New 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.
Actually I think Tinker Bell was extremely old given her eternal immortal nature as long as us real people believed in her.
Pan on the other hand is more the conundrum, as while he has lived for a very long time he has done so as a perpetual child technically being incapable of ever “growing up”, making him sort of a geriatric youth.
Like I said it’s a real gray area. But when we’re prosecuting people for cartoon sex it’s certainly an examinable one.
Waynebro,
I think Tink is as old as Peter, but just a petite little person/fairy. Former Fed, good joke. I will have to remember that one.
This is the risqué type of joke I guess that the SON might whisper at a meeting:
LENA was awakened from a deep sleep at two AM by her husband Ole who handed her a glass of water and two aspirins.
“What’s this for?” she asked.
“It’s for your headache,” he muttered.
“But I don’t have a headache.”
“Gotcha!”
Okay, enough of that!
rafflaw
1, December 8, 2008 at 9:45 pm
“I think about Tinkerbell and her skimpy outfit and it makes me wonder if she is next.”
Well I think Tinkerbell would not be included since while tiny, is nonetheless well beyond the age of consent.
Peter Pan on the other hand may fall into some sort of gray area being an oversized perpetually adolescent hermaphrodite in green spandex tights being chased by a knife wielding crazy old man.
Former Fed,
Being Irish and Swedish and German, I am not familiar with the Sons of Norway, but I gather from Prof. Turley’s comments that their meetings aren’t too exciting!
Okay, I admire wry humor but does anyone *get* the Sons of Norway reference? Are Nordmenn or the SON especially prudish?
All I could guess is that at meetings they only told, at worst, Ole n’ Lena n’ Sven jokes, ala Prairie Home Companion style…
Hey, I’m Irish!
I would have to agree that there are many cartoon characters that are probably under investigation as I write. I think about Tinkerbell and her skimpy outfit and it makes me wonder if she is next. I think Australia is setting up a confrontation between humans and the toons the likes of which we haven’t seen since Roger Rabbit.
Gyges,
This paragraph is for you: “Master Li turned bright red while he scorched the air with the Sixty Sequential Sacrileges with which he had won the all-China Free-style Blasphemy Competition…” from Bridge of Birds. (for seamus also!)
Former Federal LEO
1, December 8, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“Regarding the Coppertone Girl, no one in my family or friends ever considered anything wrong with that ad and the 1950s/early 60s could be quite puritanical. I cannot even remember the crudest guys making a snide remark about it.”
Hence the implied ironic sarcasm.
FFLEO,
In my long stream of crappy jobs, I’ve found there’s nothing as cathartic as a good stream of swearing. The key is knowing when, where and how loudly to speculate on people’s ancestry and night time activities.
Professor T.
Okay, but for a guy who prefers not to cuss and feels guilty when exceeding the speed limit by 2 mph, I am never quite certain of what the community standards of different jurisdictions are, and the Internet is wild territory.
I am glad I quit chewing plug tobacco (Days Work) in high school because I fear that I might have spit on the wrong town and could have violated some archaic ordinance…
Regarding the Coppertone Girl, no one in my family or friends ever considered anything wrong with that ad and the 1950s/early 60s could be quite puritanical. I cannot even remember the crudest guys making a snide remark about it.
I feel comfortable knowing that–for now, at least–the US is only concerned with virtual depictions of children that are indistinguishable from actual children. See 18 USC 2252A.
““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!
Or our local Methodist church, for that foul Nativity scene with the little statue of a naked baby Jesus.
The dirty bastards.
Well someone better tell Coppertone they’re in trouble.
Along with every store that hosted a Coppertone display or television station that aired a Coppertone ad, showing that toddlers bare butt.
FFLEO:
This site remains in slavish adherence to the community standards for pornography. The content of our nude pictures is meant to educate not excite. Indeed, I keep the site at the level of a excitement of a meeting of the Sons of Norway.
Can the readers of this blawg get in trouble for viewing that naked *underage* yellow kid on that skateboard in the thumbnail accompanying this article?
I really need to know, and if so, I will remove this site from my bookmarks.
As a young kid, I grew up watching Betty Boop in the 1950s and I am not sure if that would be legal nowadays online…
What about Olive Oyl? She must be okay since she is less curvilinear…
Shrink shows a guy a stick figure of a man and asks him what he sees.
He says, a naked man.
Shrink shows stick figure of a woman.
Guy says naked woman.
Shrink says you are sick.
Guy says you are the one drawing the dirty pictures.
Shrink shows stick figure of a child.
Government arrests srhink for child porn.
The federal statute that the Supreme Court struck down in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition made all depictions of a child engaged in a sexual conduct illegal. It covered not only virtual child pornography, but paintings and drawings created from imagination, and photographs of actors over 18 who appear to be minors. The government tried to justify the law on the grounds that child pornography, even if produced without actual children, is harmful because it whets the appetite of pedophiles, is used by pedophiles to entice children, and because virtual child pornography was so difficult to distinguish from real child pornography that it was difficult for the government to prosecute the latter. The problem with these arguments was that, except when there is a danger that speech will cause imminent harm (such as by falsely shouting “fire” in a theater), the First Amendment generally protects speech (including pictures) even when it is harmful. Thus, if the Supreme Court had upheld the statute, it might have opened the door for the government to ban all sorts of protected speech, including racist speech and hate speech, on the grounds that it is potentially harmful.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashcroft, Congress enacted the PROTECT Act, which changed the statutory definition of “child pornography” so as not to cover child pornography produced without an actual child, except that it continued to cover virtual child pornography that is indistinguishable from the real thing. The Court had clearly stated that Congress could not ban virtual child pornography, so Congress was, in effect, giving the finger to the Court. This new definition has not come before the courts, but, of course, the Supreme Court, and not Congress, has the last word in interpreting the Constitution.
This is incredible. The next big thing coming to Australia is virtual murder or cartoon breaking and entering offenses. I am amazed that Australia beat us to this infamous lowlight. With the Bush Administration pushing for just this kind of change in the law, it does surprise me that we aren’t reading about Krusty being arrested for using obscenities. I guess I should just be happy that Australia beat us to this “prize winning” judicial result.