From the What a Fucking Moron files comes the verdict of a child pornography criminal case in Australia, where Justice Michael Adams, of the New South Wales Supreme Court of stupidity, held that a fictional cartoon character, specifically Bart, Lisa, and Maggie Simpson, is a “person” within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.
Because the accused, John McEwan, possessed images of Bart, Lisa, and Maggie Simpson having sex, the court found him guilty of possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.
Said the judge:
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 …
… The mere fact that the figure depicted departed from a realistic representation in some respects of a human being did not mean that such a figure was not a ‘person’.1
So, is the judge right?
Bwahahahaha. Oh my goodness.
Look, it’s two stick figures having sex: (man, I’m bad at this)
O
|\___o
||/\../\
See the one on the right? That’s a 7-year-old girl, right? Just play along. The one on the left? An old guy.
BOOM, that’s child pornography in Australia. Nearly was in the U.S., too, before the U.S. Supreme Court (barely) decided that, hey, maybe no one is actually getting hurt when someone DRAWS (simply or creatively or otherwise) a child.2 Wait, did I say “nearly” in the U.S.? Although the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law that Congress passed, which would have criminalized possession of cartoon kiddy porn, Congress persevered, passing the PROTECT Act of 2003 (related to COPA that originated in 1998). Now we’re just like Australia in that respect. [also see the latest bs Another Thoughtcrime Victory! Manga Porn = 15 years] (my stick figures are going to end up with me in jail! I shoulda stuck with mocking Muhammed in comics!) (But see Update below about the implied overturning of the law) As Wikipedia (which I think is banned in the UK now, right?) states succinctly:
The PROTECT Act of 2003, a comprehensive bill related to many aspects of child abuse, prohibits all illustrations depicting child pornography, including computer-generated illustrations, also known as virtual child pornography. Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 had been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. However, the computer-generated child pornography provisions of the Protect Act are distinct, since they establish the requirement of showing obscenity as defined by the Miller Test, which was not an element of the 1996 law. One section of the PROTECT act has been challenged and was upheld by Supreme Court decision in May 2008.3
But perhaps I could have been of some use in McEwan’s defense. Here’s how I would have argued:
The youngest Simpson, Maggie, was a newborn at the start of the cartoon series on television, which was in 1987. Considering it’s now 2008, that would make the youngest Simpson family member about 21 years old. Despite the fact that the characters have not “appeared” to have aged, someone in possession of depictions of these actual age of majority characters having sex is no different from possessing pictures of an adult victim of dwarfism engaging in sex.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem that McEwan’s attempt to appeal was successful. What would you do if someone in the U.S. were tried under the PROTECT Act for possessing Bart Simpson porn? What if it were you?
It may seem pointless to defend the rights of someone who would illustrate or enjoy such things, but realize that by doing so, you’re actually defending the rights that you currently possess, but that quite possibly are next in line on the chopping block. If you’ve ever pointed a finger at someone for being a hypocrite, for cherry picking moral lessons from an ancient book, note that by defending what you think is your right to speak freely, but attacking someone else’s self-perceived right to do the same thing (because, perhaps, you don’t like the content of the speech), you’re pointing a finger at yourself.
Wake up. Get the new administration to examine and amend the PROTECT Act, and other laws based on nonsense.
—
I linked above to The Nock Blog, where an automatically generated trackback thingy posted on my behalf on that blog. Mr. Nock read this post, and commented, albeit on his blog. I responded, and he elaborated. Here’s the conversation, which can be seen at The Nock Blog.
#State of Protest » Lisa Simpson (the Cartoon Character) is a Real Life 8-Year-Old Girl
December 8, 2008 at 7:47 pm[...] with me in jail! I shoulda stuck with mocking Muhammed in comics!) As Wikipedia (which I think is banned in the UK now, right?) states succinctly: The PROTECT Act of 2003, a comprehensive bill related to many aspects [...]
(that’s the auto linky thing)
Ian D. Nock
December 8, 2008 at 8:10 pmFirstly Wikipedia itself is not banned, only that access to Wikipedia passes through transparent proxies that cause the page that is dodgy to be not available in the UK, with no logging taking place based on Plusnet’s responses and other information gathered from the Internet.
Secondly, the cartoon depiction of sexual acts between minors is as illegal in the UK as it is in Australia. It matters not that they are cartoons or real, as long as the meaning is sexual. I think however a full legal opinion would need to be sought for this, but you can bet that the realism of the depiction does count and Lisa Simpson is real enough but your stick figures are not. However associate those stick images with the words you have so placed on your site then I think you could be going some way towards demonstrating important circumstantial evidence that you are indeed committing a criminal offence. However, I am not a lawyer as I said and a full legal opinion would need to be obtained… This in itself is pertinent to the discussions today as the IWF are not a full legal body (for opinion) and are making decisions about content that can be challenged in court, and would ultimately be challenged with the right amount of suspicion and belief that an offence is taking place.
stateofprotest
December 8, 2008 at 11:18 pmIan D. Nock,
(First, feel free to leave that comment on my actual blog; what you see above is an auto-generated trackback thingy).
Second, what’s the difference between stick figures described as minors doing it and the sticks that make up the words creating the description you suggest would criminalize my depiction? In other words, words are stick figures, and once you start censoring the content of words (stick figure or no), you open the door to having any words censored for any reason. For, who is to judge?
Censorship is a double-edged sword.
Ian D. Nock
December 8, 2008 at 11:36 pmThe words give the drawing context, this is what can give criminality to something that is otherwise grey.
UPDATE:
According to Polymorphous Perversity, the fact that the law was pinballing among the courts till recently meant that despite its “passage” in 1998, it could not really be enforced until a final decision (or at least a precedent) was made. PP refers to an article in the LA Times today that indicates that the Supreme Court lets Internet porn law die. Five years ago, the Supreme Court was split on the issue, deciding that the lower courts should determine whether the proposed filters would be sufficient to protect minors. In the key case of Mukasey vs. ACLU, where the ACLU prevailed in the lower courts, the fact that the Supreme Court declined to review the case indicates that the law is effectively unconstitutional (or at least not enforceable as it stands), and is effectively dead. Good news for free-speech advocates and stick-figure artists.
Also check out this thorough article on CNet: Supreme Court deals death blow to antiporn law
- http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767142-29277,00.html [<]
- http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-795 [<]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography [<]
Tags: abuse, accused, Adam, administration, ancient, Australia, ban, belief, Britain, cartoon, censor, censorship, Comic, Congress, Constitution, criminal, December, demon, family, fuck, Hamm, human, Law, lawyer, legal, moral, Muhammed, rights, sex, Simpson, UK, war
That is some ridiculous shit, my good sir.
I am equal parts horrified and amused. First of all, Simpsons porn? I understand that Rule 34 is in full effect, but SIMPSONS PORN? Holy shit! If you’re going to whack off to a fictional character (and there’s really nothing wrong with that in my mind, seeing as how the girls in a playboy might as well be fictional), why not pick one that’s at least arousing?
Of course, this “PROTECT” Act is pure, unadulterated, grade A bullshit. I was under the impression that child pornography laws are in place to protect children. How on earth is some no doubt poorly drawn Simpsons porn hurting children? How is it hurting anyone at all for that matter?
Of course, it doesn’t matter that this kind of thing hurts no one. The fascists in charge apparently get off on legislating morality to the masses. Man I hate this kind of stupidity.
Ugh. It’s really, really sad when the rational and reasonable cannot win against the ridiculous and asinine.
I wonder watching bestiality is illegal in Australia as it it is here in the States? ‘Cause what if a person has a magazine…like, say, National Geographic, and it’s showing to lions having sex. Is that considered animal porn, and could one get into trouble if they have it?
(I hope you understand my comment, perhaps you do not — who knows)
-Nam
So the stick figures, accompanied by text, ARE illegal in the US? Not only is that stupid beyond stupid, but I’m really going to miss this site when it’s shut down and Procrustes is put on the sex offender registry. Maybe we all will, since we’re here talking about it. Geeeeeeeez.
It sickens me that we’re such puritans that we forget about the child abuse component of child pornography in order to focus on whether it is simply offensive or lude. How insulting to anyone who has ever been molested as a child, to put their real suffering on the same level as crude depictions of imaginary characters.
Hypothetically speaking, let’s say I have 2 anime DVDs at home, out of a collection of over 50, which now might constitute child cartoon pornography because I can’t prove that the characters in them are over 18, and they show them naked. Hypothetically, knowing Australia’s rulings on both cartoon depictions of kind, if I were me, I’d be chucking those DVDs out. Just in case… to avoid being a sex offender. Hypothetically speaking, of course. Phew, lucky I don’t own DVDs like that.
Every day 2nd grader Lisa wears the same old ragged strapless dress. When her family used porn to up their income the people prosecuted were their viewers!
hi lisa you are sooo cool
[...] Pedophilia? Puritanism? Regardless, there has been an uproar in the comic book community, and the point I made last December is being reiterated.3 My “underage” stick-figure sex depiction (daring someone to [...]
I think if you have any child pornography of any type it should be illegal. You could see a very realistic, as in you cant tell it was a fake, video of a child engaging in sexual activities and you would think that wrong or right? And the fact that you would say maggie is now 21 which makes it not child pornography is wrong. Laws state that it is from the age of the person (wheather it fictional or not) when the image, drawing, etc… is taken or is supposed to look like it was taken, drawn, etc… Are all Americans this arrogant?
Perhaps we are arrogant, but didn’t you say “child” pornography? Please point to the “child,” thank you.
(And, who is supposed to be protected with enforcement against cartoon pornography? Other cartoon characters?)
Maybe you never saw cartoons. They are not realistic. Raising question of “cant tell it was a fake” shows ignorance. You can ban cartoons but what’s the point? Next is stories. What will it accomplish? Who will benefit? The police state?
What you dumb arses don’t know is this guy has been convicted of real child porn, he got a suspended sentence, now he is downloading pictures of young cartoon girls having sex, his setence was very light but he gets the punishment he escaped the first time.
For the sake of a good story this pathetic web site has neglected to include this informationg.