box of panty shields… [rapid undertone] and some illegal fireworks… [normal voice] and one of those disposeable enemas. You know what, kake it two.
Owner: My apologies sir, but the sale of fireworks is strictly prohibited in this state and is punishable by- [the only other customer in the store walks out the door] follow me.

The Bush Administration and members of Congress have repeatedly sought to impose criminal penalties on “virtual pornography,” computer generated images (including child) that are very life like. However, even that effort has been stymied by the courts for good reason. It is very difficult to support a computer generated figure as a “victim.”

This issue came up under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (“CPPA”). In Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition, the Ninth Circuit held the CPPA to be unconstitutional. However, four other circuits upheld the law. The U.S. Supreme Court held that section §2256(8)(B) of the CPPA “abridges the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech.” The Court held that a criminalization of “virtual child” pornography would be overbroad and thus unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

In the meantime, the virtual victims of the Simpson family are safe and presumably being counseled by Dr. Marvin Monroe and represented by the able counsel of Lionel Hutz.

Part of the problem is that the police themselves are distributing this smut. Consider this scene:

Lisa: Chief Wiggum, how did you get these tickets?
Chief Wiggum: Krusty knows how to play ball.
[Flashback: Krusty sits in a porno theater. Wiggum enters behind him.]
Chief Wiggum: Ahhh…nothin’ beats a good porno movie!

Where is your outrage now, Justice Adams?

For the full story, click here.

27 thoughts on “Simpsons Sex Scandal: Man Convicted of Possession of Child Pornography of Cartoon Characters”

  1. And why no “Registration/Notification” of NINETY PERCENT of Serious Child Abusers – those millions who are in fact NON-SEXUAL Serious Child Abusers ?

  2. ““In my view, the magistrate was correct in determining that, in respect of both the commonwealth and the NSW offences, the word ‘person’ included fictional or imaginary characters …”

    ***************

    This is now my favorite ruling by any court anywhere. I want to apply the hunting laws against Elmer Fudd, and speed limits to the Roadrunner! And why stop with criminal offenses, I think entitlements are subject to this ruling too. Query: Can Yosemite Sam get government assistance for that stuttering problem. This is really fun!

    ^^^^^^^
    Me too, mespo!
    FBO
    ~’Secret Squirrel’…

  3. Perhaps congress wanted to keep virtual child pornography which was indistinguishable from the real thing as a crime because if it were not a crime, real child pornography could then be passed off as virtual, resulting in no conviction for a crime that was committed and did have a victim. This isn’t really a question for today’s standards of Simpson-child porn or even porn which an expert can distinguish as virtual, but perhaps this might be a problem when virtual imaging becomes more advanced.

  4. I’m surprised that the Bush administration hasn’t nominated this jurist for the federal bench.

Comments are closed.