As abominable as child pornography is, am I the only one thinking this is just a tad bit ridiculous?
“…there are some things we just don’t want circulating in society.”
This is just too weird for me to analyze.
Jail time for cartoon porn? Because we are afraid that the viewer will eventually become a child predator? I am aware that the viewer in this case is a child predator, but that shouldn’t prejudice this case.
Or, should it? Better, more legal minds, can chime in here.
The Supreme Court already has (I realize this happened in New Zealand and SCOTUS rulings don’t apply). Anyway, the SCOTUS ruled that “cartoon porn” with no children present was legal. Then they cited the new at-the-time animated Final Fantasy film as an example of a realistic animated feature that would still be legally allowed if it featured children having sex.
Incidentally, this sent the library world into a tizzy because many older librarians thought this meant the Final Fantasy actually contained images of children having sex.
It is New Zealand. I’d think they’d be more worried about the sheep porn.
They should send him to cartoon jail.
Don’t agree with the arrest, but it’s worth pointing out that no one would have noticed this guy’s habits if he hadn’t already been on the government’s radar as a sexual predator.
If, in that jurisprudence, it was legal to monitor his Internet usage to determine if he was accessing child porn and if that definition included cartoon depictions of nonhuman child-like creatures engaging in sexual activity, then it appears to be justified. It just seems to be a rather difficult to justify precedent.
But, as you all should know by now, I am not a lawyer.
I am but an humble computer scientist doing my best in the wilds of the woods to make a living. The law should be comprehensible to those of us not of the profession. This seems a bit arbitrary to me. But, I live in the US not NZ so I am ignorant, obviously.
Yes, but now that “that film” has been labeled “unwatchable” anyone who watched said film is a criminal.
Or maybe Wile E. Coyote could drop a safe on him.
I’m fine with people who watch anime porn being laughed at, pitied, ostracized, perhaps even roughed up a bit… but not jailed.
tThere has been a similar case in Australia. The guy was sentenced for possessing porn of the Simpson family.
This craziness about child abuse and child porn has become totally absurd.
In general I think that “fictional” porn (ie anything made without the involvement of real performers) should not be criminalized. Written or drawn or animated porn with underage characters is not the same as porn made with underage performers. The lack of performers is a bright-line.
But in Clark’s particular case, there may be a counter-argument. Clark has apparently been convicted in the past of sex crimes involving an actual underage victim. In such a case, it might be reasonable to restrict Clark from material that would be legal for other people to have.
***“However, while the cartoon characters were elves and pixies, they were also clearly young elves and pixies, which led to concerns the images were linked to child sexual abuse.” ***
Really? How can you tell the age of a pixie? Do elves age at the same rate as humans?
Aren’t elves, trolls, hobbits, etc. often shown to be hundreds of years old? How do you compare the age scale of - wait a minute -
They’re fucking cartoons. Ink and imagination, not reality. No one has been victimized or exploited. If I watch the Simpsons rob a bank and shoot the guard, should I be arrested because “I might want to do the same thing IRL?”
Mindless. Fucking. Idiots.
This.
It’s often a condition of parole/probation for convicts that they avoid certain sorts of activities which are perfectly legal for others to do. The felon agrees to avoid these things at the time of release, knowing full well he can end up being returned to prison to serve out more of his sentence there if he violates parole conditions.
Apparently there is a real problem with grown men sexually abusing underage elves, fairies and pixies.
PLEASE!!! Think of the Gelflings!!!
Okay, I am the owner of 5 boxed DVD sets of Looney Tunes cartoons. In several of them, well, 2 that I can think of off hand, Bugs is dressed as a woman and is courted by Elmer. So, are these to be considered depictions of beastiality? Is PETA working to ban these?
Should I put a lawyer on retainer?
Shhh. I’m humpin’ wabbit.
Hope she’s not “in season”.
A dozen or more in a litter is a lot of [del]child[/del] kit support. 
Is that a spear and magic helmet or are you just happy to see me?