An an Aussie ex-pat, i like to keep one eye on what’s going on in my former home, and this one really pissed me off.
Wow, you are a fucking genius.
The characters were fucking cartoon characters; they were NOT real, so the question of what sort of crime it would have been IF they were real is completely fucking irrelevant.
This decision is just fucking bullshit, IMO. I wonder if a similar decision would be likely in the United States? I don’t know enough about these sorts of laws here to know the answer. This sort of irrational fucking crap just pisses me off.
Without knowing more, it may well be unfair to abuse the judge. A lot of these sorts of laws are written insanely broadly, with effects arguably going well beyond what is necessary or actually intended. Without reading the actual words he was interpreting, you can’t say whether it’s his fault or the legislature’s.
The problem is that the whole subject is so taboo that where ordinary legislation would be scrutinized and amendments proposed to avoid such problems, no politician wants to say anything to the effect that anti-child porn laws might be a bit too wide because if they do the screaming lynch mob will accuse them of being in favour of kiddie porn.
If the judge knew anything about the Internet (which you would hope he would if he’s ruling on cases involving it - but probably not), he’d know that half the people on it have seen those stupid Simpsons sex pictures. It’s just a (revolting) joke.
It would depend entirely on the judge, I think. FWIW, I do remember a case that made the news several years back (around 2001, I believe) where a judge ruled that fictional imagery was not the same as real photography. I think it’s the sensible ruling; the significant problem with child porn is that children must be exploited to create it (to put it mildly). Fictional porn, whether it be written or drawn, is created by perverts for perverts with no innocents harmed or involved, so they can have fun wanking among themselves for all I care.
It was pretty upsetting, as I also have a collection of Japanese manga and doujinshi. The linked case in my post took place in the USA, in Iowa, IIRC.
It does mention the ruling that stated non-photographic images of minors could not constitute child pornography, but they’re managing to resort to wholly subjective ‘obscenity’ laws in the case I linked.
It’s really sad. If no one is being harmed, why can’t they leave people alone?
These kinds of things also set dangerous precedents. If a cartoon depicting a child in a sexual situation constitutes ‘child porn’, then what about someone killing someone else? What about characters engaged in illegal acts / committing crimes? If a cartoon about something is the same as it really happening in the eyes of the court… that’s a really terrible thought.
Do you know whether the legislation contains an exception to the effect that possession of what would otherwise be child porn is OK if its just a joke? I doubt it does. Many people do not understand that judges are not free to write exceptions into the plain words of legislation, no matter if they may want to. Where there are gray areas, their judgment comes into it, but not otherwise.
Admittedly, I am not familiar with Australian laws, but I think the gripe most people have with this is that to almost anyone with a brain and reasonable logic, a drawn cartoon fails to meet the definition of ‘child pornography’. There was no sex act, and if there is no sex act then there cannot be any harm to a child.
IMHO, the judge’s personal judgement came into it when he decided that in no uncertain terms, acts drawn being committed by fictional characters are the same as those acts being committed by real people. It’s a hard thing to swallow.
Photographs of children engaged in sexual activity are solid, indisputable proof of a crime taking place, and thusly there should be punishment attached to child pornography. But for some scribbles made up in someone’s head? Are there sex offender registries in Australia? Would this man be required to sign on as a sex offender and have his life potentially ruined over a cartoon image?
No doubt you know that legislation can define terms used in that legislation to mean whatever the legislators want them to mean, don’t you? Consequently I assume you wouldn’t make this rather bold statement about what does or does not fit in the definition unless you had reviewed the definition of “child pornography” in the legislation that the judge was applying. What does it say?
It’s certainly not my intention to be ‘talking complete shit’.
From this article, it says that the issue at hand was for the judge to decide whether or not a cartoon depiction was the same as a real person.
If the judge had not ruled that cartoon should be equated with real human being, therefore cartoon child = real human child, then there would be no child pornography argument.
This is what I said:
The cartoon in question meets the criteria to be defined as child pornography now, based on the judge’s decision, a decision which, to many people does not make much sense. This is the ‘reasonable logic’ part I referred to. Reasonable logic, at least my own, would dictate that since a cartoon is not a real person, it could not possibly constitute child pornography. The judge made his ruling based on other logic or facts of his own. I’m not quite sure what about that is ‘talking complete shit’.
Unless I’m failing to understand some other point you’re making.
EDIT: Also, what **GuanoLad **said. Considering I explicitly said I was not familiar with Australian laws, and this is the pit, not Great Debates, so I wasn’t really prepping myself on Australian law for an argument.
However, if you read this article we already see the crucial wording differences creeping in: it says:
There is no way that something is not a depiction of a person merely because the person doesn’t exist. I’m sure no one here would argue that (for example) a photorealistic painting of a non-existent person wasn’t a “depiction of a person”. So what the judge had to decide was whether a depiction of the Simpsons was or was not a depiction of a “person”.
What are the Simpsons? Yes, they are cartoon characters but what form of creature are they? I’d always understood that they were supposed to be people.
What you expected the judge to do was avoid what the ordinary meaning of the words of the legislation meant to accord with your own mores.
It may turn out that when the actual decision comes on line it says something quite different, but from what I’m seeing it seems more than likely that the legislature is to blame here.
You might well be right, but the judge’s explanation sounds, all by itself, completely ridiculous to me.
It might be that the law itself allows, perhaps even demands, such an interpretation, but it just seems so completely beyond the bounds of rationality that i’m totally gobsmacked by it.
Whomever is to blame—the justices, the legislators, or both—needs to be strung up by the fucking nuts.
Mix this with the whole [proposed] compulsory censorship of the internet at ISP level (bringing us up to the soft, lefty, progressive standards of Iran and North Korea), and we’re going right down the toilet.
I personally can’t understand that anyone is surprised by the decision. I regularly see shorts of computer games at the movies and even on a gigantic screen I have trouble telling whether I am watching a movie short or a game graphic. If child sex was rendered at that degree of realism would anyone seriously argue “but it’s only a cartoon” ?
mhendo, you shouldn’t be gobsmacked by it. Child porn is the latest moral panic. Politicians always fall over themselves trying to show how tough they are on the subject matter of moral panics and the end result is often serious collateral damage.
I get irritated when people are quick to blame judges who are forced to implement the crap that the legislature spews.
Don’t forget, our Supreme Court is not the same as the US Supreme Court in terms of being the ultimate recourse for appeal. Our High Court fulfills that role. I’m not sure if they have jursidiction to hear an appeal in this case though.
I would expect this decision will either be overturned, or will be “swept aside” by later decisions, which follow the golden rule, or distinguish this case as an abberation based on the facts.
